Forums

Post Reply
Forum Home > General Discussion > The curse of Yaconyah teaching and lineage of Yahushua

[email protected]
Site Owner
Posts: 30

Many traditional Jews insist that Yahushua cannot be the Messiah because He is not a descendent of King David (Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24) and that, because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Mat. 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king which means that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30). which also disqualifies her from being a Messianic progenitor. Our response below proves otherwise.



The following explanation was courtesy of Aramaic scholar Andrew Gabriel Roth:

Let's dispel a few myths about this "curse on Jeconiah" in relation to the genealogy of Yeshua - who was a descendent of King David!

Even the majority of Orthodox avoid this argument and agree Jeconiah (by all three names) had his curse lifted. In fact, Jeremiah who invoked the curse lifted it in his 52nd chapter. Every single aspect was turned back. The curse said he would not prosper and Jeconiah was released from prison and given money. It said he would be childless and he had many kids in captivity. Most importantly, it said none of his descendants would ever rule in any capacity - and we challenge someone to explain that within two or three generations, his direct descendant Zerubababel is the governor of Judea!

The general problem that critics love to pounce on has to do with one of Y'shua's ancestors, the last king of Judah:

"'As surely as I live', declares the LORD, 'even if you Jeconiah, son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off. I will hand you over to those who seek your life, those you fear, to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and to the Babylonians. I will hurl you and the mother who gave birth to you into another country, where neither of you was born, and there you both will die. You will never come back to the land you long to return to. ' Is this man Jeconiah a despised, broken pot, and object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out, cast into a land they do no know? O land, land, land, hear the word of the LORD! This is what the LORD says: 'Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring shall prosper, none will sit on the throne of David, or ever rule anymore in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:24-30)

So, in theory at least, anyone who is descended from Jeconiah cannot sit on David's throne, which of course is a problem when we get to here:

"You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name of Y'shua. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. The LORD YAH will give him the throne of his father David." (Luke 1:31-32 (NIV with cross-reference to the Younan Peshitta Interlinear Version)).

Many Greek textual defenders have tried to suggest that Matthew's lineage is of Messiah's father Joseph, and therefore does not carry the curse. However, while the Talmud says that Jews are counted as such ethnically if their mothers are Jewish, royal inheritances were always passed down from father to son, and this is definitely a royal genealogy that Matthew is trying to relate here. Therefore, Messiah must be descended from David on both sides of his family tree, and this curse would hold either way if it were not for one fact: It was lifted!

If the rabbis of the Talmud have any weight in the matter, they ruled unanimously that Jeconiah was forgiven for his many transgressions by the end of his life. The reason for this belief arose from Scripture itself, as each component of this curse was turned back. Let's look at these facts which prove the case.

  • The curse says, "record this man as if childless", and yet in the same section admits that Jeconiah has children, and in fact continues to do so during his punishment.

  • The curse says that Jeconiah would never prosper, but even Jeremiah, who wrote the words of that original admonition, reports the following: "In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jeconiah, king of Judah, in the year Evil-Merodach became king of Babylon, he released Jeconiah from king of Judah and freed him from prison on the twenty-fifth day of the twelfth month. He spoke kindly to him and gave him a great seat of honor higher than those of other kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jeconiah put aside his prison clothes and for the rest of his life ate regularly at the king's table. Day by day the king gave Jeconiah a regular allowance as long as he lived, till the day of his death." (Jeremiah 52:31-34)

  • The curse even goes so far as to proclaim that "for none of his offspring shall prosper, none will sit on the throne of David, or ever rule anymore in Judah." Granted, the days of the kings of Judah were gone for two generations. However, notice the verse even covers any kind of ruler in Judah? If the curse were still enforced, how does anyone explain this passage?

    "The word of the LORD came to Haggai a second time on the twenty-fourth day of the month. 'Tell Zerubabel the governor of Judah that I will shake the heavens and the earth. I will overturn royal thrones and shatter the power of foreign kingdoms. I will overthrow chariots and their drivers; horses and their riders will fall, each by the sword of his brother. On that day,' declared the LORD Almighty, 'I will take you, my servant, Zerubabel son of Shealtiel', declares the LORD, 'and I will make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you,' declares the LORD Almighty." (Haggai 2:20-23)

Zerubabel, as it turns out, is the grandson of Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:17-19, Matthew 1:12) - so, not bad for a guy who was neither supposed to prosper nor rule! Also the imagery Haggai uses could not be stronger, for just as Jeremiah said that Jeconiah was the signet ring the LORD would remove, so now this same man's grandson is the signet ring God wishes to put on!

In the Middle East, a king's signet ring bore the royal seal. The king, when he wished to authenticate a command, would take his ring and impress the insignia into clay, which would later harden and be attached to the royal document. Therefore, in both cases, the signet ring is a very visible sign of regal power, very much akin to a scepter or crown. When the ring is removed, the power goes, and vice versa when in it is put back on.


--


May 7, 2014 at 4:50 PM Flag Quote & Reply

You must login to post.
  • undefined
    undefined
  • undefined
    undefined
  • undefined
    undefined
  • undefined
    undefined
  • undefined
    undefined
  • undefined
    undefined

Oops! This site has expired.

If you are the site owner, please renew your premium subscription or contact support.