Jesus can't rule as king in Judah in a future "millennium" according to the bible.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Bookends

Bookends

Senior Member
Aug 28, 2012
4,225
99
48
Jesus can't rule as king in Judah in a future "millennium" according to the bible.

If you believe scripture, chew on this, Christ is a descendant of Coniah.

Jeremiah 22
28 “Is this man Coniah a despised, broken idol—
A vessel in which is no pleasure?
Why are they cast out, he and his descendants,
And cast into a land which they do not know?
29 O earth, earth, earth,
Hear the word of the Lord!
30 Thus says the Lord:
‘Write this man down as childless,
A man who shall not prosper in his days;
For none of his descendants shall prosper,
Sitting on the throne of David,
And ruling anymore in Judah.

and (the genealogy of Christ)

Matthew 1
12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel, and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel.
 
Re: Jesus can't rule as king in Judah in a future "millennium" according to the bible

That was Joseph's genealogy from Solomon. Mary's genealogy came through Nathan.
 
Re: Jesus can't rule as king in Judah in a future "millennium" according to the bible

HeRoseFromTheDead said:
That was Joseph's genealogy from Solomon. Mary's genealogy came through Nathan.
Click to expand...

important here is that Jesus is the son of God, not of Joseph - by virtue of the immaculate conception. his physical genealogy is not descended through Joseph, though the lineage of His birthright is.
so this curse on Jehoiachin doesn't apply to Christ.
 
Re: Jesus can't rule as king in Judah in a future "millennium" according to the bible

lol next we will hear that He is actually from Kenya ;)
 
Re: Jesus can't rule as king in Judah in a future "millennium" according to the bible

posthuman said:
important here is that Jesus is the son of God, not of Joseph - by virtue of the immaculate conception. his physical genealogy is not descended through Joseph, though the lineage of His birthright is.
so this curse on Jehoiachin doesn't apply to Christ.
Click to expand...
Very interesting point. Now the question arises, since I do believe in the immaculate conception (in case your wondering), why is Joseph's genealogy mentioned by Matthew if it isn't meant to show the lineage between David to Christ as a rightful heir to the throne of David.
 
Re: Jesus can't rule as king in Judah in a future "millennium" according to the bible

Bookends said:
Very interesting point. Now the question arises, since I do believe in the immaculate conception (in case your wondering), why is Joseph's genealogy mentioned by Matthew if it isn't meant to show the lineage between David to Christ as a rightful heir to the throne of David.
Click to expand...

Very good question. I don't know. The only possible explanation I can give is that in some way it follows the pattern that appears throughout scripture in which the 'firstborn' is rejected, and the rights and blessings of the firstborn are given to the one that GOD chooses (eg, Esau/Jacob, Reuben/Joseph, Saul/David, etc.).
 
Re: Jesus can't rule as king in Judah in a future "millennium" according to the bible

posthuman said:
important here is that Jesus is the son of God, not of Joseph - by virtue of the immaculate conception. his physical genealogy is not descended through Joseph, though the lineage of His birthright is.
so this curse on Jehoiachin doesn't apply to Christ.
Click to expand...
I guess Matthew is wrong then, it's not the genealogy of Jesus Christ. Matthew 1:1
 
Re: Jesus can't rule as king in Judah in a future "millennium" according to the bible

Bookends said:
I guess Matthew is wrong then, it's not the genealogy of Jesus Christ. Matthew 1:1
Click to expand...

Well obviously not via the flesh, so it must be in an adoptive sense. The inheritance is passed onto Christ without the curse associated with natural descent.
 
Re: Jesus can't rule as king in Judah in a future "millennium" according to the bible

HeRoseFromTheDead said:
Very good question. I don't know. The only possible explanation I can give is that in some way it follows the pattern that appears throughout scripture in which the 'firstborn' is rejected, and the rights and blessings of the firstborn are given to the one that GOD chooses (eg, Esau/Jacob, Reuben/Joseph, Saul/David, etc.).
Click to expand...
Another point that nobody considers is this, we assume the egg of Mary was actually Mary's. Mary could have just been the incubator of an implanted fetus by God without any physical gene of Mary. After all, God made Adam the same way.

