The Blood of Athalia
Was Athaliah Jezebel’s Filial Daughter or a Stepdaughter?
By Pastor Eli James
Anglo-saxonisrael.com Eurofolkrdaio.com Killthebank.net
A perceptive listener to our CI radio shows recently asked me a question about the woman, Athaliah (pronounced A(uh)-THAL-ee-uh), who is listed in Scripture as being the wife of Jehoram, King of Judah.
Having now done extensive research on the question of Athaliah’s heritage, there are two possible conclusions as to her bloodline: 1.) She was either of Tyrian (non-Canaanite) descent, even though she was referred to as a Zidonian (Sidonian); or 2.) she was not of Tyrian/Zidonian descent but a daughter of King Ahab by another wife, which would make Athalia an Israelitess but also the stepdaughter of Jezebel. Although King Ahab’s other wives are not mentioned in Scripture, he most likely did have other Israelite wives, as this was common practice among the kings of both houses. Nor does the Bible explicitly state that Jezebel was Athalia’s mother, though it does say that she was Ahab’s daughter (2 Kings 8:18; 2 Chron. 21:6). Both citations say that Athalia was “A daughter of Ahab, not THE daughter of Ahab, suggesting that there were others. With all of this in mind, it is possible that Athalia was a pure-blooded Israelite after all.
Unrolling this tangled web of genealogy and getting at the truth is the point of this study.
[Note, this website contains archeological proof for the existence of King Ahab: ]
The big question for two-seedliners is, “Was there any Zidonian (Canaanite) blood in Messiah’s lineage?” Let’s take a look at the Bible and secular history, to see if we can answer this question.
Part 1a: The Commonly Accepted Version of Athalia’s Descent
During the reign of Omri, King of Israel, Jehoshaphat was King of Judah. Omri’s son, Ahab, married Jezebel, daughter of Eth-Baal, King of Zidonia. The tradition that we have been taught is that Ahab and Jezebel had a daughter named Athaliah, who was later married to Jehoshaphat’s son, Joram (Jehoram). Both Jehoshaphat and Jehoram were Kings of Judah, springing from the unpolluted line of Pharez, son of Judah. But, if Athaliah was one-half Zidonian (Canaanite), we have a Canaanite in the woodpile. This would be very bad news for Christian Israel, the genealogy of Matthew notwithstanding.
One way out of the impure blood trap is to see if any of Athaliah’s male children survived the purges of Jehoiada the priest and Jehu the general. It would be nice if all of Athaliah’s male children were overthrown and none of her descendants survived. The High Priest, Jehoiada, had Athalia’s sons executed and placed Joash on the throne in their stead.
2 Kings 11 New International Version (NIV): Athaliah and Joash
11 When Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she proceeded to destroy the whole royal family. 2 But Jehosheba, the daughter of King Jehoram and sister of Ahaziah, took Joash son of Ahaziah and stole him away from among the royal princes, who were about to be murdered. She put him and his nurse in a bedroom to hide him from Athaliah; so he was not killed. 3 He remained hidden with his nurse at the temple of the LORD for six years while Athaliah ruled the land. In the seventh year Jehoiada sent for the commanders of units of a hundred, the Carites and the guards and had them brought to him at the temple of the LORD. He made a covenant with them and put them under oath at the temple of the LORD. Then he showed them the king’s son. 5 He commanded them, saying, “This is what you are to do: You who are in the three companies that are going on duty on the Sabbath—a third of you guarding the royal palace, 6 a third at the Sur Gate,and a third at the gate behind the guard, who take turns guarding the temple7 and you who are in the other two companies that normally go off Sabbath duty are all to guard the temple for the king. 8 Station yourselves around the king, each of you with weapon in hand. Anyone who approaches your ranks[b] is to be put to death. Stay close to the king wherever he goes.”9 The commanders of units of a hundred did just as Jehoiada the priest ordered. Each one took his men—those who were going on duty on the Sabbath and those who were going off duty—and came to Jehoiada the priest. 10 Then he gave the commanders the spears and shields that had belonged to King David and that were in the temple of the LORD. 11 The guards, each with weapon in hand, stationed themselves around the king—near the altar and the temple, from the south side to the north side of the temple. 12 Jehoiada brought out the king’s son and put the crown on him; he presented him with a copy of the covenant and proclaimed him king. They anointed him, and the people clapped their hands and shouted, “Long live the king!13 When Athaliah heard the noise made by the guards and the people, she went to the people at the temple of the LORD. 14 She looked and there was the king, standing by the pillar, as the custom was. The officers and the trumpeters were beside the king, and all the people of the land were rejoicing and blowing trumpets. Then Athaliah tore her robes and called out, “Treason! Treason!15 Jehoiada the priest ordered the commanders of units of a hundred, who were in charge of the troops: “Bring her out between the ranks[c] and put to the sword anyone who follows her.For the priest had said, “She must not be put to death in the temple of the LORD.16 So they seized her as she reached the place where the horses enter the palace grounds, and there she was put to death. 17 Jehoiada then made a covenant between the LORD and the king and people that they would be the LORD’s people. He also made a covenant between the king and the people. 18 All the people of the land went to the temple of Baal and tore it down. They smashed the altars and idols to pieces and killed Mattan the priest of Baal in front of the altars. Then Jehoiada the priest posted guards at the temple of the LORD. 19 He took with him the commanders of hundreds, the Carites, the guards and all the people of the land, and together they brought the king down from the temple of the LORD and went into the palace, entering by way of the gate of the guards. The king then took his place on the royal throne. 20 All the people of the land rejoiced, and the city was calm, because Athaliah had been slain with the sword at the palace. 21 Joash was seven years old when he began to reign.
