Genesis 49:10 and the Sneaky Hasmoneans

[TheAristocat]

Genesis 49:10 The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he to whom it belongs shall come and the obedience of the nations shall be his.

But in the 2nd century BCE a dynasty of kings known as the Hasmoneans ruled, and they were from the tribe of Levi. At this time Jesus had not yet come. Does anyone else have a problem with this?

 

[Tintin]

This is interesting, but could you elaborate?

 

[TheAristocat]

This is interesting, but could you elaborate?

Well, it seems to me that Genesis 49:10 is putting forward the idea that a king from the tribe of Judah will always be present until the coming of the Messiah (i.e. Jesus in the Judeo-Christian sense). But if the kingship of Judah ended with the Hasmoneans 150-odd years before Jesus' birth, then this doesn't stand as a beacon of light in terms of messianic prophecy.

 

[Tintin]

Thanks. I have no idea. I've heard of the Hasmoneans, but I really don't know anything about its relevance to messianic prophecy. I'll let someone more qualified and knowledgeable answer your question.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

But in the 2nd century BCE a dynasty of kings known as the Hasmoneans ruled, and they were from the tribe of Levi. At this time Jesus had not yet come. Does anyone else have a problem with this?

The Hasmoneans were puppets to Rome. You could think of them more like as to governors than actual kings. The term historians use is Ethnarch, meaning they were essentially allowed to deal with the affairs of their ethnic race, but were still pretty much vassals of Rome. Before that, during the Maccabean revolt you could also reckon that they were either loosely controlled still by the Seleucids, in a state of revolution, or after the revolt still had no king as the most important position was High Priest.

Thus the prophecy indeed still stands, or stood rather, until it was totally fulfilled by Jesus. Consider this; Jesus is both first and last king of the jews.

 

[TheAristocat]

The Hasmoneans were puppets to Rome. You could think of them more like as to governors than actual kings. The term historians use is Ethnarch, meaning they were essentially allowed to deal with the affairs of their ethnic race, but were still pretty much vassals of Rome. Before that, during the Maccabean revolt you could also reckon that they were either loosely controlled still by the Seleucids, in a state of revolution, or after the revolt still had no king as the most important position was High Priest.

Thus the prophecy indeed still stands, or stood rather, until it was totally fulfilled by Jesus. Consider this; Jesus is both first and last king of the jews.

I am aware that initially those in the Hasmonean dynasty were hesitant to refer to themselves as kings, but it didn't take much time before one member of the family came along and declared himself to be a king. The Pharisees opposed this decision of course. Perhaps you could even say that God did. But without evidence of a scepter or a ruler's staff belonging to Judah during this time, it could indeed be said to have departed from Judah, correct? If so, then this may preclude Jesus as Messiah.

 

[sveinen]

"none of us can read, none of us grasp christ."
cling to the cross!
"His Problem." really ;p
bdw "He Might Have Governed A While," Then Totally Come In Flesh And In Blood

 

[sveinen]

"also, When Eternal Totally Eternally Made All Things New..."

 

[sveinen]

they say there was some laying as a footstool
till baptist john, who knows

 

[sveinen]

His Kingdom not of this world, geography not much.
we dare not have a problem with scripture.

 

[TheAristocat]

"none of us can read, none of us grasp christ."
cling to the cross!
"His Problem." really ;p
bdw "He Might Have Governed A While," Then Totally Come In Flesh And In Blood

I don't think this is an unsolvable problem, but it is a problem. And an answer such as "he might have sneakily come in and reigned in the period between the Hasmoneans and 1 CE" is un-biblical unless one can support it from the Bible. So I'm afraid the problem remains.

 

[sveinen]

i'm paid to care..
better you fear Christ.
He Told To look at the cross.
if there was a problem, better you check He Solved, you go love..
i might not blame you for your walk here, if you rather debate yourself b.c... doors Put.
bible Clearly states He Able, well Well Beyond

 

[TheAristocat]

The only solution I've found so far is the following:

Ezekiel 21:25-27 "'You profane and wicked prince of Israel, whose day has come, whose time of punishment has reached its climax, this is what the Sovereign Lord says: Take off the turban, remove the crown. It will not be as it was: The lowly will be exalted and the exalted will be brought low. A ruin! A ruin! I will make it a ruin! The crown will not be restored until he to whom it rightfully belongs shall come; to him I will give it.'

In this verse I believe the "prince of Israel" is actually the King of Judah Zedekiah. Not only does the immediate context seem to support that conclusion, but the last portion of the passage is practically taken directly from Genesis 49:10, which dealt with Judah. So according to this passage, starting with the Babylonian exile, there was not to be another King from Judah until Jesus' coming. But if this passage is to be understood as messianic, particularly as it relates to the Messiah Jesus, then this appears to be an abrogation of the aforementioned Genesis 49:10 passage.

