Article Index

Page 4 of 15

»God's promise could not be undone«
The Bible makes it clear to us how important it was to God to keep his word and His promises related to blessing. To illustrate this, let us remember that God made a promise to Abraham concerning his offspring through his son Isaac, who was born by the promise (Genesis 17:19; Galatians 4: 23,28). When Isaac was to convey this promise to his firstborn son Esau, he blessed another son, Jacob, who introduced himself to Esau as his father. When he learned that he had passed on the blessing to Jacob, he could not undo his word, so the promised offspring should come aby Jacob (Genesis 27: 1-40). Because it is only with God who knows in advance all that can go wrong, and yet is so sure of what he says, that there is no need to undo his word. So he said:
"So it is with my word that comes out of my mouth: it does not come back to me empty, until it has done what I wanted and fulfilled, for which I sent it." (Isaiah 55:11)
When in the 8th B.C. the Syrian and Israelite kings planned to overthrow Ahaz from the throne of Judah and destroy the royal lineage of David in order to make Jerusalem a ruler who was not a descendant of God. God did this to preserve the covenant of the Kingdom made with David and to preserve the lineage through which the promised Messiah was to come (Isaiah 7: 1-14).
When, after that, Ahaz's son, king Hezekiah fell sick to death, there was a threat to the royal line to be broken, because he did not have a son. When he prayed and asked God for healing, God heard him and healed him (Isaiah 38: 1-5). In this regard, the Watchtower writes:
"Why did God intervene then? ... In Hezekiah's case, God's intervention had a special purpose - to preserve the lineage from which the Messiah was to come." (Watchtower, October 1, 2003, p.4)
So, God said to Hezekiah,
“I will add to your age fifteen years… for my own sake and for my servant David's sake.” (2 Kings 20: 6)
God kept him alive for his own sake, which he kept to his word and the promise given to David. Three years later, a son of Manasseh (Manasseh) was born to him, who inherited it, thus prolonging the royal lineage of David (2 Kings 20:21; 21: 1). Namely, had Ezekiel died without a son, the king could only have become his brother or uncle (his father's brother) who were from the lineage of Solomon. But he obviously had no brother or uncle. In the event of the death of a king who had no son, could the royal family preserve David's royal lineage by adopting the son of a woman whose father was descended from another of David's sons? Not because it would be as if Abraham's lineage according to Isaac, who was born according to the promise, was cut off and transferred to one of the descendants of Abraham's son Ishmael, who was not born according to the promise, which would invalidate God's promise (word).
Before the first heir to the throne of David was born, God promised to David:
"Behold, your son shall be born; ... his name shall be Solomon .... He will be my Son (Son of God), and I will be his Father. I will establish his royal throne forever over Israel.” (1 Chronicles 22:9,10)
We see that Solomon was predetermined and born according to his promise just like Isaac. His lineage was kept by God for the promise made to David. He even emphasized:
"I will establish his royal throne forever"
The term 'his' meant a descendant from the family of Solomon who carried David's 'seed' through him. Only in this way could this descendant be called 'the son of David' as heir to the throne of David via the branch of Solomon. As we know, some kings have departed from God and inflicted evil on the entire community of God’s people. But God kept saying over and over that he would keep his covenant with David, and that he would punish those who, by their evil deeds, worked against that covenant (1 Kings 9: 4-7). That's what happened. However, some believe that Jesus could not have been born through Joseph because God cursed the royal lineage that originated from Solomon by cursing King Jehoiakim and his descendants. We read about it:
Therefore this is what the Lord says about Jehoiakim king of Judah: He will have no one to sit on the throne of David; (…) I will punish him and his children and his attendants for their wickedness; I will bring on them and those living in Jerusalem and the people of Judah every disaster I pronounced against them, because they have not listened.”(Jeremiah 36: 30, 31)
"Thus saith the LORD, Write ye unto this man (Jeconiah), 'No children. His life is not fortunate. None of his seed shall sit on the throne of David nor rule over Judah.'" (Jeremiah 22:30)
This is not about cursing and breaking the royal lineage. As we can see, this is about Jehoiakim and his first descendant, son named Jeconiah (Konia), who should have succeeded him, and the sons of Jeconiah, who ended up in slavery with their father. Only they needed to experience the curse. How can we know that?
God called to account only those who had sinned, not those who had not yet been born. To see it so is that the curse should have been felt on their skin by the servants of the royal court. With this fall, they and their offspring lost their service until further notice, but not the possibility that their children would serve in the restored kingdom in the future. This linking of the king's sons and servants indicates that this curse was confined to those who were to be exiled to Babylon, namely to Jeconiah and his first-born sons, not to future generations of their sons. Therefore, a curse was introduced into that curse that was only applicable to them, and she proclaimed that she would die in a foreign land and would not return to her own land, which she would long for (Jeremiah 22: 26,27).
According to the ordinance of God, the effects of the curse could be felt by the offspring 'up to the third and fourth generation', so that curse could not undo the grace of God, which was first shown to David, which was to last 'a thousand generations' (forever) no matter what it was conditional on obedience to God's commandments (see Exodus 34: 7; Deuteronomy 7: 9; 1 Chronicles 28: 7). Eg. God in the 6th century BC rejected the tribe of Judah from which the Messiah was to come, but in the end the Messiah did come from the tribe of Judah, meaning that after a certain time God accepted that tribe by the next generation of descendants (see Jeremiah 7:15). This is in accordance with God's promise, which is intertwined with his mercy (Jeremiah 31:37; 33: 25,26).