A Brief History of Athaliah (Orthodox Judeo Version)
Athaliah (Hebrew: Aṯalyā, “God is exalted”) was the only ruling queen in Judah, although she was NOT a descendant of the House of Judah. She came from the House of Israel, of Omri and Ahab. She was the daughter of King Ahab of the House of Israel and Queen Jezebel of Zidonia. Ahab married her off to King Jehoram of Judah. This marriage to Jehoram was arranged to seal a treaty between the two nations. After Jehoram’s death, Ahaziah, son of Jehoram and Athaliah, became Judah’s king. However, during the time of Elijah the prophet, a battle between Israel and Judah took place. Ahaziah, son of Athaliah, was killed by Jehu, along with Athaliah’s mother Jezebel, plus her brother King Joram of Israel, and many other royal family members. In response to General Jehu’s actions, Athaliah then staged a coup in Jerusalem, placing herself on the throne and attempting to eliminate any possible royal heir.
She reigned for about six years and continued King Jehoram’s policy of allowing the worship of both Baal and Yahweh. The high priest Jehoiada, meanwhile, had hidden and nurtured Athaliah’s young grandson, Joash. It is also possible that Jehoram Jehoram had at least one other wife, who could have been the mother of Joash. If this is the case and it is indeed possible, as the Bible does not employ terms such as “step-sister\’ or ‘half-brother, then Joash would not have been the blood descendant of Athaliah. This would solve the problem of potential pollution of the bloodline. However, 2 Chron. 22:10 unequivocally states that Athaliah was Amaziah’s mother. Eventually, Jehoiada overthrew and executed Athaliah, and placed Joash on the throne in her place.
All of this took place around 842-835 BC.
Here is the genealogical record which is pertinent to our study, now dealing exclusively with the House of Judah. Asa, King of Judah, begat
Jehoshaphat who married Azubah (Queen, I Kings 15:24), begetting
Jehoram
Jehoram = Athaliah
Ahaziah
After Jehoshaphat’s death, Athaliah rose to the position of queen consort because Jehoram became Judah’s king. Meanwhile, Athaliah’s brother, also called Jehoram (Joram), had become king of Israel following Ahab’s death. Athaliah had several children with her husband Jehoram. The Book of Kings condemns this marriage to the “daughter of Ahab” and indicates that he lost control of his Edomite vassals. Also, Chronicles states that his kingdom suffered from successful attacks by Philistines and Arabs. (1 Kings 22.50; 2 Kings 1.17; 8.16-25; 12.18; 1 Chronicles 3.11; 2 Chronicles 21.1-20; Matthew 1.8 )
Jehoram was the son of Jehoshaphat and the father of Ahaziah. He should not be confused with his brother-in-law Jehoram of Israel. So, the record shows, up to this point, that Athaliah’s blood is contained in the genealogy of the Kings of Judah. Her son, Ahaziah, is now the reigning monarch in Judah.
Jehoram (of Judah) “did evil in the eyes of the Lord,” (2 Kings 8:18) a reference to his toleration of Baal worship. This policy, no doubt, was at least in part due to Athaliah’s influence. 2 Chronicles 21:12-16 preserves the text of a letter from the prophet Elijah condemning Jehoram for this policy. It also states that “the Philistines and of the Arabs who lived near the Cushites” invaded his kingdom and captured his sons and wives: “Not a son was left to him except Ahaziah, the youngest.” Jehoram’s other sons were slain (2 Chron. 22:1). Ahaziah later formed a military alliance with King Joram of Israel against the threat of the Syrian empire.
During the war against Syria, Ahaziah was visiting Joram, who had been wounded in battle against the common Syrian foe. Ahaziah was killed, along with Joram, at Jehu’s orders. Thus Athaliah lost both her brother and her son, both of them kings. Her alleged mother, Jezebel, also died at Jehu’s hands. After Athaliah’s death, Ahaziah married Zibiah, a woman of Judah. The genealogy continues:
Ahaziah = Zibiah
Joash (Jehoash)
Since Ahaziah was Athaliah’s son by Jehoram, it is clear that Joash still carried one-fourth of Athaliah’s blood. When she killed the other sons, Joash was hidden by his aunt, Jehosheba, and conveyed to the temple, where she and her husband, the priest Jehoiada, brought him up. 2 Chronicles 22:10: “Now when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the royal heirs of the house of Judah.” She thus seized control of the Kingdom of Judah and killed her own grandchildren! Apparently, Athalia wanted to get rid of the entire bloodline of Judah, even that which contained her own blood!! Out of spite, perhaps, or maybe she was hoping to start a bloodline of her own. The Bible does not tell us what her intentions were. But Joash, also her grandson, was not killed by Athaliah, because he was saved by his aunt Jehosheba. Deadly drama, this!
When Joash reached the age of seven, Jehoiada placed him on the throne and executed Athaliah. Joash’s reign began well but disintegrated after the death of Jehoiada, which was when Joash began to worship various foreign idols, and ordered the death of Zechariah (Jehoiada’s son) who had denounced him for this. After Joash had reigned for forty years, his own servants killed him. His son, Amaziah, succeeded him. (2 Kings 11.2-12.21; 13.1; 1 Chronicles 3.11; 2 Chronicles 22.11-24.27 )
Joash = Jehoaddin
Amaziah
Jehoaddin, a woman of Judah, was the mother of Amaziah of Judah. (2 Kings 14.2; 2 Chronicles 25.1.) The blood of Athaliah is getting thinner, now down to one-eighth, but the blood of Jezebel is still in the bloodline, down to 1/16th. If Jezebel is indeed a Canaanite woman of Zidon, this is not good news for the purity of the bloodline. Because this story involves a complicated genealogical study, let’s recap the notary individuals, whose bloodlines must be understood. Ethbaal, King of the newly combined kingdom of Tyre and Sidonia, which eventually became known to historians as Phoenicia, had a daughter named Jezebel.
House of Israel House of Judah
Omri Jehoshaphat
Ahab = Jezebel
bearing
Jehoram & Athalia Joram (Jehoram)
(Sister and brother)
Athalia married Jehoram, King of Judah.
