From a reader:
Gentlemen —
Over at COGWriter, we are told:
Let’s look at some additional prophecies related to the throne of David:
45 …King Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the Lord forever. (1 Kings 2:45)
2 …Hear the word of the Lord, O king of Judah, you who sit on the throne of David, you and your servants and your people who enter these gates! (Jeremiah 22:2)
17 “For thus says the Lord: ‘David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; 18 nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually.'” (Jeremiah 33:17-18)
The above passages make clear that the throne of David was to last. Since scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35), then someone has to be on that throne now. Let me also state that there have been Levites ever since Jeremiah 33:17-18–the fact that they do not do their original biblical role for offerings does NOT change the fact that they still exist, which is all that scripture requires for them.
I think Bob just stepped in a pile of Red Heifer Droppings.
His point about the Levites is sensible: the fact that they do not do “their original biblical role for offerings does NOT change the fact that they still exist, which is all that scripture requires for them.”
So surely that same logic enables us to say with complete confidence that there doesn’t need to be a man (or woman) currently sitting "on the throne of the house of Israel”— there just needs to be someone somewhere who COULD be sitting on that throne — not doing their original biblical role for throne-sitting does not change the fact that he(or she) still exists, which is all that scripture requires for them.
So even if the the English-speaking Nations are Israelish (which I’m not necessarily saying) nothing requires a continuity of kings (or queens) to have been sitting on David’s Throne all these many centuries, just that somewhere there is a descendant of David who COULD be sitting on that Throne. That person does not even need to know that he (or she) is that person.
Bob just threw the Throne out the window.
10 comments:
Bob Thiel has diarrhea of the mouth. He never stops to deeply think before he spews his nonsense.
https://www.cbcg.org/booklets/america-britain/appendix-3-jesus-divine-right-to-the-davidic-throne.html
Jechoniah—who had at least one son (I Chron. 3:17; Matt. 1:12)—was under a God-ordained curse stating that none of his seed would have a right to sit on David’s throne: “Thus says the LORD, ‘Write this man [Jechoniah] down as [if he were] childless, a man who will not be blessed in his days. For no man of his seed shall be blessed, sitting on the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah” (Jer. 22:30).
Jechoniah’s grandson, Zerubbabel, was among the Jews who returned to Palestine to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple. Zerubbabel served as governor of Judah, but not king, and is listed in the family lineage of Joseph, Mary’s husband (Matt. 1:11-12, 16).
It seems that Matthew is drawing our attention to the fact that Joseph is of the cursed line of Jechoniah—as if to emphasize that no son of Joseph could have the right to the throne of David. If Jesus had actually been a son of Joseph, He would have been disqualified from sitting on David’s throne. Matthew deliberately gives us the Jechoniah-Joseph connection, then proceeds to emphasize that Jesus’ real father is God Himself. All of this serves to verify the foundational truth of Jesus’ begettal by God through the Holy Spirit.
Still, a direct blood-line connection to David is required. Indeed, as we have seen, the Scriptures promise that the Messiah will sit on David’s throne as a son of David (Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Isa. 11:1) We find this direct link to David in Luke’s genealogical account.
according to Hebrew custom, is that the name of a woman was not to be mentioned in a genealogical table (although Matthew repeatedly ignores this custom). Rather, the name of the woman’s husband was to be used.
In the KJV, Luke 3:23 reads: “Jesus … being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.” This makes it read as if Jesus was the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli. However, Matthew has already informed us that Joseph’s father was Jacob (Matt. 1:16). The problem in this rendering is with the parentheses, which are not part of the original Greek.
If we reposition the final parenthesis, the text could read: “Jesus … being (as was supposed, the son of Joseph) the son of Heli.” Using this configuration, Jesus is called the son of Heli because Heli was his maternal grandfather (Mary’s father), his nearest male relative.
Another valid explanation is that Joseph’s name (representing Mary) was inserted as if he were the son of Heli—who was, in fact, his father-inlaw.
As such, the text could read: “Jesus … being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli.” The absence of Mary’s name is in keeping with Jewish practices on genealogies, and it was not unusual for a son-in-law to be listed in his wife’s genealogy.