 

[sveinen]

He Might Have Let His OneLoveHimself, AmOneIsOne Love Shine Clearly
..Through?

 

[GodIsSalvation]

I am aware that initially those in the Hasmonean dynasty were hesitant to refer to themselves as kings, but it didn't take much time before one member of the family came along and declared himself to be a king. The Pharisees opposed this decision of course. Perhaps you could even say that God did. But without evidence of a scepter or a ruler's staff belonging to Judah during this time, it could indeed be said to have departed from Judah, correct? If so, then this may preclude Jesus as Messiah.

No not at all. For one since the Herodians were not true kings, but were vassals to the Roman Empire, this means the sceptre did not depart from Judah. This also proves Jesus as Messiah all the more both of the flesh and the spirit as the geneologies in the Gospels take Mary and Joseph's lines back to the royal house of Judah. Also spiritually indeed, consider the cross and what was written thereon.

 

[TheAristocat]

No not at all. For one since the Herodians were not true kings, but were vassals to the Roman Empire, this means the sceptre did not depart from Judah. This also proves Jesus as Messiah all the more both of the flesh and the spirit as the geneologies in the Gospels take Mary and Joseph's lines back to the royal house of Judah. Also spiritually indeed, consider the cross and what was written thereon.

The Herodians and the Hasmoneans are different dynasties. Toward the end of the Hasmonean dynasty it was subsumed into the Herodian dynasty. One of the Herods ended up killing off the last of its biological heirs. But before there was the Herodian dynasty there were the Hasmoneans. Members of this dynasty declared themselves kings. This was 100 years before Jesus, and in all this time of recorded history there was not a peep out of Judah that I have found. What was Judah doing at this time? Where was its scepter? Where was its ruler's staff?

Granted, the words scepter and ruler's staff are different in Hebrew and they may not have had such a connotation at the time the blessing in Genesis 49:10 occurred. So maybe the blessing had nothing to do with kingship but more so with 1. a law-giver being present in Judah and 2. a leader being present in Judah (the meaning of both words can support this interpretation). I'm just not finding any mention of a significant leader in Judah during the Hasmonean dynasty. What I'm seeing is a leader in the Hasmonean dynasty (Levites) and a law-giver. In fact, the Sanhedrin were first established during the Hasmonean dynasty. I have no idea as to who was the Nasi (Prince) of the Sanhedrin during this time. I think there was at least one Hasmonean who functioned in that role.

Again, it's not looking good for Judah. But maybe that's where the prophecy in Ezekiel comes in. What you say in regard to the Herodians, though, is very true. It's debatable whether or not they even had Jewish blood from any tribe to begin with. If they had, though, I'm sure they could have functioned in the role of kings as much as Zedekiah's replacement when Babylon established a puppet king from Judah to oversee the territory of Judah.

 

[TheAristocat]

I just now found this when researching the Ezekiel passage: http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/documents/articles/125/125.pdf?x=x

“The profane and wicked prince of Israel was King Zedekiah. . . . This prophecy recalls Genesis 49:10, whichspeaks of ‘the scepter’ in the line of Judah. The line of David would not be restored till the righteous, GodappointedKing would come. There were no valid claims till Christ rode into Jerusalem to claim His rightful rule(cf. Zech. 9:9; Matt. 21:1-11; Rev. 19:11-16; 20:4). Christ will fulfill Ezekiel’s prophecy; He will be the King ofIsrael.” — Charles H. Dyer, Ezekiel in John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, eds., The Bible KnowledgeCommentary (Wheaton, IL: SP Publications, 1983), Eze. 21:24. “ It is true the tribal ‘scepter’ continued withJudah ‘till Shiloh came’ (Gen. 49:10); but there was no kingly scepter till Messiah came, as the spiritual King then(John 18:36, 37);

Apparently they've come to the same conclusion (even if they call the "crown" in Ezekiel a "kingly scepter"), and they don't appear to have a problem with the conclusion they've reached. So the article appears promising, but I'll have to examine it later.

 

[sveinen]

No not at all. For one since the Herodians were not true kings, but were vassals to the Roman Empire, this means the sceptre did not depart from Judah. This also proves Jesus as Messiah all the more both of the flesh and the spirit as the geneologies in the Gospels take Mary and Joseph's lines back to the royal house of Judah. Also spiritually indeed, consider the cross and what was written thereon.

"considering the cross"
".. better go consider a galaxy"
"written thereon.." Christ Somewhat Bigger Than Titles.. not that i want to go consider whether there was shame to that one :/