Norbert Link

Why Did Ancient Israel Ask for a King?

The Bible gives us several reasons for ancient Israel’s request, and it shows not only why this desire was sinful, but also, how the fulfillment of Israel’s desire has been causing much pain and suffering for Israel and all of mankind.

To see the context, note 1 Samuel 8:1-5:

“Now it came to pass when Samuel was old that he made his sons judges over Israel… but his sons did not walk in his ways; they turned aside after dishonest gain, took bribes, and perverted justice. Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, ‘Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make for us a king to judge us like all the nations.’”

Several factors come into play here. First, Samuel should not have made his sons judges over Israel. Second, rather than demanding a king, the elders of Israel should have waited for Samuel to reverse his decision and dismiss his sons as judges. After all, Samuel was aware of the fact that Eli had not restrained his wicked sons and that, as a consequence, God made Samuel a prophet (1 Samuel 3:11-14, 20).

But the elders of Israel did not wait for Samuel’s intervention, and so, Samuel perceived this action and demand for a king as a loss of confidence in his leadership. However, God made it clear that ultimately, their demand was a rejection of God’s leadership, because God had made Samuel judge over Israel (1 Samuel 7:6, 15-17).

We read in 1 Samuel 8:6-7:

“But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, ‘Give us a king to judge us.’ So Samuel prayed to the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, ‘Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.’”

God knew, of course, that ultimately, Israel would demand a king. They had already asked Gideon to rule over them as king, but Gideon had refused to do so. Judges 8:22-23 states: “Then the men of Israel said to Gideon, ‘Rule over us, both you and your son, and your grandson also; for you have delivered us from the hand of Midian.’ But Gideon said to them, ‘I will not rule over you, nor shall my son rule over you; the LORD shall rule over you.’”

But the time would come when Israel would be so persistent in their demand for a king that God would let them have their will. God does not prevent us from sinning, and He does not force us to live righteously. When people want to sin or lose faith in God, He does not take away their free will, but they will have to live with the consequences. Furthermore, God will use man (and even the wrong decisions of man) to bring about His purpose. For instance, He never wanted Israel to fight in war, but when they decided to become a warrior nation, He used them and their warring actions to fulfill His unconditional promise to Abraham to bring them into the land of Canaan. And so, God had already given statutes and injunctions for the king’s behavior once Israel’s demand would be fulfilled (Deuteronomy 17:14-20).

Nevertheless, God made it very clear that the demand for a king was SINFUL. One reason has already been revealed: It constituted the rejection of God’s rule over them. This desire, to be ruled by man, rather than God, has always been a major problem in man’s conduct. Christ explained that His own people (the house of Judah, John 1:11) would kill Him because they did not want Him to rule over them (Luke 19:14).

And so, God told Samuel to warn Israel of the consequences in asking for and receiving their king (1 Samuel 8:8-9):

“‘According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.’”

The picture which Samuel was inspired to paint for the people was not a pleasant one. It described the very evil of the institution of human kingship or human government in general, when it is in defiance of God’s rule. Christ later declared to His disciples: “‘You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant’” (Mark 10:42-43).

Samuel explained that the king and the human system over which he (or any human leader) would rule would take the sons and daughters of the people, as well as the best of their fields, to use them for his (or the government’s) own purposes and personal gain; that he (or the government) would make many weapons and build a great army to fight against other nations; and that he (or the government) would institute a tax system, in addition to the godly enjoined duty to pay tithe and offerings to Him. Even though Christ and Paul would make it clear, later on, that we are to pay our taxes to Caesar (Luke 20:22-25; Matthew 17:24-27; Romans 13:6-7), it remains true that the origin of the human tax system is evil, and that a country and a people are destroyed when they are taxed heavily (Proverbs 29:4, American Bible: “By justice a king gives stability to the land, but he who imposes heavy taxes ruins it.”).

God also forewarned them that the time would come when the people would complain and murmur against their king, but God would not listen to them. We read in 1 Samuel 8:18: “And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day.”

Nevertheless, the people did not heed the warning, but responded: “No, but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go before us and fight our battles” (1 Samuel 8:19-20).