From this point on, we can ignore the genealogy of the House of Israel, as none of them, besides Athalia, figure in the potential genealogy of Messiah. Next:
Athaliah = Jehoram
Ahaziah
Ahaziah = Zibiah
Joash
Joash = Jehoaddan
Amaziah
Amaziah = Jecholiah
Azariah (Ozias)
Three of Athaliah’s descendants are left out of the line of descent that is preserved in the Book of Matthew. There, the genealogy skips Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah. Why is this? We will analyze this matter later, in Appendix A. Suffice to say that, with the birth of Azaraiah, the blood of Jezebel has been diluted to 1/32, not very good odds for an absolutely pure line of descent!
King Joash married Jehoaddan from the Aaronic Priest Line of Levites. King Amaziah married Jecholiah from the Tribe of Isaachar. Despite this strong infusion of Judahite blood, the apparent pollution of Jezebel is still there!
Is there a way out of this bloodline dilemma? Let’s keep investigating.
Part 1b: Was Athalia Ahab’s Daughter or His Sister?
Although most classical commentators have regarded Athaliah as the daughter of Jezebel and Ahab, some scholars have argued that she was in fact the daughter of Omri, Ahab’s father, and thus Ahab’s sister.
The Scriptures that appear to support the brother-sister relationship are the following:
Second Kings 8:26, and its parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 22:2, say that Jehoram of Judah married a “daughter” of Omri, Ahab’s father. The Hebrew word “daughter” (bath) can mean daughter, granddaughter, or any female descendant, in the same way that ben can mean son, grandson, or any male descendant. Consequently, some modern versions translate that Athaliah was a “granddaughter” of Omri. But the books of Kings and Chronicles give far more attention to Ahab than to Omri, and so it is notable that in these verses it is not Athaliah’s relationship to Ahab that is stressed, but her relationship to Omri. This would be reasonable if Omri were her father. The immediately following verses also discuss Ahab, again raising the question of why her relationship to Omri is mentioned, instead of to Ahab.
[How specific words are translated can make a crucial difference in our understanding of the Holy Scriptures. – Eli. Let’s continue:]
Second Kings 8:27 says that Jehoram, Athaliah’s husband, was related by marriage (hatan) to the house of Ahab. The word hatan commonly is used to specify a father-in-law or son-in-law relationship. If Jehoram [of Judah] was Ahab’s son-in-law, the expression that would be expected here would be “son-in-law” (or relative by marriage) to Ahab, not to “the house of Ahab.” If Athaliah was Ahab’s sister, not his daughter, then there is an explanation for the additional phrase “house of.”
The support for Athaliah being Ahab’s daughter comes from two verses, 2 Kings 8:18 and its parallel in 2 Chronicles 21:6. These verses say that Jehoram of Judah did wickedly “because he married a daughter of Ahab.” This would seem to settle the question in favor of the daughter relationship, with one precaution: the Syriac version of the 2 Chronicles 21:6 says “sister of Ahab” instead of daughter. This textual support for Athaliah being the sister of Ahab is usually regarded as weak enough to justify translating bath in 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 as “granddaughter,” thus bringing the various passages about Athaliah into harmony: [nevertheless] she is presented as Omri’s granddaughter and Ahab’s daughter.
Source:
Bible Verses That Say Athaliah Was King Omri’s Daughter
2 Chronicles 22:2
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri. (See parallel, 2 Kings 8:26.)
2 Chronicles 22:7
And the destruction of Ahaziah was of God by coming to Jehoram: for when he was come, he went out with Jehoram against Jehu the son of Nimshi, whom the LORD had anointed to cut off the house of Ahab.
2 Chronicles 22:8
And it came to pass, that, when Jehu was executing judgment upon the house of Ahab, and found the princes of Judah, and the sons of the brethren of Ahaziah, that ministered to Ahaziah, he slew them.
2 Chronicles 22:9
And he sought Ahaziah: and they caught him, (for he was hid in Samaria,) and brought him to Jehu: and when they had slain him, they buried him: Because, said they, he is the son of Jehoshaphat, who sought the LORD with all his heart. So the house of Ahaziah had no power to keep still the kingdom.
Here we see another example of the term “son of” being applied to Jehoshaphat, who was the great-great-great-great grandfather of Ahaziah, 5 generations before. It actually means “descendant of.” By the way, this study shows how diligently the scribes of Judah kept the genealogical records. They knew that the Messiah would have to be a pure-blooded descendant of Judah and Tamar; otherwise, the bloodline could not arrive at Messiah.
Based on the language of the various pericopes cited above, I would argue that Athaliah was Ahab’s biological daughter, OR she was an adopted daughter, or the daughter of another wife. Nowhere does Scripture refer to Athalia as Ahab’s “sister.” If Ahab and Athalia were brother and sister, the Bible would surely say so, as it does about the other siblings mentioned in this story. The Bible is always clear about how many sons and daughters a particular patriarch had. Therefore, when the Bible says Athaliah was a “daughter of Omri,” we are being told that she is a descendant of Omri through Ahab. For these reasons, I must disagree with those who reckon Athalia to be King Omri’s filial daughter.
