- Jan 11, 2018
- 38
- 10
- 34
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Why think that the curse on Jeconiah applied to anyone other than his immediate children? Jer 22 seems only to say that Jeconiah will be exiled and his actual children (not descendants hundreds of years later) won't be on the throne.
We know from Jer 22 that Jeconiah is said to be written as childless, even though we know that he in fact had children. The whole point seems to be that Jeconiah will lose the kingdom of Judah and go into exile.
We know who Jeconiah's sons were:
1 Chr 3:17 The sons of Jehoiachin the exile:
Shealtiel his son, 3:18 Malkiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah.
We also know a little about one of Shealtiel's sons (or Pedaiah's son depending on how you read it) Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel did in fact return from exile in Babylon and it seems he was the one ruling in Jerusalem (Hag 1:1, 2:2, 2:23). Zerubbabel along with the high priest Joshua also rebuilt the temple, a role reserved for the king as David and Solomon had done. So I think you're going to be pressed to interpret Jeremiah as referring to all of Jeconiah's descendants since we know that one of his great grandsons was in fact ruling in Jerusalem.
It also seems that some of his other descendants returned from exile in Babylon as well and were at least considered as part of the leadership:
Neh 12:32 Going after them were Hoshaiah, half the leaders of Judah, 12:33 Azariah, Ezra, Meshullam
(See also Neh 10, 11:7)
It seems the genealogical lists in 1 Chr 3 probably terminate with the people actually living when the book was written, which seems to be some time shortly after the exile return from Babylon (2 Chr 36:22-23). So not only did Jeconiah have children, one of his descendants ruled in Jerusalem and it seem many other returned from Babylon as part of the leadership. Jeremiah's word then apply only to Shealtiel, Malkiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah, none of whom ruled. Though it does seem that one of his sons, Pedaiah, may have returned with the exiles (Neh 8:4).
I think something else is going on in the New Testament genealogies other than trying to avoid a connection to Jeconiah.
. Zerubbabel may have been governor, but he was not king, for judah was still under the Medo-Persian rule at that time. Zerubbabel didn't sit on the throne. There has not been a rightful king from the house of David in Judah, sitting on the throne, since before the Babylonian captivity.
Perhaps, but Haggai seems to have thought otherwise:
Hag 2:22 I will overthrow royal thrones and shatter the might of earthly kingdoms. I will overthrow chariots and those who ride them, and horses and their riders will fall as people kill one another. 2:23 On that day,’ says the Lord who rules over all, ‘I will take you, Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, my servant,’ says the Lord, ‘and I will make you like a signet ring, for I have chosen you,’ says the Lord who rules over all.
Here, after God overthrows the other thrones and kingdoms, he installs Zerubbabel as king.
a. I will take you, Zerubbabel … and will make you like a signet ring: The signet ring was a token of royal authority much like a throne, a crown, or a scepter.
i. "This is not a personal assurance only to Zerubbabel, for neither he nor his natural seed reigned in Jerusalem, or rose to any special eminence in the kingdoms of this world." (Pulpit)
b. For I have chosen you:
What was so special about Zerubbabel? He truly was chosen of God - in the ancestry of Jesus, Zerubbabel was the last person to stand to be in both the line of Mary (the blood lineage of Jesus - Luke 3:27) and Joseph (the legal lineage of Jesus through Joseph - Matthew 1:12).
iii. Because Zerubbabel was a descendant of the last legitimate king of Judah, he could be legitimately recognized as the ruler (though not king) of the returning exiles.
Additional thought, if Jeconiah's curse from Jeremiah was to be intended for ALL of his descendants, then we have to wonder why the Chronicler goes to such great lenghts to record the lineage of Jeconiah through Zerubbabel.
Jeconiah-Shealtiel-Pedaiah-Zerubbabel-Hananiah-Shecaniah-Neariah-Elioena-(Hodaviah, Eliashib, Pelaiah, Akkub, Johanan, Delaiah, and Anani)
It seems clear what the Chronicler is doing - he's giving the rightful royal lineage. He doesn't seem to have a problem with Jeconiah.
From what I took from those genealogies in 1 chronicals is that the author was giving the genealogies of all the families of israel.
Because after it names the family of David, then judah, then reuben, gad, manasseh and all the rest of the tribes. The family of David there is just saying his descendants, not pointing anything else out rather than they are just his family,
It's just that when I read the passages regarding the return from exile, it seems they thought Zerubbabel was the king. Not only does Haggai very explicitly say so, but Zerubbabel does the kingly task of temple building in conjunction with the high priest.
The best counter argument would be that Zerubbabel's reign seems (a) to have been subservient to Persian authority and (b) seems to have fizzled out as we here nothing about Zerubbabel's descendants sitting on the throne. But there are possible counters to this as well, though they are more speculative.
It seems to me that in the eyes of the returning exiles, Zerubbabel is recognized as the rightful king as Haggai says and as his actions and position demonstrate. Additionally, we have the Chronicler going to great lengths to recording Zerubbabel's descendants - no doubt an effort to maintain a record of the rightful royal line.