Thus, Mary’s genealogy in Luke connects Jesus directly to David through Nathan (verse 31), a rather obscure son of David (II Sam. 5:14). It is irrelevant that Jesus is not descended from the royal dynasty of Solomon. Because of sin, the dynasty established through Solomon could not be perpetual. Indeed, the perpetuity of David’s throne does not depend on Solomon or his lineage. Jesus’ blood-line right to the throne comes through Nathan. Solomon’s royal line—which even today continues to occupy the throne of David—will end when Jesus assumes that throne.
The matter, however, is settled in the final biblical requirement for qualifying for David’s throne: divine appointment. Recall that the throne of David originated with God. Thus, it is His to give to whom He chooses. In announcing the news of Jesus’ birth to Mary, God revealed Jesus’ divine right to David’s throne: “He [Jesus] shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give Him the throne of David, His forefather; and He shall reign over the house of Jacob into the ages, and of His kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1:32-33).
Well, I have a different take. Psalms 89:34-44 appears to conflict but the prophecy of David's throne as existing and enduring, after a time as described in the passage, is for the future, when Christ Himself is on the throne. HWA massacred Eze 21:27 by teaching "overturn" means "transfer". It doesn't; means throw down or ruin. The proof is the phrase in the same verse: "....and it shall be no more, [or NOT,] until...." As to Levites I'll wager there are descendants of Levi living today.
Romans 7:11-28
Levites are no longer in possession of the priesthood AND ARE UNIMPORTANT.
11 Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?
12 For when the priesthood is CHANGED, of necessity there takes place a CHANGE OF LAW also.
13 For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.
15 And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but ACCORDING TO THE POWER OF AN INDESTRUCTIBLE LIFE
17 For it is attested of Him, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.”
18 For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.
20 And inasmuch as it was not without an oath 21 (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,
“The Lord has sworn And will not change His mind,‘You are a priest forever’”); 22 so much the more also Jesus has become the GUARANTEE of a BETTER COVENANT.
23 The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, 24 but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently.
25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did ONCE for all when He offered up Himself.
28 For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came AFTER THE LAW, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.
Bob who?
Haha. What a tool, our tiniest prophlet of all! His feet definitely wouldn't reach the floor if Bob were perched on top of a throne, so he doesn't have to worry about the steaming pile below!
Behold the days come - Part 1
Unfortunately this is a good example of the dangers of proof-texting. Here Jer 33:17-18 is taken out of its context and misapplied.
Jeremiah 30-33 is often referred to as the Book of Consolation/Comfort - for the dark days ahead.
God’s promises to Israel is to be fulfilled in the Millennium/Messianic Age - that is, after the completion of the second half of Christ’s prophetic week.
Jer 30:3 For, lo [hinneh], the days come, saith the LORD, that I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith the LORD: and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it.
Jer 31:27 Behold [hinneh], the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.
Jer 31:31 Behold [hinneh], the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 33:14 Behold [hinneh], the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.
"The formula "days are coming" is a messianic formula; Jeremiah uses it to direct special attention to what is stated. The phrase is used fifteen times in the book. In contrast to the troublous times of Jeremiah's day, there will be a time of blessing ahead" (Charles L. Feinberg, Jeremiah, EBC, Vol.6, p.518).
In the Messianic Age the pillars of the theocracy of Israel will be restored:
Jer 33:17a FOR THUS SAITH THE LORD; (AV):
Jer 33:17 ... There will not be cut off [karat] for David an individual sitting on the throne of the household of Israel
Jer 33:18a And for the priests, the Levites, there will not be cut off [karat] an individual before me making whole offering rise... (John Goldingay).
"Jer 33:14-18 contain the promise of the restoration of the monarchy and the priesthood. Jer 33:19-26 further present two special messages FROM GOD, in the form of supplements, which guarantee the eternal continuance of these institutions" (C.F. Keil, Jeremiah, KD, Vol.8, p.301-02).
In those days there will be a succession of Davidic kings sitting on the throne of David; and in those days the Levitical priests will offer sacrifices continually.