Commentary on Verse 9:
Verse 9. – ‘And he sought Ahaziah: and they caught him… brought him… buried him\’. This verse, which at the first sight seems at variance with 2 Kings 9:27, 28, is perhaps a simply surprising instance of undesigned corroboration of history by the treatment of different historians. The verse, e.g., corrects the italics of 2 Kings 9:27; expunging them throws their proper force into the words, “at the going up to Gur,” showing that Jehu reckoned on that steep hill to enable his pursuing warriors to overtake Ahaziah; makes a sufficiently possible harmony, to say the least, in respect of the remaining incidents narrated of his life – that he made for the time a successful flight to Megiddo, afterwards sought to hide in deeper retirement in Samaria, was thence brought to Jehu at Megiddo, there eventually slain before his eyes, and by his own servants, who must be supposed to have had some attachment to him, but probably with the sanction of Jehu himself, conveyed “in a chariot to Jerusalem” for sepulture “in the sepulchre of his fathers in the city of David” (2 Kings 9:28). The fact that he received decent burial being due to the God-fearing character of his grandfather, and that this should find its record on the page of the book that will last while the world lasts, that very page already two thousand five hundred years old, is a most touching consideration. Megiddo was on the Esdraelon or Jezreel plain, that stretched between the hills of Galilee and those of Mount Ephraim or Samaria. Had no power to keep still the kingdom. The undoubted meaning of this clause is that there was no one of the house of Ahaziah who could succeed him. The Hebrew text does not say, “no one left,” etc. But the allusion can scarcely be to anything but the fact that transpires in our ver. 11 (where only Joash is mentioned as a son, and with him a nurse), viz. that his only surviving son was an infant. The king’s sons (presumably sons of Ahaziah and grandsons of her own) were among the “seed royal,” whom the wicked Athaliah had “destroyed.” Gesenius says that the words that wrap in them the slight ambiguity, are a phrase peculiar to the later Hebrew, and he instances nine examples, all of which come from Daniel or Chronicles, the virtue of the phrase amounting to the ports ease of the Latin. Translate, ‘And there was no one of the house of Ahaziah able for the kingdom,\’ the exacter conditions of the case not being recorded.
{ Source: }
From this statement, it would appear that the author is asserting that no one of Ahaziah’s house remained in the dynastic line of Judah’s succession. This would solve the problem of the polluted bloodline, if it were true. A new dynasty without any trace of Jezebel’s blood would take its place. Is this why Athalia’s three direct king descendants are left out of the genealogy in Matthew?
Unless the translators of the KJV missed something, such as Joash being an adoptee, the fact is that Joash, as the line of descent detailed herein shows, and according to the events related in Part 1a, wherein Ahaziah’s son is listed as Joash, Joash still carries Athalia’s blood. This would mean that the statement of I Chron. 22:9, So the house of Ahaziah had no power to keep still the kingdom, is accurate as it stands, stating merely that the House of Ahaziah did not have the power to withstand Yahweh’s judgment against it. Yet Joash, Ahaziah’s last remaining son and a descendant of Athalia, is on the throne.
As we will see, Joash was also judged by Yahweh, so that the statement made in 2 Chron. 22:9 includes the fate of Joash as well.
Even though the author of the above Biblehub commentary appears satisfied that no pollution of the bloodline has occurred, the fact is that Ahaziah is listed as Athaliah’s son. By traditional reckoning, Ahaziah is Jezebel’s grandson. But if Athaliah is not the filial daughter of Jezebel, we can wiggle out of the dilemma. Most of the kings of both houses had multiple wives. This includes King David, who had 8 wives. Unfortunately, we do not have a list of King Ahab’s other wives. The possibility that Athalia was Jezebel’s step-daughter is a real one, because the Bible does not use the terms “step-son” or “step-daughter.” Thus, there is a very real possibility that Jezebel was NOT Athalia’s biological mother, but merely her step-mother.
This is exactly the argument made in the Wikipedia article on Athalia:
The chronological considerations brought forth by scholars who advocate the sister-theory have to do with determining the earliest age at which Athaliah could have been born, and then showing that this is too late for Athaliah to be Ahab’s daughter, but not too late if she was his sister. This brings up the question of who her mother was. It is often assumed that her mother was Jezebel, the only wife mentioned for Ahab in Scripture, but an argument from silence about other wives cannot be conclusive. There is no evidence that she was the daughter of Ahab’s chief wife, Jezebel. Athaliah might have been the daughter of another of Ahab’s wives.
If Athalia was already alive before Ahab married Jezebel, then we could have a good argument against Jezebel being her mother. This type of research is beyond the scope of this article, but I have found a rabbinical discourse which analyzes these relationships and also concludes that Athaliah was the daughter of one of Ahab’s OTHER wives and, therefore, NOT the biological daughter of Jezebel. Although I try to avoid Jewish sources in my research, I have done so in this case, because it lends credence to the idea that Jezebel was not the literal mother of Athalia, but only her STEP-MOTHER. Also, it is very difficult to find scholarly articles on this particular subject, so we have to utilize whatever documents pertain.
The author of this rabbinical article states: Rabbi Haim D. Rabinowitz (1911-2001) explains that although Athaliah was really the daughter of Ahab, she is mentioned as a daughter of Omri to stress that her lineage to Omri through Ahab was legitimately recognized since she was born to Ahab by a Jewish [sic, Israelite] wife and not by Jezebel, who was not Jewish [sic, Israelite].
{See http://jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/421/JBQ_421_3_kleinathaliah.pdf}
Of course we know that the Jews are descendants of Esau/Edom, which would make Jezebel a Jew in any case. These rabbis are not concerned with the genealogy of Messiah, whom they disparage as having polluted blood (through Rahab and Ruth). I have shown that neither Rahab nor Ruth had polluted blood. (See “The Parable of Ruth” at ).
We have to understand that the Jews have always monkeyed with Scripture in order to falsely claim that Yahshua had tainted blood. The idea that Ruth was a racial Moabitess was also originated by the Jewish rabbis. It should be understood that their interpretations of Scripture cannot be taken seriously. It just so happens that in this instance and for their own reasons these rabbis agree with my conclusion that Jezebel was not Athalia’s blood mother.
Since the Jews reckon their heritage through the mother, like the Canaanites did, they violate scriptural law. Today’s rabbis show no concern about mixed blood, as all Jews have mixed blood, especially since so many Jewish men marry White women and also women of other races. Since mixed blood among the Jews cannot be denied, I think the real motivation behind this rabbinical article is the attempt by these rabbis to distance themselves from the notorious Jezebel, thus attempting to distance themselves from the Canaanite blood they actually have but dare not admit to.
