This is where the disqualification clause comes into play. Concerning Coniah God said, "List this man as 'Childless' --- since none of his descendants will have the fortune to sit on the throne of David or to rule in Judah again" [Jeremiah 22:30]. Neither a political nor a messianic direct descendant of Coniah can ever succeed to David's throne.

Zerubbabel, Coniah's grandson, was a recognised leader who brought the first wave of exiles back to Jerusalem but he never ruled as king [1 Chronicles 3:17-19, Nehemiah 12:1]. From him the line continued through private individuals but none of them held royal office. King Alexander Yannai and other rulers of the Hasmonean dynasty came from the tribe of Levi. King Herod the Great was an Idumaean (i.e from Edom) and only a convert to Judaism.

Mary, too, traced her ancestry to David, but not by the kings. She goes back to Nathan who was the son of David and Bathsheba and full brother to Solomon [1 Chronicles 3:5, Luke 3:31]. There is, however, a problem. The genealogies of both Mary and Joseph meet in the persons of Zerubbabel and his father, Shealtiel. In Matthew, Shealtiel is son of Coniah [Matthew 1:12]. In Luke he is son of Neri [Luke 3:27]. Because we assume that Zerubbabel and Shealtiel are the same two people in both lists, two questions arise which are not easy to answer adequately.

Firstly, if Mary is descended from Coniah and the kings, through Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, surely her offspring also comes under the ban? What we need to remember is that Mary's line must have come down to her father from one of Zerubbabel's younger sons. Unlike Joseph's, it was not direct. More to the point, Mary was a woman and women rarely counted in such calculations. In both cases her descent from Coniah had no significance as far as the disqualification was concerned.

Secondly, we must then ask, who was Neri? What seems to happen is that Luke's genealogy twice branches out along a female route. It starts with Mary herself and goes back through her father to Zerubbabel and Shealtiel. Then, instead of going to Shealtiel's father, Coniah, it goes to his mother and back through her father to reach Nathan and David. The route is valid but it is inconspicuous.

By virtue of the very obscurity of that line, Jesus is more clearly seen to be the one and only true son of David by the flesh whose kingly, messianic claims are acceptable. Few truths about Jesus are immediately obvious or according to patterns of normal logic. He even taught in parables. Much is concealed and only becomes clear as his followers study to understand. In this sense, his hidden lineage also accords well with the obscurity and mysteries of his birth.