The purpose of the genealogies so that there would be no question who the Messiah actually is, not demonstrate His humanity. This is my only answer to Joseph's genealogy recorded in Matthew, otherwise in my limited understanding, the mention of Joseph's side would be in vain. If I'm wrong, I'm open to correction, as should any truth seeking Christian should be. So does the bible specifically state Jesus' humanity comes directly from Mary's gene pool?
 
Re: Jesus can't rule as king in Judah in a future "millennium" according to the bible

Bookends said:
Another point that nobody considers is this, we assume the egg of Mary was actually Mary's. Mary could have just been the incubator of an implanted fetus by God without any physical gene of Mary. After all, God made Adam the same way.

The purpose of the genealogies so that there would be no question who the Messiah actually is, not demonstrate His humanity. This is my only answer to Joseph's genealogy recorded in Matthew, otherwise in my limited understanding, the mention of Joseph's side would be in vain. If I'm wrong, I'm open to correction, as should any truth seeking Christian should be. So does the bible specifically state Jesus' humanity comes directly from Mary's gene pool?
Click to expand...

No, but I would think it would have to because GOD promised David that his seed would rule forever. If Mary was just a surrogate, I don't see how that could be fulfilled.
 
Re: Jesus can't rule as king in Judah in a future "millennium" according to the bible

HeRoseFromTheDead said:
Well obviously not via the flesh, so it must be in an adoptive sense. The inheritance is passed onto Christ without the curse associated with natural descent.
Click to expand...
As in my premise of the whole thread, I would suggest that curse is not imposed on Christ because His throne isn't earthly, in Judah, but in heaven that encompasses both the terrestrial and celestial..
 
Re: Jesus can't rule as king in Judah in a future "millennium" according to the bible

HeRoseFromTheDead said:
No, but I would think it would have to because GOD promised David that his seed would rule forever. If Mary was just a surrogate, I don't see how that could be fulfilled.
Click to expand...
Well, God did promise that the seed of the woman would crush Satan's head, I'm probably going off tract here to support my premise.

This point I must proclaim that my premise could be at fault. The question still remains and probably can not be answered, does the curse of Coniah only refer to him in a pure physical sense or lineage to the throne sense. After all, when woman and man are joined together, they become as if one flesh.
 
Re: Jesus can't rule as king in Judah in a future "millennium" according to the bible

Bookends said:
Well, God did promise that the seed of the woman would crush Satan's head, I'm probably going off tract here to support my premise.

This point I must proclaim that my premise could be at fault. The question still remains and probably can not be answered, does the curse of Coniah only refer to him in a pure physical sense or lineage to the throne sense. After all, when woman and man are joined together, they become as if one flesh.
Click to expand...

I would think the curse would only pertain to Jeconiah's physical seed, which Christ wasn't. However, the inheritance of the throne probably did pass through Joseph. So Christ rightfully inherited the throne of David through being Joseph's adopted son (similar to Ephraim and Manasseh being adopted by Jacob), but he inherited David's uncursed seed from Mary.
 
Re: Jesus can't rule as king in Judah in a future "millennium" according to the bible

Coniah is not in the genealogy in Matthew 1,and he was the one that was cursed,like Ham was cursed,but his brothers were not cursed,so if Coniah is cursed it does not mean his brothers are cursed,and Coniah is not in the genealogy.

Coniah and his seed were cursed,not his father,and his brothers and their seed.Someone else went to the throne who was not cursed.

If Coniah and his seed were cursed,and Coniah and his seed did not go to the throne,and no one from Coniah or his seed is in the genealogy,then nothing is wrong.
 
Re: Jesus can't rule as king in Judah in a future "millennium" according to the bible

However, there is another reason my Jesus can not rule physically on earth, actually 2 reasons.

1. Jesus can not our high priest on earth for the priesthood on earth is through the Levites. According to Zechariah 6:13 Christ will hold both offices of priest and king at the same time.

2. According to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 states when Christ comes back He will hand over the kingdom to God the Father and give up all rule and authority to God. Therefore, Christ can not rule when He comes back, for 1st Corinthians 15 plainly rejects that notion.
 
Re: Jesus can't rule as king in Judah in a future "millennium" according to the bible

mpaper345 said:
Coniah is not in the genealogy in Matthew 1,and he was the one that was cursed,like Ham was cursed,but his brothers were not cursed,so if Coniah is cursed it does not mean his brothers are cursed,and Coniah is not in the genealogy.