Nevertheless, their reasoning lends credence to my argument that Athaliah could have been the daughter of Ahab via a different wife. Scripture does not give us the detail about the House of Joseph as it does about the House of Judah. At the time of Omri and Ahab the House of Joseph (synonym for the House of Israel) had become thoroughly paganized, divorced by Yahweh and cast out of His sight. Yahweh had intended for these two Houses to remain separate, for He had two different destinies in mind for the two Houses. The House of Israel was to be banished into the wilderness of Europe, while the House of Judah was to remain in Palestine so that Messiah could fulfill His destiny. By intermarrying with the totally paganized House of Joseph, Jehoram was messing up the plan. This is why the House of Jehoram (of Judah) down through Joash is cursed.
Summing Up the Genealogy
In addition to what these rabbis have written, I would also suggest one more possibility: Ahab could have ADOPTED Athaliah has his own, just as Jacob adopted Ephraim and Manasseh as his own. All of these possibilities cast doubt upon the assumption that Jezebel was Athalia’s biological mother. This is good news for the bloodline, but it is NOT definitive proof. We have merely explored the possibilities that the KJV translation leaves open.
Given the lack of clarity in Scripture about stepsons and stepdaughters, it is possible that Jezebel was not Athalia’s biological mother. Certainly, the translators of the KJV would have had a great deal of difficulty dealing with this mess of in-law relationships between the House of Israel and the House of Judah, which is complicated by the fact that both Athaliah’s brother and husband are named Jehoram. Keeping all of this information straight is a genealogical nightmare; but I believe that we have come to the correct conclusion. It appears that Yahweh cleared up this mess by having nearly all these in-laws killed off by General Jehu except for Joash.
But there is one more avenue of scholarship, which may yield a more definitive account of Jezebel’s actual bloodline. If Jezebel was not a Zidonian but a Tyrian, the presumption of her Canaanite ancestry would be false.
Part 2: Was Ethbaal a Hebrew or a Canaanite?
There is more encouraging news from biblical history:
Assuming that Athalia was the literal daughter of Jezebel, who is presumed to be a Canaanitess by virtue of being a Zidonian, is it possible that that Jezebel was not a Zidonian, but a Tyrian instead? Secular history suggests this as a real possibility. In other words, Jezebel may actually have been a Tyrian, or a Baal-worshipping Israelite descended from Hiram. Several scholars have suggested that the House of Hiram was descended from either Asher or Issachar.
The House of Hiram consisted primarily of Israelites of the northernmost tribes, such as Dan, Asher and Issachar. The paganization of these tribes did not occur until after the death of Solomon. Assuming that intermarriage with actual Canaanite Zidonians had not yet taken place among the Tyrian royalty, this would make Jezebel to be just another Baal-worshipping Israelite, but one who was a descendant of the royal House of Hiram.
If Jezebel were Athaliah’s biological mother, her ruthlessness, it would appear, is based on her religion, which she received from Jezebel. Of course, genetic traits can never be ruled out. Not all Israelites are good people.
Here is a good genealogical table of the Hamites, showing where the Zidonians belong in the genealogical tree:
The Zidonians were descendants of Canaan; and Ethbaal was Jezebel’s father.
Eth-baal II, who, according to the testimony of the native historians, belonged to the royal family of Tyre, is called King of the Sidonians in the Bible (1 Kings xvi.31), and the Assyrian texts similarly call Elulai King of the Sidonians, while Menander mentions him as King of Tyre. It is probable that the King of Sidon, mentioned in the Annals of Shal-maneser III side by side with the King of Tyre, was a vassal of the Tyrian monarch.
(Source: )
The fact that Ethbaal was king of the Sindonians does not definitively mean that he was a racial Zidonian. Just as the Germanic Israelite Russian kings were descendants of Zarah-Judah ruling over a vast empire of Slavs, the Tyrians were Hebrews, most likely Israelites as well, who ruled OVER the Zidonians in the territory of the northern House of Israel that eventually became known as Phoenicia.
There is a distinction to be made between the Tyrians and the Zidonians. The Tyrian kingdom was originally comprised of three Israelite tribes: Dan, Asher, Issachar, plus a smattering of other Israelites who were good sailors, such as Zebulun. It is these Tyrians who assisted Solomon in building the Temple. The Bible tells us that Hiram, King of Tyre, was a Yahweh worshipper. (2 Chron. 2:12.) The Canaanites never worshipped Yahweh. They were Baal worshippers. It is possible that Ethbaal, Jezebel’s father, was a paganized Israelite, just like the entire northern Kingdom was.
It was under Ethbaal that the two nations of Tyre and Sidon were being merged together to form Pheonicia. Tyre and Sidon were originally two different groups. The Zidonians were Canaanites who were tributaries to the Israelites. The Tyrians were Asherites.
Sidon, called Saida today (Arabic for “fishing”), was named after the firstborn son of Canaan (Gn 10:15) and probably settled by his descendants. The northern border of ancient Canaan extended to Sidon (Gn 10:19). Later, Jacob spoke of it as the boundary of Zebulun (Gn 49:13) and Joshua included it as part of the land promised to Israel (Jos 13:6). Sidon was included in the inheritance of Asher, on its northern boundary (Jos 19:28), but it was not taken by that tribe in conquest (Jgs 1:31, 3:3). Settled from the beginning as a port city, Sidon was built on a promontory with a nearby offshore island that sheltered the harbor from storms.
Twenty mi south of Sidon, in the middle of a coastal plain, Tyre (called Sour in Arabic today) was constructed on a rock island a few hundred yards out into the Mediterranean (Ward 1997:247). In fact, the city took its name from this rock island. Tyre comes from the Semitic sr (Hebrew Sor, Arabic Sur, Babylonian Surru, Egyptian Dr,) meaning rock.