Rather than relying on God, they wanted to rely on man. They wanted to be like everybody else, even though God had called the nation of Israel to be different and holy—to be set aside for a separate and godly purpose (Exodus 19:6). God wanted to dwell among them (Exodus 29:46) and rule over them. They were to show other nations how a people can live under God’s rule. But they chose to reject God’s rule in order to become like all the other nations. Rather than trusting in God that He would fight their battles (Exodus 14:13-14; Deuteronomy 1:30; compare also 1 Samuel 7:8-14), they reiterated their wish for a king so that HE could lead them in battle. They wanted to follow the false god of war and human war heroes, rather than the true God of Peace.

Samuel reiterated his warning in 1 Samuel 10:19: “But you have today rejected your God, who Himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations; and you have said to Him, ‘No, but set a king over us!’”

Samuel gives an additional reason for their immediate demand for a king in 1 Samuel 12:12:

“‘And when you saw that Nahash king of the Ammonites came against you, you said to me, “No, but a king shall reign over us” when the LORD your God was your king.’” It was the fear of an approaching enemy which prompted them to ask for a king at that time, thinking that a powerful and visible human warrior could save them, while in their mind, the invisible great God could not accomplish this. The demand for a king was an example of complete and total lack of faith in God. Samuel made this very clear when he continued that God would work a visible sign to show them their sinfulness: “‘…I will call to the LORD, and He will send thunder and rain, that you may perceive and see that your wickedness is great, which you have done in the sight of the LORD, in asking a king for yourselves’” (1 Samuel 12:17).

When God performed this miracle, “…all the people said to Samuel, ‘Pray for your servants to the LORD your God, that we may not die; for we have added to all our sins the evil of asking a king for ourselves’” (1 Samuel 12:19). But their “remorse” was too late, because in the meantime, Samuel had already received and followed God’s command to anoint Saul as the king of Israel (As it turned out, Saul, who was at the beginning a humble man and little in his own sight, became proud and wicked, so that God forsook him and asked Samuel to anoint David as king instead.)

Responding to the people’s “regret,” Samuel stated: “…‘You have done all this wickedness; yet do not turn aside from following the LORD, but serve the LORD with all your heart… serve Him in truth with all your heart… But if you still do wickedly, you shall be swept away, both you and your king’” (1 Samuel 12:20, 24-25).

The rest is history—and prophecy. The nations of Israel and Judah did live wickedly so that God expelled them from their land. First, the house of Israel was enslaved by the Assyrians, and later, the house of Judah was enslaved by the Babylonians. The nation of Judah was subsequently re-established in the Promised Land, but the house of Israel never returned. Modern descendants of the house of Judah can be found today in the state of Israel and elsewhere, while modern descendants of the house of Israel can be found in the United Kingdom, the United States, and in other English-speaking nations.

The Bible shows us that due to their wickedness and rebellion against God, both modern houses will again be led into captivity. No king or ruler will save them from this pre-determined fate which has been proclaimed because of their continuing sins. They still believe that human beings should lead them and will save them and bring them deliverance and peace; that God is not to be considered; and that His Word is not to be kept.

They still follow their god of war and live with the delusion that their elected rulers need to lead them in their wars with terrible, destructive weapons and huge armies. Even though God had told them that He was to choose their king whom they desired (1 Samuel 10:24), they later even rejected that command, as Hosea 8:4 tells us: “They set up kings, but not by Me; They made princes, and I did not acknowledge it.” But of course nothing can be accomplished against God’s Will, even though man may think otherwise. But overall, this is not God’s world, and Satan rules it and brings people to power whom he wants. God only intervenes in this day and age in the political affairs of this world, when He needs to in order to bring about His desired purpose.

Ancient and modern Israel and Judah did not learn what God is telling all of us in Psalm 146:3: “Do not put your trust in princes, Nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help.”

The ancient and modern houses of Israel and Judah were meant to show the world how to live righteously, by trusting in God and not in their human leaders or their weapons and armies (Psalm 44:6-8). Instead, they have been following the ways of the world like all the other nations.

