Problem: The Chronicler declares that Nebuchadnezzar “came up against him Jehoiakim], and bound him in bronze fetters to carry him off to Babylon.” But elsewhere “Jehoiakim rested with his fathers” ([2 Kings 24:6) and was “buried with the burial of a donkey, dragged and cast out beyond the gates of Jerusalem” (Jer. 22:19; cf. 36:30).

Solution: Apparently, Jehoiakim was bound and fettered with the intention “to carry him off to Babylon” (2 Chron. 36:6), but he was slain instead, and his body ignominiously treated “and cast out beyond the gates of Jerusalem” (Jer. 22:19). The phrase “rested with his fathers” (2 Kings 24:6) refers to death, not necessarily to a burial in the same place. Of all the kings of Judah, Jehoiakim is the only one whose official burial is not mentioned.

Problem: The statement in 2 Kings 24:6 indicates that Jehoiakim died a peaceful death at home. However, 2 Chronicles 36:6 describes Jehoiakim’s capture and deportation to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, which indicates that Jehoiakim died a terrible death in a foreign land. Which is correct?

Solution: The fact is that neither passage actually identifies where Jehoiakim died. The deportation described in 2 Kings 24:10–16 is not the same event as that described in 2 Chronicles 36:5–8. There is a difference in the severity of the action of Nebuchadnezzar. Whereas 2 Chronicles 36:7 indicates that Nebuchadnezzar took only Jehoiakim and some of the articles of the temple, 2 Kings 24:13 points out that Nebuchadnezzar took all of the treasures of the house of the Lord, that he carried all of Jerusalem into captivity (v. 14), and that only the poorest were left in the land (v. 14). The two accounts clearly report two different events. Consequently, it is quite possible that after the first captivity—when Jehoiakim was taken to Babylon, according to the report in 2 Chronicles 36—Jehoiakim was allowed to return to Jerusalem at a later time and died there. However, it is also possible that Jehoiakim died in captivity. The Scriptures are simply silent on this point.

Jeremiah 36:30—How can this verse say that Jehoiakim shall have no one to sit on the throne when his son reigned after him?

Problem: Because Jehoiakim burned the book of the prophecy of Jeremiah, God told Jeremiah to prophesy again to Jehoiakim that he “shall have no one to sit on the throne of David” (Jer. 36:30). However, according to 2 Kings 24:6, Jehoiachin the son of Jehoiakim “reigned in his place.” Is this contradictory?

Solution: This is not a contradiction. Although Jehoiachin did take over after the death of his father, he was in Jerusalem only three months before the city fell to the invading armies of Nebuchadnezzar. After reigning in Jerusalem for only three months, Jehoiachin was taken into captivity, and Zedekiah was placed on the throne in his stead. The Hebrew idea expressed in the phrase “sit on the throne” indicates a more permanent enthronement. God was telling Jehoiakim that his family name would not continue in the place of leadership, and that no dynasty in his name would continue. The extremely short reign of Jehoiachin, and his almost immediate removal and captivity, were a fulfillment of this prophetic statement.

---