The Curse of Jehoiakim
An unusual curse in Jeremiah 36:1-32 gives new insight into the virgin birth of Jesus.
The Curse
Jehoiakim was a king of Israel. He angered God by burning a scroll that Jeremiah the prophet wrote. God cursed Jehoiakim by indicating that none of his children would sit on the throne of David (Jeremiah 36:29-31). And although Jehoiakim had children, scripture shows that none of them ever reigned as King David had.
The Problem
Joseph, the father of Jesus, was one of Jehoiakim's descendants (through Jeconiah). Joseph's offspring could not claim David's throne because of the curse. Jesus laid claim to the throne of David (Luke 1:32, Acts 2:30, Hebrews 12:2). If Jesus had been born of Joseph, the curse would have been contradicted.
Also, God had promised David that one of his physical descendants would reign on the throne of his kingdom forever (2 Samuel 7:12-13). As explained above, Joseph was excluded from being the genetic father of the future king of Israel.
It was impossible to fulfill the requirements of both curse and promise by natural means. One man had to be both heir to and offspring of David, without being the genetic descendant of Jehoiakim. This problem required a divine solution.
The Solution
God created a solution through the miracle of the virgin birth. Although Joseph was one of Jehoiakim's offspring (through Solomon), Mary was not. She was a descendant of Nathan, one of David's other sons (Luke 3:31). God's promise to David was fulfilled because Mary was the biological parent of Jesus.
The virgin birth also addressed the curse God had pronounced upon Jehoiakim. Kingship was an inherited right. By Joseph, Jesus inherited a legal claim to the throne of David. However, he was exempt from the curse of Jehoiakim because Joseph was not his genetic father.
So the miracle of the virgin birth accomplished God's will in two ways. First, it granted Jesus a legal claim to the throne of David. And second, it maintained the integrity of the curse God had pronounced upon Jehoiakim. Indeed, Jesus was not one of Jehoiakim's offspring.
http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/genealogy/curse.asp
Originally posted by RBHILLWhere is the throne of David?
The Curse of Jehoiakim
An unusual curse in Jeremiah 36:1-32 gives new insight into the virgin birth of Jesus.
The Curse
Jehoiakim was a king of Israel. He angered God by burning a scroll that Jeremiah the prophet wrote. God cursed Jehoiakim by indicating that none of his children would sit on the throne of David (Jeremiah 36:29-31). And although Jehoiak ...[text shortened]... us was not one of Jehoiakim's offspring.
http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/genealogy/curse.asp
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by RBHILLExactly right.
The Curse of Jehoiakim
An unusual curse in Jeremiah 36:1-32 gives new insight into the virgin birth of Jesus.
The Curse
Jehoiakim was a king of Israel. He angered God by burning a scroll that Jeremiah the prophet wrote. God cursed Jehoiakim by indicating that none of his children would sit on the throne of David (Jeremiah 36:29-31). And although Jehoiak ...[text shortened]... us was not one of Jehoiakim's offspring.
http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/genealogy/curse.asp
Had Joseph been the biological father of Jesus that would have disqualified Him from being the Messianic king descendent of David.
I think Paul, a Pharisee rabbi, knew about this.
They argued with each other about other matters like place of birth.
I'm pretty sure this would not have escaped their notice.
Jehoiakim took his knife and page by page cut it up and tossed it into the fire. His utmost contempt for God's speaking was exposed. He displayed a careful detail by detail utter rejection of God's word.
It didn't stop God of course. He just had Jeremiah repeat the entire prophecy exactly. Isn't that the story RBHILL?
Originally posted by sonshipYes, and the Berean's as an example studied the scriptures. So I would assume they came across this.
Exactly right.
Had Joseph been the biological father of Jesus that would have disqualified Him from being the Messianic king descendent of David.
I think Paul, a Pharisee rabbi, knew about this.
They argued with each other about other matters like place of birth.
I'm pretty sure this would not have escaped their notice.
Jehoiakim took ...[text shortened]... of course. He just had Jeremiah repeat the entire prophecy exactly. Isn't that the story RBHILL?
Originally posted by RJHindsRemember, there is no Temple, either.
So the prophecy was just a figure of speech and there is no throne of David today, right?
If the 'throne of David' is, as I said, the kingship of Israel, then it's true that no one sits on this throne even today, and certainly no descendant of Jehoiakim ever sat on it, meaning no descendant of Jehoiakim was ever king of Israel. It certainly does not mean that "the throne of David", or the kingship of Israel does not exist today. It just means that there is, right now, no king of Israel.
As a physical "chair" of some sort, no, it probably doesn't physically exist, unless they managed to recover it and it's in a museum somewhere. But since there is question by some as to whether David ever actually existed, I'm guessing they don't have his actual throne anywhere either.
Do you really think the prophecy is about the actual, physical "chair" David sat in, or about the kingship of Israel? When it was written that no descendant of Jehoiakim would "sit upon the throne of David", they didn't mean that they would find it impossible to actually sit down on the throne (if such existed even then), what was meant was that no descendant of Jehoiakim would ever be king of Israel. Even RBHILL gets this in his OP. Why do you have issue with this? The meaning is well-known.
This is just one example of how literalists always miss the actual point of scripture.
Originally posted by SuzianneJeh's story is boring, I 'll sing you a song:
Had *you* even heard of Jehoiakim before his post?
Robert Stein, the renowned distiller from Edinburg, came up with the innovative concept of the continuously running single column still during the mid-1820s, a concept refined and patented by Dublin distiller Aeneas Coffey some years later. This is how blended Scotch whiskies came into being thanks to the cylindrically shaped column still, and flourished in the first half of the 19th century. How cool –and big money maker, since our beloved blended Scotches are nowdays sold worldwide in more than 200 countries. This is by and large the whisky making story up there in Bonnie Scotland, but there was a thing or two going on back even before 600 A.D., when Scotland was known as Caledonia...
😵
Originally posted by SuzianneThat was not how the OP was phrased.
Good, so you agree that Jeremiah 36 is a new insight into the virgin birth to most people in this forum.
Glad to clear that up for you.
And very dishonest of you.
Would you say "Newton gives new insight into gravity" a useful statement?