But God is telling them today what is going to happen to them very soon:

“‘I have destroyed you, Israel, who is there to help you? Where now is your king that he may save you, in all your cities where are your rulers? “Give me a king and princes,” you said. I gave you a king in my anger, and in my wrath I took him away’” (Hosea 13:9-11, Revised English Bible).

When Christ returns, human rulers and human kings will end (Daniel 2:44). Wars will cease (Psalm 46:9). Trust in God will be taught and practiced. Taxes will be abandoned, and only God’s tithing system will continue to exist. One bad choice of Israel’s demand for a king had terrible consequences for them and the entire world. But thankfully, God will reverse this bad and evil decision, when His righteous God Family will govern this planet. Then we will experience a world of peace when all nations, including Israel and Judah, will learn to rely on God, rather than on man, and abandon the way of war (Isaiah 2:1-4).

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

Current Events

by Norbert Link

We begin with explosive developments in Germany and discuss the ongoing public dissatisfaction with the current and proposed new government, while also addressing the uncertain and perhaps somewhat surprising future of Martin Schulz and Angela Merkel. (Also note this week’s Editorial on the developments in Germany, as well as our new StandingWatch program, “Germany’s Dirty Politics.”  The program was also published in the German language, titled, “Deutschlands Schmutzige Politik.” ).

We continue with the short temporary shutdown of the US government; an agreed-upon budget pact of $400 billion; and President Trump’s proposed controversial $4 trillion budget for 2019; Dow Jones’ unprecedented rollercoaster ride; the sure expectation of a very bad recession within perhaps three years; the interesting perception that President Trump does not understand economics, combined with one of his proposals which seems to be dead on arrival; another court ruling blocking the implementation of his decision on DACA; his politically risky refusal to release the Democratic response to a Republican memo charging the FBI and others with wrongdoing; and his stance on domestic violence in the light of continued allegations against him of harassment and improper sexual conduct.

We address the horrific mass shooting in Florida; the volatile escalation of the situation in Syria, as it pertains to Israel and Iran as well as the USA, Turkey and the Kurds; and the interesting recommendation that in light of America’s total absence in the Syrian issue, Europe and especially Germany should intervene to avoid the outbreak of a terrible third war in the region. We conclude with Israel’s strong position to ignore America’s stance if it conflicts with Israel’s interests; and America’s concern regarding the European Joint Defense Agreement; as well as a shocking article about Poland.

Throughout this section, we have underlined pertinent statements in the quoted articles, for the convenience and quick overview of the reader.

Politics Is Such a Dirty Business!

by Norbert Link

Last week’s events in Germany serve as a striking example as to HOW DIRTY politics is. Much of the world breathed a sigh of relief when Germany’s two leading parties, the CDU and the SPD, finally reached a grand coalition agreement under Angela Merkel (CDU) and Martin Schulz (SPD), thereby ending an historic time of political limbo after Germany’s election in September. But soon afterwards, due to political maneuvering within his own party, Schulz was forced to declare that he would not accept the contemplated role of foreign minister within the new government.

The German press recognized the true motives at play. Much blame was placed on Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) who presently holds the office of foreign minister in a “caretaker position”. Bild Online wrote on February 9 that Gabriel was using dirty tricks against Schulz; that the same party delegates who had voted for Schulz were now blackmailing him and used him as cannon-fodder; and that the entire situation confirmed almost every possible perception of the meanness and lack of principles in politics.

Bild added that a power struggle had engulfed the SPD; that Schulz was given an ultimatum; and that Gabriel hinted at an alleged agreement between him and Schulz that he would remain the foreign minister in consideration of giving the position of party chief to Schulz. But the German press claims that Gabriel only resigned as the leader of his party in order to escape responsibility if the grand coalition talks would fail (and most observers predicted at the time that they would fail).