Historical and archaeological evidence indicate both cities were settled by the early second millennium BC and were important seaports long before the Israelites settled in Canaan. Yet, while Sidon was mentioned many times during the Canaanite and early Israelite periods in the Bible, Tyre first appeared as part of Asher’s western boundary (Jos 19:29). Specifically called a “fortified city” in this passage, it was noted as a significant landmark. Tyre does not appear again in the Bible until Hiram, king of Tyre, sends cedar, carpenters, and masons to build David’s house (2 Sm 5:11).
Although the dates of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey are still in dispute, only Sidon and Sidonians are mentioned (17 times: Iliad 6.290-91; 23.743-44; Odyssey 4.83, 84, 618; 13.272, 285; 14.288, 291; 15.118, 415, 417, 419, 425, 473). Yet the failure to mention either Tyre or Tyrians may not be significant. At least some of Homer’s usage appears to relate the term Sidonian with Phoenicians in general (see also 1 Kgs 5:6; Jidejian 1996:60). It would seem that during the second millennium BC, Sidon was the pre-eminent of the two port cities. It also appears, during the first millennium BC, that Tyre eclipsed Sidon.
While Tyre and Sidon were considered Canaanite during the second millennium BC, scholars call the Lebanese coast after the time of the Israelite Conquest of Canaan, Phoenecia. “Phoenicia” was the name given to the region by the Greeks, from their word for purple. The ancient world’s purple dye industry developed from extracting a fluid from a Mediterranean mollusk, the murex. Not only did the people of the Phoenician coast develop this industry, they specialized in shipping this very valuable commodity all over the Mediterranean world.
Beginning with David, the Tyrian connection became prominent. Hiram, king of Tyre, offered cedar trees, carpenters and masons to build David’s palace (2 Sm 5:11). To what extent cedars were used in David’s house is unclear, but David did consider his abode to be a palace of cedar (2 Sm 7:2), and God seemed to agree (2 Sm 7:7). Later David utilized the help of Sidonians and Tyrians to provide cedar trees for the Temple (1 Chr 22:4).
Hiram also offered to bring cedars down from the mountains and float them down the Mediterranean coast to Joppa for Solomon’s royal construction projects (1 Kgs 5:8-11; 2 Chr 2:16), which included both his palace and the Temple. Interestingly, while Hiram continued to be the dominant Lebanese contact, Solomon spoke of the woodworking skills of the Sidonians (possibly just a generic term for Phoenicians?) and builders from Gebal, known by the Greeks as Byblos (1 Kgs 5:18).
Ethbaal was the father of Jezebel and king of Sidon (1 Kgs 16:31). Many scholars follow Josephus (Against Apion 1.121-24; Antiquities 8), who was quoting Menander, and identify Ethbaal with Ithbaal (Hebrew “Man of Baal”), priest of Astarte who killed the king of Tyre and seized the throne (Jidejian 1996:73, 306). In fact, during many periods, the king of one city seemed to be considered king of the other city by outsiders.
{ Source: }
Surprise, surprise! The Original Tyrians were not Canaanites, but Asherites.
This would explain the apparent discrepancy between Ezra, the Priest-King of Judah, who refused to allow the Samaritans to assist in rebuilding the Temple, versus Solomon who utilized the Tyrians to do much of the work on the First Temple. The only way that Yahweh would allow this is if the Tyrians were, in fact, Israelites. The Phoenicians never called themselves Canaanites. The reference to them as “Sidonians” would therefore be a territorial reference, probably because Zidonia was a much larger territory in comparison to Tyre.
From the cumbersome link cited below, from the Scottish Christian Herald, we find that the Phoenicians never referred to themselves as Canaanites. Since most secular historians never dreamed that the Phoenicians were mainly Israelites, the Israelite connection to Tyre and Phoenicia has been misunderstood by these scholars. They have also been misled by the Jewish claim that they (the Jews) are Hebrews. But the Phoenicians were obviously Aryans, not hook-nosed, receding forehead Jews! Little do these historians know that the Israelites were Aryans of Hebrew stock. Unless you understand that the Jews, being Edomites and Canaanites at this point in history, were (and still are) non-Hebrews and non-Israelites, you will be forever confused about Biblical history.
Based upon this false Jewish claim to Israelite heritage, virtually all historians, with the exception of BI and CI scholars, have falsely assumed that the Phoenicians were non-Israelites.
Here is the link that contains all of this information:
The author of the article states that the Phoenicians were of Abrahamic stock, not Canaanites. He argues that at least some of them were descendants of Hagar and Keturah, who at this point in time were still of unmixed, Hebrew blood. If all of this information is correct, then it can be seen that Phoenicia was a Hebrew settlement, containing Ishmaelites, Keturians and Israelites, all of Hebrew stock. The original kingdom of Tyre was under the rule of Hiram the Israelite. Since the Canaanites were not known as sailors, it is very unlikely that the Israelites would have needed the Canaanites for any purpose on their ships, even as slaves, as space on these ships was at a premium for cargo. Non-sailors would only get in the way. Besides, the Canaanites were still hated by the Israelites, although under tribute to the House of Joseph.
The author states, in arguing that the Tyrians were Israelites, not Canaanites, “The conduct of David and Solomon towards the Tyrians brings us also to the same conclusion. Though the Israelites were forbidden to have any dealings with the Canaanites, and though, in accordance with the Divine command, David drove them from the Promised Land or brought them under bondage, both he and his son Solomon entered into the closest alliance with the Tyrians, who were also associated with the Jews [sic, Judahites] in building the temple. Would David and Solomon have thus joined in league with them, if they had been Canaanites whom the people of Israel were commanded to hold in abhorrence? ” – p. 462.
Good question! Indeed; and there is no such thing as a Jewish carpenter anyway; so, the idea that Hiram was anything other than an Israelite is out of the question. All the evidence suggests that Hiram was an Israelite, most likely of the tribe of Asher.