Coniah and his seed were cursed,not his father,and his brothers and their seed.Someone else went to the throne who was not cursed.

If Coniah and his seed were cursed,and Coniah and his seed did not go to the throne,and no one from Coniah or his seed is in the genealogy,then nothing is wrong.
Click to expand...
Coniah is a shortened form of Jehoachin, which is also has the form of Joiachin, Jeconiah, Jechoniah. I'd advise you to research that yourself.

Matthew gives a legal line down from Solomon, while Luke gives a biological line down from Nathan to Christ (as it was pointed out above). Whether or not this curse apply's only one line is in question. It would be my assumption that it could apply to both lines. For if a son is legally an heir to a throne, it doesn't necessary mean he can't inherit it because he is not biologically connected.
 
Re: Jesus can't rule as king in Judah in a future "millennium" according to the bible

Bookends said:
Very interesting point. Now the question arises, since I do believe in the immaculate conception (in case your wondering), why is Joseph's genealogy mentioned by Matthew if it isn't meant to show the lineage between David to Christ as a rightful heir to the throne of David.
Click to expand...

it does show Christ's right to inherit the throne of David, by a lineage traced through Joseph.
what i understand is that when Joseph wed Mary, he took on the standing of Jesus' earthly father, in a way even stronger than adoption - and adoption would have sufficed to merit inheritance. so He gained a lineage tracing back to David, but because He was not of Joseph's seed, He did not fall under the curse on Jehoiachin's "offspring."

though the virgin birth is without precedent, lineage and inheritance by adoption isn't. Moses was part of Pharoah's household because he was adopted by Pharoah's daughter, not because of his birth --

The child grew, and she brought him to Pharaoh's daughter and he became her son.
And she named him Moses, and said, "Because I drew him out of the water."
(Exodus 2:10)

​
this was recorded just as if Pharoah's daughter actually bore him, according to genealogy:

And the sons of Ezra were, Jether, and Mered, and Epher, and Jalon: and she bare Miriam, and Shammai, and Ishbah the father of Eshtemoa.
And his wife Jehudijah bare Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Socho, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah. And these are the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, which Mered took.
(1 Chronicles 4:17-18)​

according to the Talmud, this Bithia is the same daughter of Pharoah who took and raised Moses; Jehudijah is Jochebed, and Jered is Moses. so here in the genealogy, the one who adopted him is spoken of no differently than as if he was actually born by her.


R. Simon b. Pazzi once introduced an exposition of the Book of Chronicles as follows: 'All thy words are one, and we know how to find their inner meaning'. [It is written], And his wife the Jewess bore Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Socho, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah, and these are the sons of Bithya the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took. Why was she [the daughter of Pharaoh] called a Jewess? Because she repudiated idolatry, as it is written, And the daughter of Pharaoh went down to bathe in the river, and R. Johanan, [commenting on this,] said that she went down to cleanse herself from the idols of her father's house. 'Bore': But she only brought him [Moses] up? - This tells us that if anyone brings up an orphan boy or girl in his house, the Scripture accounts it as if he had begotten him. 'Jered': this is Moses. Why was he called Jered? Because manna came down [yarad] for Israel in his days.
(Talmud Mas. Megilah 13a)


And his wife Ha-Jehudiah bore Yered the father of Gedor [and Heber the father of Soco, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah] and these are the sons of Bithia the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took. Now, 'Mered' was Caleb; and why was he called Mered? . - Because he opposed the counsel of the other spies. But was he [Moses] indeed born of Bithia and not rather of Jochebed? - But Jochebed bore and Bithia reared him; therefore he was called after her.
(Talmud Mas. Sanhedrin 19b)
 
Re: Jesus can't rule as king in Judah in a future "millennium" according to the bible

Bookends said:
However, there is another reason my Jesus can not rule physically on earth, actually 2 reasons.

1. Jesus can not our high priest on earth for the priesthood on earth is through the Levites. According to Zechariah 6:13 Christ will hold both offices of priest and king at the same time.
Click to expand...

there has been a change in priesthood -- see Hebrews chapter 7.

we are not under the Levite priesthood -- it is done away with. this is an error of the Mormons, who try to simultaneously hold Levitical and what they call 'Melchizadek' priesthoods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back