In all fairness, even though Schulz had originally declared that he and his party would not be a part of a German government under Merkel, due to the intervention of German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD), he changed his mind [or broke his word, depending on one’s viewpoint]… but so did all the major players in his party, including Sigmar Gabriel. And there can be no doubt that he worked out a masterful deal for the SPD. The Local wrote on February 7: “The SPD managed to wangle the Foreign Ministry, the Finance Ministry and the Labor Ministry out of the talks. They appear to have done pretty well for themselves there… The only question is – with so many key ministries going to the other parties – what have the CDU kept for themselves?” The answer: Merkel managed to get the chancellorship… for herself.

With these many key positions for the SPD, that party should have been thankful to Schulz. Instead, they dropped him like a hot potato. The Telegraph commented on February 9 that “Mr. Schulz, a former European parliament president, was briefly talked of as Germany’s next chancellor when he returned from Brussels to enter national politics. He was elected SPD leader with 100 per cent support in 2016 and the country was gripped by ‘Schulzmania’ in the early part of last year. But he led the party to its worst ever result in September’s election. His political career is now almost certainly over…”

The German press echoed those sentiments. Bild Online wrote that Schulz is facing the end of his political career which began with 100 percent and ended with nothing, slipping “from 100 to Zero.”

We don’t share this conclusion. We had predicted that Donald Trump, when he announced his candidacy, would become the President of the USA, even though very few agreed with us at the time. We had predicted that Merkel and Schulz would hammer out a grand coalition agreement when most felt the opposite and thought that Merkel would enter a coalition with smaller parties, without the SPD (the so-called “Jamaica coalition”), and failing this, new elections would be held. We had said that Schulz would play an important role within the new German government. We still feel the same, even though the almost unanimous political viewpoint disagrees. Whether Schulz’s political career is indeed over will have to be seen. In the past, many politicians were viewed at one time as “yesterday’s news,” but they made spectacular comebacks. Just think of Napoleon, Mussolini, and last, but not least, Adolf Hitler. And so, historically, strange and unexpected things have happened in the dirty business of politics, and just maybe, the deadly wound which Schulz received might be healed in the future, which would indeed surprise the whole world.

We all know that politics is mean—rotten to the core. The recent example in Germany only supports this universal truth. Politicians are motivated and driven by lies, betrayal, backstabbing and broken words and promises, while totally lacking in principle and godly character. As the Bible says, “There is none righteous, no, not one.” Politics is like a prostitute who embraces her lovers, but only as long as she can use them. Why is that so? Simply, because the originator of politics is none other than Satan the Devil—a dirty, mean, lying being without any principles or godly character. Satan rules this world. He designs the evil politics of this world, and he influences and inspires those who are engaged in this field. Nothing good will ever come out of it. That is why true Christians must have NOTHING to do with it. Rather, they ought to pray for God’s Kingdom to come very soon which will end, once and for all, the dirty business of politics.

Germany’s Dirty Politics

The events in Germany serve as a striking example as to how dirty and rotten politics is. But why is that? What can all of us learn from these developments? And do the events point at significant biblical prophecies—especially, when focusing on the political future of Angela Merkel and Martin Schulz?

Download Audio 

Believing Multitudes Persecute Jesus

by Norbert Link

Multitudes followed Jesus when He lived here on earth as a human being.  The Bible says that Christ was surrounded by an innumerable multitude of supporters. But many who believed in Him and accepted His teachings ceased to walk with Him; they became aggressive; claimed that He was possessed; and were willing to stone Him because of blasphemy. Only very few remained faithful. How could such a turn of events develop? And is it possible that something like this could happen again in our time?

Download Audio 

Current Events

by Norbert Link

The world has experienced several days of crazy trading. The Dow Jones bounced back late Tuesday, but dropped again Wednesday and on Thursday, it plunged again more than 1,000 points. The loss has been tremendous [for instance, time.com reported that Warren Buffet’s net worth dropped by $5 billion on Monday alone] and the world is getting a foretaste as to what is surely going to happen very soon.

The Vatican and Turkey, as well as the Europeans, are ganging up on Israel and are fighting for the Temple Mount, and our new StandingWatch program, titled, “The Vatican’s Fight for Mount Zion and Jerusalem,” addresses this prophetic development in detail.