To seal the deal, the author adds, “These arguments are further strengthened by the fact which Herodotus mentions, of the Phoenicians practicing circumcision, while the Philistines and Canaanites are always spoken of in Scripture as ‘the uncircumcised.\'”
From the evidence gathered here, it looks as though Ethbaal was a Tyrian, not a Zidonian. He is referred to as King of Sidon by virtue of the fact that he ruled over both kingdoms, with Zidon being under tribute to the Israelite Tyrians. If this is the case, then Jezebel, despite her notoriety for being the most evil woman in the Bible, was in fact an Israelite. (It is also possible that Delilah, Samson’s concubine, was a pure-blooded Adamite, as the Philistines were descended from Caphtor – probably Crete – who were most likely Japhethites.) But why does the Bible refer to Jezebel as a Zidonian? It is because her father annexed Zidonia to Tyre, bringing the combined territory of Tyre and Zidonia under Ethbaal. The combined kingdom was henceforth called by historians “Zidonia,” then “Phoenicia.” As with the case of Ruth, the terms, ‘Moabitess\’ and ‘Zidonian,\’ are TERRITORIAL terms, not necessarily racial terms, as applied to these two women.
King Ethbaal was most likely an Asherite of the dynasty of Hiram. After the merger, the resultant likelihood of intermarriage between the Asherite Tyrians and the Canaanite Zidonians would have been much increased. Nevertheless, the Israelite dynasty of Tyre, despite having adopted Baal-worship, would have resisted intermarriage with the Canaanites. The so-called Phoenicians were Israelites. This is why the language of the Phoenicians and the Israelites is exactly the same: Hebrew. The Canaanites that dwelt among them were in bondage to the Tyrians until the merger enacted in the days of Ethbaal. All of this information increases the likelihood that Jezebel was, in fact, a pure-blooded Israelite, despite all appearances.
From the website, Hope of Israel, we learn of the other Israelite tribes associated with the Phoenicians:
From this website, which reveals the Israelite heritage of many of the Mediterranean nations:
Continuing to quote Slouschz, Davidy goes into the legend of Cadmos\’ birth-heritage, among which Cadmos went west, founding Thebes in Greece, maybe Carthage in North Africa, and places in southern Europe. Another quote, by Lempriere, under “Cadmos,” says that Cadmos is believed to have settled ultimately in Illyricum [modern Yugoslavia].
“Agenor (father of Cadmos) represents Phoenicia. He was the son of Poseidon. Another son of Poseidon (‘Neptune\’) was Albion who, according to Greek tradition, founded a kingdom in Britain. The hinterland of Phoenicia is known as Lebanon. ‘Albion (i.e., Britain in Classical terms) is synonymous in meaning with ‘Lebanon.\’ Both words indicate‘whiteness\’ and both derive from the same root.”4
“‘Neptune was associated with the Israelite Tribe of Nephtali and ‘Poseidon\’ with the ‘Sons of Dan.\'”5 Other historical evidence confirms that some of the Israelites inhabiting Lebanon were the same as those in Britain. {Albion = Lebanon. – Eli}
Davidy continues.
“The Phoenician historian, Sanchuniathon (ca. 300 BCE), was cited by Philo, Eusebius, and others. He stated that the city of Tyre had been founded by Sameroumous and Ou’soos. Sameroumous was a maker of tents and is attributed characteristics of Jacob (Genesis 26:27). His name appears to be a play on that of ‘Samaria,\’ meaning the northern Israelite kingdom. This indicates a partial Israelite involvement in Tyrian (i.e., Phoenician) enterprise and settlement. On the other hand, the name ‘Tyre\’ sometimes serves as a euphemism for the descendants of Esau [quoting Bar Deroma, pp. 348-352, The True Boundaries of the Holy Land, Jerusalem, Israel, 1958]. Ousoos, who also, said Sanchuniathon, founded Tyre, is given the qualities of Esau, the brother of Jacob. Esau was ancestor to Edom, and an entity of Edom occupied a portion of Tyre on its landward side [quoting Slouschz, p. 98]. Esau was considered the archenemy of Israel.
“The mother city of Phoenicia was Sidon, and the term ‘Sidonian\’ came to be synonymous with Phoenician, even though Tyre became more powerful. A Phoenician inscription mentions, ‘Sidon, the land of the sea, and Yeshurun.
“‘Yeshurun\’ was another name for Israel: ‘Fear not, My servant Jacob, Jeshurun whom I have chosen.\’ (Isaiah 44:2).
“Sidon at one stage had been conquered by one of the Sea Peoples called ‘Shakalesh,\’ or ‘Sakkara.\’ The Shakalesh and Sakkara were one and the same and in effect were Israelites from the Tribe of Issachar. Issachar was linked to his brother Zebulon. Zebulon had been blessed, ‘Zebulon shall dwell at the haven of the sea (literally, “on the sea shores”) and he shall be for an haven of ships; and his borderland shall be unto Sidon (Genesis 49:13).”6
This same connection is made again in Deuteronomy 33:18-19. “Rejoice Zebulon in your going out; and Issachar in your tents. They shall call the people unto the mountain; they shall suck of the abundance of the sea, and of treasures hid in the sand….”
Davidy adds that, “The Talmud (Megilla, 6a) understood the blessing of Zebulon to entail success in sea fishing, the production of purple dye from a sea mollusc, and the manufacture of glass from certain sands in the Tyre and Sidon area. Zebulon was also considered a sea merchant. All the activities of Zebulon are those otherwise associated with the Phoenicians [italics added].
“The Israelite Tribe of Dan too had interests and colonies in Phoenician areas. Hiram, king of Tyre sent to Solomon, ‘a cunning man, endued with understanding…the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan, and his father was a man of Tyre (2 Chronicles 2:12,13).”7
1 Kings 7:13,14 adds this: “And king Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre: He was a widow’s son of the Tribe of Nephtali and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass [probably means bronze].”
The difference here of Dan and Naphtali is insignificant, since by the time of Solomon, Phoenician Tyre was almost exclusively an Israelite power, composed of the northern Tribes of Dan, Naphtali, Zebulon, Issachar, and Asher.
