Critics argue there is a contradiction because 2 Kings 24:6 says Jehoiakim's son reigned, while Jeremiah 36:30 says he shall have none to sit on the throne of David. His son reigned a total of only three months.

This brief period is better described as briefly occupying or "bouncing" on the throne, rather than being securely seated upon it.

Skeptics ask: Who was Jehoiakim's successor? 2 Kings 24:6 says his son reigned, whereas Jeremiah 36:30 says he shall have none to sit on the throne of David.

His son reigned a total of only three months! As apologist Glenn Miller notes: "I might consider this a 'bouncing' on the throne, but certainly not 'sitting on it'!" The prophetic language in Jeremiah is emphasizing the lack of any lasting, established, or legitimate reign for Jehoiakim's descendants.

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.

---