Poland is anxious to deny any responsibility for the Holocaust, and a political move by Germany’s controversial foreign minister (SPD) supports Poland and angers Israel. However, these questionable actions are only helping the right-wing AfD to gain further ground in Germany. As we predicted, Angela Merkel (CDU) and Martin Schulz (SPD) finally struck a coalition deal to form a new government, which still needs to be approved by the membership of the SPD.

At the same time, Germany seems to abide by EU rules only when they are advantageous to Germany.

Throughout this section, we have underlined pertinent statements in the quoted articles, for the convenience and quick overview of the reader.

What if Ruth Had Lived Today?

by Norbert Link

Ruth from Moab came to the land of Judah and married Boaz. Ruth and Boaz became the ancestors of David. Rahab from Jericho became a stranger in Israel and married Salmon, the son of the leader of Judah. Rahab and Salmon became the ancestors of Boaz and of David. Both Joseph and Mary, as well as Jesus, descended from David. But if today’s immigration laws had been in effect at the time of Rahab and Ruth, none of these developments could have happened, and there would have been no David, no Mary, and no Jesus.

Download Audio 

You Shall Not Swear!

by Norbert Link

The topic of swearing and giving an oath is not as easily answered as some may think. Many concepts abound, pro and con. The Bible tells us that God swears; that angels swear; that righteous people in the Old Testament have sworn, and that people in the Millennium will swear. But don’t Jesus and James tell us that we are not to swear at all? However, some claim that Jesus and Paul have sworn. What is the answer?

Download Audio 

Does the Genealogy of Jesus, as Set Forth in Matthew and Luke, Contradict the Scriptures Stating that God Cursed King Jeconiah?

To explain the issue more fully, the Bible teaches that Jesus is the Messiah and that He will sit on the throne of David after He returns. In Matthew 1 and in Luke 3, we find the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph (the book of Matthew describes Christ’s legal genealogy through His stepfather Joseph) and through Mary (the book of Luke describes Christ’s natural genealogy through His mother Mary). For a further explanation, see our free booklet, Jesus Christ—a Great Mystery.

In the genealogy set forth by Matthew, King Jeconiah of Judah is mentioned (Matthew 1:11), but in both genealogies, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are mentioned as well (Matthew 1:12 and Luke 3:27). They were descendants of Jeconiah, who is also named Coniah and Jehoiachin (Matthew 1:11; compare Margin in the new King James Bible). Jeremiah 22:30 states that none of Coniah’s descendants “shall prosper, Sitting on the throne of David, And ruling in Judah.” This curse is repeated in Jeremiah 36:30, where the following is added: “I will punish him, his family [lit. seed] and his servants for their iniquity…”

The argument advanced by many Jews is that Christ could not be the Messiah and sit in the future on the throne of David, as He is claimed (both in Matthew and in Luke) to be a descendant of Coniah and Coniah’s offspring; i.e., Coniah’s son Shealtiel and his grandson Zerubbabel; compare also Haggai 1:12.

Several attempts have been made to explain this apparent contradiction. A very popular explanation is that the curse had only relevance for the legal genealogy of Jesus, as recorded in Matthew, but not for the natural genealogy, as recorded in Luke. The argument goes like this:

“Matthew 1 clearly explains that Joseph is Mary’s husband. Matthew recorded this for legal purposes, to show the Jews that Christ was the Messiah… If Joseph had been Christ’s natural father, then Christ could never have sat on the throne of David, because of a curse God placed on one of Joseph’s ancestors. This ancestor [Jeconiah] is mentioned in Matthew 1:11-12. He is also referred to as Coniah in Jeremiah 22:24-30. Verse 30 states, ‘Thus says the LORD, Write you this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.’ This man was so evil, that God cursed him and his descendants. Jeconiah… did go on to have children (I Chron. 3:17). But, this curse was fulfilled because none of his children went on to rule from the throne of David…

