dave_l — 2017-10-23T18:58:17-04:00 — #1
The problem; God placed a curse on Jeconiah.
“Is this man Coniah [called Jechonias in the LXX ] a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.” (Jeremiah 22:28–30)
Jesus was a descendant of Jeconiah through Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Matthew 1:12 or Luke 3:27). Some believe God removed the curse when Jeconiah’s grandson Zerubbabel led Judah. However Zerubbabel did not restore David’s throne. He was "governor of Judah" (Haggai 2:2).
So, if you believe Jesus will one day sit on David’s throne in Jerusalem, have you thought about Jeconiah’s curse? If so, how do you cope with Jeconiah’s curse?
I counter the problem believing Jesus now reigns on David’s Throne at God’s right hand in heavenly Jerusalem above. So the curse does not apply.
will_scholten — 2017-10-23T21:22:10-04:00 — #2
It does not answer your question, but Matt 1 is through Solomon son of David.(line of Mary)
Luke 3 is Nathan son of David (line of Joseph)
dave_l — 2017-10-24T04:18:53-04:00 — #3
Thanks for your input. I found this at GotQuestions.org
Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), through David’s son Nathan. Since there was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter. Through either Mary’s or Joseph’s line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23).
will_scholten — 2017-10-24T06:56:21-04:00 — #4
We cover this in another topic!
dave_l — 2017-10-24T07:13:34-04:00 — #5
Still the question remains about Jeconiah's curse and how it affects Jesus' eligibility to reign in physical Jerusalem.
justin_gatlin — 2017-10-24T10:51:03-04:00 — #6
If the curse said "for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David in Jerusalem," you might have a stronger case.
This is helpful:
"A strong argument for the Lucan genealogy being Mary’s relate"s to the curse placed on Jehoiachin (Jeconiah or Coniah) in Jeremiah 22:30. He was pronounced “childless,” which is explained in the verse as meaning no physical descendant of his would prosperously reign on the throne of David. (He apparently did have seven sons, though perhaps adopted, 1 Chron. 3:17–18.) Thus Jesus could not expect to be a ruling king (though He had the legal right) if He were a blood descendant of Joseph, who was a descendant of Coniah. Therefore the virgin birth was necessary to free Him from the line of the curse.7 However, this could also be accomplished if Jesus is linked to Joseph (not as His natural father, of course) through Nathan rather than Solomon (as Luke might be indicating).
It has also been suggested that the curse on Coniah was ended by God’s choosing and exalting Zerubbabel (Hag. 2:23 KJV). Making him “as a signet” elevated him to a place of authority, and choosing him transferred to Zerubbabel and his family among David’s descendants the messianic promise. Zerubbabel’s name does appear in both the Matthew and Luke genealogies.
In any case Luke carefully avoided the impression that Jesus might be the natural son of Joseph; yet he preserved His kingly claims by not linking Him solely to His mother (since the claim passed through the male members). Never in His lifetime did anyone dispute Jesus’ claim to the throne of David."
Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 280.
dave_l — 2017-10-24T12:23:45-04:00 — #7
I'm not building a case. I would like to know how those looking for a physical Millennium answer this. I was unaware of it as a Dispensationalist. But I think the throne of David in Judah is the focal point, with Jerusalem being the holy city or city of David. 2 Samuel 5:6–9; 1 Kings 2:10;
Not arguing, just sayin'
will_scholten — 2017-10-24T16:43:49-04:00 — #8
Yes, I agree with this, I was going to suggest that!