[As an aside:
[Heb 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are [onton, present tense] priests that offer [prosphero] gifts according to the law:
[“The present tense of the participle [prosphero] is frequentative; i.e., it expresses that which occurs repeatedly...” (William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8, WBC, p.200)].
Jer 52:31 And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, in the five and twentieth day of the month, that Evil-merodach king of Babylon in the first year of his reign lifted up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah, and brought him forth out of prison,
Jer 52:32 And spake kindly unto him, and set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon,
No one has sat on the throne of David, or better the throne of the Lord (1 Chr 29:23), since Zedekiah, who was really a regent, as the legitimate king was in prison in Babylon.
The notice of the release of Jehoiachin at the end of Jeremiah is also consoling/comforting for there was yet hope for the Davidic/Solomonic line.
Part 2
"As Branch, the Messiah is presented in the OT in four different aspects of his character (King, Servant, Man and God). These aspects are developed in the NT in the four Gospels: (1) in Matthew as the Branch of David, i.e., as the Davidic messianic King (Isa 11:1; Jer 23:5; 33:15); in Mark as the Lord's Servant, the Branch (Isa 42:1; 49:6; 50:10; 52:13; Ezek 34:23-24; Zech 3:8); in Luke as the Man whose name is the Branch (Zech 6:12; and (4) in John as the Branch of the Lord (Isa 4:2)" (Kenneth L. Barker, Zechariah, EBC, Vol.7, p.626).
Would Matthew, by developing Christ as the “Davidic messianic King,” use a disqualified genealogy that would undermine his presentation?
"... one of the most significant features of Matthew's record is the emphasis on Jesus' kingly lineage. David is not simply the son of Jesse (as is stated in Luke's genealogy, Luke 3:31-32) but is "King David" (Matt. 1:6), an explicit emphasis on royalty in the genealogy of Jesus. From here Matthew maintains an emphasis on kingship, using the word "king" twenty-two times, more than any other book in the New Testament. Throughout his Gospel, Matthew maintains a focus on Jesus as "the King of the Jews" " (Michael J. Wilkins, Matthew, NIVAC, p.60).
1Ch 3:19 And the sons of Pedaiah were, Zerubbabel, and Shimei: and the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith their SISTER:
"Some have argued that Luke gives Mary's genealogy but substitute Joseph's name (Luke 3:23) to avoid mentioning a woman... Few would guess simply by reading Luke that he is giving Mary's genealogy. The theory stems not from the text of Luke, but from the need to harmonize the two genealogies. On the face of it, both Matthew and Luke aim to give Joseph's genealogy" (D. A. Carson, Matthew, EBC, Vol.8, p.64).
Ehud Ben Zvi, History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles:
“OBSERVATIONS ON WOMEN IN THE GENEALOGIES OF 1 CHRONICLES 1–9
"Although these chapters contain numerous references to males, they also contain references to more than 50 different women, named or unnamed. These references construe women as fulfilling a variety of roles in society, and characterize and identify them in various ways. Although the text was (most likely) written by male literati for male literati and reflects a patriarchal point of view, it contains references that indicated to the ancient readers of the book that ideologically construed gender expectations may and have been transgressed in the past and with good results. The goal of this article is to advance preliminary, basic observations about some of these references to women in the genealogical lists, within the historical context of the society for which the book of Chronicles was composed. It is our hope that by doing so, this paper will lead to future, more detailed studies on these topics.
For the purpose of the present endeavor, it seems heuristically helpful to classify the roles assigned to women in 1 Chronicles 1–9 into two categories: (a) those in which they are involved in lineage roles often associated with female members of an ancient household and (b) those representing roles that were commonly assigned to mature males in the society in general, or in their household. It should be stressed already that the borders between (a) and (b) are represented as porous in Chronicles.
I happened to read the same bout of verbal diarrhea and had same thought. If you can excuse the Levites, why not David's descendants?
Dunning Kruger syndrome
You gotta consider what is dirtiest, and therefore, what would pollute what. The real contamination would happen if red heifer droppings stepped into a pile of Bob Thiel!
Post a Comment