“Luke records Mary’s genealogy. According to Jewish tradition, in marriage, Mary’s genealogy was placed in her husband’s name. The Greek simply records that Joseph was ‘of Heli’ (Luke 3:23). But since Jacob was Joseph’s father (Matt. 1:16), Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. Mary’s lineage did not have this curse as Joseph’s did. And Mary descended from Nathan—one of David’s sons! (see Luke 3:31). God honored Nathan, and made him the ancestor to the promised King—Jesus Christ—who would sit on David’s throne forever (Luke 1:31-33). This fulfills God’s promise of establishing David’s throne for eternity! According to Israel’s law, if a daughter were the only heir to the father, she would inherit all his possessions, inheritance and rights—but only if she married within her tribe (Num. 27:1-8; 36:6-8). Since Mary had no brothers who could be heirs to her father, she was able to transmit David’s royal inheritance—and the right to the throne—to her husband upon marriage. This made Joseph heir to Heli, giving him the right to David’s throne. This inheritance was then passed to Christ.”

However, this explanation appears to be flawed, because even though in Luke’s genealogy, Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11-12) or Coniah is not mentioned per se, his son Shealtiel and his grandson Zerubbabel are. God pronounced a curse on Coniah and his descendants to the effect that none of Coniah’s descendants would sit on the throne of David. This would include Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and ultimately Jesus Christ, who WILL rule in Jerusalem, sitting on the throne of David (Luke 1:31-33).

[In passing, an interesting explanation is given by the Schlachter commentary as to why Zerubbabel and Shealtiel are mentioned in both genealogies of Jesus, even though Matthew’s genealogy of Joseph lists Solomon as one of his ancestors, while Luke’s genealogy of Mary lists Nathan as one of her ancestors. It is pointed out that in 1 Chronicles 3:17-19, Zerubbabel is listed as a son of Pedaiah, the brother of Shealtiel, while Zerubbabel is otherwise referred to as the son of Shealtiel (Ezra 3:2; Nehemiah 12:1). It is being suggested that Shealtiel might have adopted his nephew Zerubbabel and that Zerubbabel appears in both genealogies because he might have entered into a levirate marriage with the wife of his deceased brother Pedaiah.]

Another explanation is that the “offspring” of Jeconiah mentioned in the curse (denying them rulership on David’s throne) could be a limited reference to the king’s own children—his immediate offspring—and it would only be in force while the king lived.

This proposal is not very convincing. As we have seen, Shealtiel was one of Coniah’s sons. It is true that he did not sit on David’s throne as a king, and neither did Coniah’s grandson Zerubbabel, but the curse, as it is worded and without further explanation, does not seem to imply that it only referred to Coniah’s immediate sons during Coniah’s lifetime.

A third explanation is that God reversed the curse against Coniah and his offspring. This is hinted at by the prophet Haggai, who told Zerubbabel, Coniah’s grandson, that God would make him a “signet ring” on God’s hand (Haggai 2:23). Earlier, God had said to Coniah that even if he had been the signet ring on God’s right hand, He would pluck him out (Jeremiah 22:24). Now, the same “signet ring” imagery is applied to Zerubbabel. (For the importance of a signet ring, compare also Genesis 41:41-43 and Esther 3:10; 8:2, 10.) This would mean that God took away the signet ring from Coniah and gave it to Zerubbabel, thereby re-establishing the Davidic line of kingship.

The Bible may indicate this reversal of God’s curse during Coniah’s life. We read that after Coniah was imprisoned by Nebuchadnezzar, Coniah’s uncle was made king by the King of Babel who changed his name to Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17). But Zedekiah rebelled and was blinded and imprisoned, and all his sons were killed. However, his daughters Tea or Tea-Tephi and Scota survived, and the prophet Jeremiah went with them to Ireland and planted the throne of David there through one of Zedekiah’s daughters, Tea, who married the Irish king, Eochaidh. For further explanations, see our free booklets, “The Fall and Rise of Britain and America,” and “The Fall and Rise of the Jewish People.”

After Zedekiah’s demise, the King of Babylon, Evil-Merodach, released Coniah from prison, and “he gave him a more prominent seat than those of the kings who were with him in Babylon… and he ate bread regularly before the king all the days of his life” (2 Kings 25:28-29). These are remarkable events in light of the fact that God had pronounced a curse on Coniah in Jeremiah 22:30, stating that he would not prosper in his days, and that none of his descendants would prosper. However, one would be entitled to say that Coniah did prosper at the end of his life, and Coniah’s grandson Zerubbabel surely prospered in building the Second Temple, as we read in Zechariah 4:6-10.