Therefore, although God indicated that none of the descendants of King Jeconiah would succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling over Judea, this should not have prevented God from appointing in the future one of a new generation of descendants to rule all of Israel, not just Judea. By preventing his sons from taking control of Judea, God further disrupted the anointing tradition that passed from the father to the sons. Breaking that tradition did not have to end the family line of the heirs from which the chosen Anointed One (Messiah - King) was to come. It means that God did not curse the offspring of David, who was to stand forever, but only the biological sons of one of the descendants of David.
In the Bible we learn that Jehoiachin (Jeconiah, the son of Jehoiakim) ascended the throne, but was overthrown after three months, which means that he failed to sustain himself. Mathaniah (Zedekiah), his uncle and his father's brother, Jehoiakim, were appointed to the throne by the emperor of Babylon, thus fulfilling the word of God. Jeconiah had sons who were born in exile and failed to sit on the throne. The curse lasted as long as the tribulations continued during the exile to Babylon. Subsequently, in that lineage from which Jeconiah came, male descendants such as Joseph continued to be named after David, not Jeconiah. Jeconiah was just the link that was thrown out, but the chain still held. Thus, through King Jehoiakim, God interrupted the royal ministry, not the royal lineage. The royal lineage throughout the tribulation was preserved for the sake of covenant with David and for the promised Messiah-King. (see the APPENDIX at the end of the article, which is written for those who wish to be additionally “persuaded”)
After leaving Babylon, Zorobabel was to receive a crown along the royal line of his family, but God gave it to Josiah the priest of the tribe of Levi, who had to leave that crown in the temple. This meant that from then on, no one from the lineage of Solomon could be placed on the throne of David until the one who, according to God’s promise, would rule over all Israel and not just Judea. God’s chosen one had to wait. Therefore, Jesus, only as the biological son of Joseph, could prove that he, through his father Joseph, was the legal heir to the 'crown' God had chosen beforehand and testified before the people.
The apostle Paul confirms that God fulfilled his promise:
"From his (David's) seed God derived from his promise to Israel the Savior, Jesus." (Acts 13:23)
All that the Word of God contained in the Hebrew scriptures gives us a picture of Jesus as held by his disciples. They never said that Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph. Everybody believed, as Luke says, that Jesus was the son:
"as was thought (considered, regarded), of Joseph" (Luke 3:23)
With this quote some want to prove that at that time Jesus was not viewed as Joseph's biological son, because they claim that Luke writes that he was only "regarded (thought) to be Joseph's son." But is that so? There are more examples in the Bible of how the word "reckoning" was used. Eg. 2 Samuel 4: 2  states that the father of two of Saul's servants was "considered" Benjamin because he was descended from the tribe of Benjamin, which means that he was definitely from that tribe. In 1 Corinthians 4: 1, it says:
"Thus, should one regard us: as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.”
They were considered Christ's servants because they definitely were. The Bible says they are.
"Everyone held (considered) John really was a prophet." (Mark 11:32)
He was considered a prophet because for them he was a true prophet. So, concerning Jesus, Luke also stated that people regarded him (held) as the son of Joseph because that was a fact, as they regarded him as a prophet and Christ (the Messiah). If not then they should have considered him Joseph's 'adopted' son, as some children today are considered adopted and not biological children because of the very fact that they were adopted. The stepfather will call the adopted child a son, while other people will consider such a child his adopted son. This will always make them aware, especially if they talk or write about it to people who do not know the fact. Was it difficult for Luke, who wrote Theophilus, to use the term 'adopted' if Paul, whom he followed, often used the term “God's adopted children, when speaking of believers. Theophilus did not know the facts about Jesus, and if Jesus was an adopted son, Luke should have written something like that. But he did not write it because he also considered him the son of Joseph. This was also the first important fact by which Jesus could be accepted as the Messiah, so we read:
"Philip found Nathanael and told him," We have found the one whom Moses wrote in the law and the prophets, "Jesus the son of Joseph of Nazareth." (John 1:45)
Could God then break his own word, cut off the royal lineage from which Joseph (a descendant of Solomon who was born by promise) descended and pass it on to Nathan's lineage, which did not come from the promise, and yet claim that the Messiah came from that lineage by his mother ? This would be a problem that would cause much controversy among Jews. But an even greater problem would be that the conception was caused without the "seed of David" by the father, because in that case Jesus would not be the son of David who would be legally entitled to the throne. This was not thought of by those who wanted to use the concept of virgin conception for their wrong views that contradict the Bible.
When we enter into the very essence of the laws of God and the principles within which every Israelite could think and place things, then we get a completely different picture of the conception of Jesus than the one we had so far. So far, we have had Jesus who by his very existence did not fit into any legal and family framework of the lineage of David. This is because we did not look at the eyes of God and the eyes of the Jews of that time, but as presented to us by others who had separated from the Hebrew faith and covenants God had made with their fathers of faith. Let's ask ourselves:
Why would God make promises and record laws and principles that were to be strictly obeyed, in order for the Messiah to come by a 'seed' from a specific messianic lineage, only to bring into existence a Messiah who did not fit into these existing provisions, for the Messiah supposedly
  • came by the mother's blood and not by the father's seed
  • was adopted by a stepfather from David's house
This was not implied at all. So we will consider what would be the meaning of “every spoken word” recorded in the Bible….