What is important is that Israelites from Dan and Naphtali were interconnected with Tyre and with crafts for which Tyre had a reputation.
So, from all of the above information, it is clear that Tyre/Phoenicia was an Israelite kingdom, which had its own dynasty, from Hiram. Only after the days of Ethbaal did this kingdom become mixed with the Zidonians. I Kings 7: 13-14 tells us that Hiram’s mother was a Naphtalite, thus giving more proof that the dynasty of Hiram was Israelite. If Hiram’s father was an Asherite of Tyre, as the above evidence suggests, then we see that Hiram was a full-blooded Israelite of Tyre.
All of us in CI understand that Yahshua was a pure-blooded descendant of David through Adam. In Galatians 4:4 Paul says that “God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law.” Since the Law forbids us to intermarry with non-Adamites, it is obvious that Paul is telling us that Yahshua’s blood is as White and pure as the whitest snow.
Deut. 7 specifically forbids intermarriage with Canaanites, so the possibility of Canaanite DNA in the bloodline is out of the question. Furthermore, the High Priest, Jehoiada, would not have given Joash a copy of the Covenant and anointed him if Joash were not an Israelite. (2 Ki. 11:12.)
Conclusion: Athalia was a pure-blooded Israelite, no matter how you cut it, no matter what her lineage is. Amen.
(Final note: In doing the research for this article, I came across a neat website, q-bible, which renders the LXX and the Holy Name KJV side by side: )
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Appendix: The Solution to the Apparent Contradiction of Why the Gospel of Matthew Leaves Out Three Generations of the Kings of Judah
An interesting by-product this research into Athalia’s genealogy is the possible solution to an apparent contradiction between the OT and the NT. Three of Athaliah’s relations, whether by direct descent or as in-laws, ARE LEFT OUT OF MATTHEW\’S genealogical account. This suggests that they are not to be reckoned as the actual descendants of David nor as ancestors of Yahshua Messiah, even though they are actual ancestors. We need to explain the gap, noted by many scholars, in Matthew’s account of Yahshua’s ancestry. The discrepancy suggests that they should be “forgotten” for some reason.
My opinion is that Athaliah was, in fact, a pure-blooded Israelite of the House of Israel, but not of the House of Judah. As stated above, Yahweh Himself, using Jehu as his military commander, made sure that the evil kings of Athalia’s era were executed. Given the havoc that her side of the family wreaked in Judah, the Omri/Ahab connection was reckoned out of the lineage. But there may be another problem.
In the rabbinical commentary quoted earlier, the rabbis tried to resolve the issue of possible incest in the offspring of Athaliah. This is a serious violation of the Law. As I understand the law, the effects of incest would be eliminated after the fourth generation of non-incestuous breeding. Perhaps this is the reason why those three generations are eliminated from the reckoning, which has nothing to do with Canaanite blood, but may have something to do with incest.
Yahshua’s Genealogy According to Matthew Compared with Chronicles
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations. Matthew 1:17 NASB
Here are two lists, side by side, representing the kings from David to the Babylonian Captivity, from Solomon to Jecohnias (Jeconiah). The first list of Matthew with 14 names and the list of 1 Chronicles with 18 names. What now? Is the Bible contradicting itself?
Matthew 1: 6-16 1 Chronicles 3:10-16
David David
Solomon Solomon
Roboam Rehoboam
Abijah Abijah
Asa Asa
Joshaphat Jehoshaphat
Joram Joram
– Ahaziah
– Joash
– Amaziah
Ozias Azariah (Ozias)
Joatham Jotham
Achaz Ahaz
Ezekiah Hezekiah
Manasses Manasseh
Amon Amon
Josiah Josiah
– Jehoiakim
Jecohnias Jeconiah
Matthew has only 14 names and gives a presumably incomplete list. The question is of course: Why is Matthew incomplete? Missing are Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah, and later Jehoiakim.
The gospel of Matthew starts with the genealogical list of Jesus\’ descent and this list is introduced as, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ”.
This is the line of descent through Joseph, not Mary. Both Joseph and Mary are descendants of King David. The problem of why Jehoiakim is left out cannot be resolved here. It is not a matter of the purity of the blood, which is our subject. Joseph was a descendant of Jeconiah, whose bloodline was cursed by not being allowed to have the Messiah derive therefrom. (Jeremiah 22:22-24.) Nevertheless, Joseph, a descendant of Jeconiah, became Yahshua’s STEPFATHER by marrying Miriam (Mary). Either way, Yahshua is qualified, by virtue of His Judahite Blood, to accede to the throne of Judah. We all know why that did not happen in His earthly body at that time. The Edomites crucified Him to prevent Him from taking the throne of Judah. That will happen at the Second Coming. {See this link for a thorough explanation of the curse of Coniah:}
Omission of Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah
Most writers on this subject suggest that the main reason for leaving these three kings out of the genealogy is because all three engaged in Baal worship. Also, some scholars have raised the question of whether these three kings were in fact officially registered as kings in the books of the Judahite scribes.
Whatever the reason, it has nothing to do with the purity of the Bloodline. It has to do with other aspects of the Law. In my opinion, these three kings were left out because of the incestuous relationship in the House of Jehoram and Athalia, with three generations of descendants needing to be outbred. Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah all married Judahite wives; and these marriages were NOT incestuous, as the priests of Judah would not have allowed that to occur. Thus, the fourth generation would be non-incestuous.
I see no better explanation for the discrepancy in the genealogical accounts. I bring it up only because so many critics of the Bible like to point out apparent contradictions in order to suggest that the Bible is self-contradictory and therefore unreliable. Detailed study has shown me that there is always a solution to these apparent contradictions. Yahweh has a REASON for everything He records.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Appendix B: The Genealogical Chart Of Israel and Judah
Source:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For further study:
In depth Study of Curse of Jeconiah and the Virgin Birth:
Excellent Word Study: Adam’s “Rib”