The concept of a reversal of God’s curse has some biblical support. We might consider the account of Jonah in Nineveh, showing that human repentance can change God’s declared intent of destruction. Even though Jonah was commissioned by God to declare that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days, that curse was not carried out by God when the people of Nineveh repented. We also read in Jeremiah 18:7-8 that God relents of the disaster that He thought to bring over a nation if that nation repents and turns from evil (compare also Jeremiah 26:3). Please also recall that God’s curse was pronounced in connection with God’s punishment for iniquity. If iniquity is repented of and forgiven, the punishment for sin may also be removed. (However, in many cases, punishment for sin, even if repented of, is not automatically removed, compare our free booklet, Punishment for Our Sins.)

In addition, several rabbinic sources teach that Coniah repented in Babylon and that God forgave him and lifted the curse. The following is taken from the Internet, pointing out:

“Sanhedrin 37b-38a states about Coniah: ‘Notwithstanding the curse that he should be childless and not prosper, after being exiled he was forgiven.’”

“Jewish tradition also maintains that the Messiah will be descended from Jeconiah—and such a tradition would be incompatible with a belief that Jeconiah’s lineage is under a perpetual curse. The Jewish Encyclopedia’s article ‘Jehoiachin,’ vol. 7, p.84 [states]: ‘Jehoiachin’s sad experiences changed his nature entirely, and as he repented of the sins which he had committed as king he was pardoned by God, who revoked the decree to the effect that none of his descendants should ever become king (Jer. xxii.30; Pesik., ed. Buber, xxv. 163a, b): he even became the ancestor of the Messiah (Tan., Toledot, 20 [ed. Buber, i. 140]).’’”

A slight deviation of this proposal reads as follows:

“The Encyclopedia Judaica maintains (under ‘Jehoiachin’ (9:1319)), that the curse was lifted under Zerubbabel: ‘Even the decree that none of his descendants would ascend the throne… was repealed when Zerubbabel was appointed leader of the returned exiles’ (cf. Sanh. 37b-38a).”

Even though no further explanation is given for this conclusion, we might think of God’s declaration in Ezekiel 18:1-4, 19-20, stating that the son shall not bear the guilt of the father (compare also 2 Kings 14:6). In addition, there are examples when righteous people intervened on behalf of sinners, so that God, at times, relented from carrying out a curse, or He modified or reversed a curse.

Due to Abraham’s repeated pleas, God would not have destroyed Sodom if ten righteous persons would have been found there (Genesis 18:20-32); due to Moses’ plea, God relented from destroying Israel (Exodus 32:7-14); and God heard Daniel’s heart-felt prayer, acknowledging God’s curse on the nation and asking for forgiveness of his and his nation’s sins (Daniel 9:4-27). The same might be said about Zerubbabel: When he repented and asked God for forgiveness, God might have reversed the curse placed on Coniah and his descendants. We read in Galatians 3:13 that Christ redeems us from the curse of the law… that is, He removes the penalty [referring to the death penalty for breaking the law, Romans 6:23] when we repent.

Matthew lists Coniah in Christ’s genealogy, and Luke lists Coniah’s son and grandson, even though they clearly would have known about Coniah’s curse in the book of Jeremiah. It is obvious that they did not feel that God’s curse disqualified Jesus from inheriting and sitting on the throne of David. Writing under godly inspiration, they must have known that somehow, God’s curse which was pronounced against Coniah did not prevent Christ’s Messiahship. The most convincing conclusion seems to be that God did in fact reverse the curse, apparently due to Coniah’s repentance, and/or that He did not apply Coniah’s sin and the resulting curse to Coniah’s grandson Zerubbabel, due to Zerubbabel’s repentance and his plea for his grandfather Coniah.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link with material provided by Brian Gale

©2024 Church of the Eternal God