Nativity narratives

[Pillar_of_truth]

Pillar_of_truth;2945504:

I’m going to assume that I’ve been doing a bad job of explaining my position.

What I am saying is that the census Luke is referring to in his Gospel is NOT the one that took place in 6 AD…it is the same one described by Matthew, and took place somewhere between 6 and 3 BC. If it WERE the one in 6 AD, that would indeed be a contradiction.

There is no contradiction because:
a) the Greek term in Luke 2 (“hegemon”) which is translated “governor” is, in the Greek, a more general term, equating more to our English “ruler”.
b) Justin Martyr said that Quirinius was procurator, NOT governor, at the time Luke’s census was undertaken.
QUOTE]

Please present your evidence that Justin Martyr said that Quirinius was NOT governor.

As I pointed out before the word “governor” didn’t exist when the Gospels were written. It the word came into common use, it was used in the translation.

I am bored with our discussion. My mandate is to try to help people see the truth of Jesus Christ and the Church. You seem to be here only to argue, and are closed minded. However, you seem to be always sure that your interpretation of Scripture is correct, so you would make a good Protestant.

For the benefit of those who are lurking, however, I will give one more help on this issue, excerpted from a site which goes into the matter in great detail:

…the early Christian apologist Tertullian, who lived in the late 2nd century and was by profession a lawyer and well acquainted with Roman governmental affairs, said that the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was conducted when Sentius Saturninus was governor of Syria. And Tertullian in his work An Answer to the Jews, stated that Jesus was born in a year that we now recognize as 3/2 B.C.E…

This indication of Justin may have significance to our question concerning Quirinius. The Cambridge Ancient History, vol, X, p. 216, has an interesting comment on the role of a Roman procurator. “Each province had its equestrian procurator who in the eyes of the provincials was almost as important as the governor himself.” 8 These procurators were appointed by the Emperor quite independently of the legatus (governor), and the relations between the two were frequently none too friendly. The fact that Justin said that Quirinius was a procurator while conducting the “census” gives much weight to the belief that a resident governor also ruled Syria at the same time. It looks like Luke was well aware of the fact that Quirinius was in Palestine conducting a registration of peoples when Saturninus was the actual governor of Syria. (I will soon discuss why biblical translators erroneously call Quirinius a governor.)

From this site:
askelm.com/star/star014.htm

While the actual term “governor” was not used then, the top person in charge is referred to in English as “governor” and there was also a procurator who was not quite as powerful.

 

[Little_Les]

Little Les;2950661:

I am bored with our discussion. My mandate is to try to help people see the truth of Jesus Christ and the Church. You seem to be here only to argue, and are closed minded. However, you seem to be always sure that your interpretation of Scripture is correct, so you would make a good Protestant.

For the benefit of those who are lurking, however, I will give one more help on this issue, excerpted from a site which goes into the matter in great detail:

…the early Christian apologist Tertullian, who lived in the late 2nd century and was by profession a lawyer and well acquainted with Roman governmental affairs, said that the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was conducted when Sentius Saturninus was governor of Syria. And Tertullian in his work An Answer to the Jews, stated that Jesus was born in a year that we now recognize as 3/2 B.C.E…

This indication of Justin may have significance to our question concerning Quirinius. The Cambridge Ancient History, vol, X, p. 216, has an interesting comment on the role of a Roman procurator. “Each province had its equestrian procurator who in the eyes of the provincials was almost as important as the governor himself.” 8 These procurators were appointed by the Emperor quite independently of the legatus (governor), and the relations between the two were frequently none too friendly. The fact that Justin said that Quirinius was a procurator while conducting the “census” gives much weight to the belief that a resident governor also ruled Syria at the same time. It looks like Luke was well aware of the fact that Quirinius was in Palestine conducting a registration of peoples when Saturninus was the actual governor of Syria. (I will soon discuss why biblical translators erroneously call Quirinius a governor.)

From this site:
askelm.com/star/star014.htm

While the actual term “governor” was not used then, the top person in charge is referred to in English as “governor” and there was also a procurator who was not quite as powerful.

And what exactly would you expect a Christian apologist who is trying to avoid the contradiction to say?

Wasn’t Tertullian the one who also claimed we had four gospels because there are four corners of the earth?

More then enough historians contemporary with the events clearly have identified Quirinius’s census of Judea as occurring in 6 A.D.

Judea hadn’t passed under direct Roman control until Herod’s son was deposed in 6 A.D.

Saturninus was governor of Syria during King Herod’s reign but never had authority over Judea. Look it up.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

And what exactly would you expect a Christian apologist who is trying to avoid the contradiction to say?

Yes, of course. Christians argue for a Christian perspective. Atheists argue for an atheist perspective. Zoroastrians argue for a Zoroastrian perspective. I’m not sure why you are so continually surprised by this. If you read the source materials, though, you’ll see that Tertullian was arguing with the Jews, and was asking them to check the Roman historical records (which then, were still in existence) to verify what he was saying.

Wasn’t Tertullian the one who also claimed we had four gospels because there are four corners of the earth?

Again, the logical error of attacking the messenger. Because he had a 2nd century view of science rather than a 21st century view, his historical references are suspect!??!

More then enough historians contemporary with the events clearly have identified Quirinius’s census of Judea as occurring in 6 A.D.

Yes, Quirinius did oversee a census of Judea in 6 AD. But that isn’t the one Luke, Justin, and Tertullian are referring to.

If you read the link i posted below, all of your questions would be explained in great detail, but I suspect you are not interested in learning, just in scoring easy victories, and leading people away from Jesus Christ.

You would do well to ponder Pascal’s Wager. If you are right, and I’m wrong, who cares? We’re all just fertilizer for some lucky plant anyway by the 22nd century. If, on the other hand, I’m right and you’re wrong…you have some very weighty reasons to reconsider.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

At one time Catholics had what was essentially a fundamentalist approach to the Bible. Prior to the twentieth century the Catholic Church was as skeptical and fearful of scientific study of the Bible as many other Bible-toting Christians, even though the Bible did not figure as prominently in daily Catholic life as it did for Protestants. Two passages from Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical on the Bible, *Providentissimus Deus *(1893), illustrate this point.

This is spot on It may be less obvious than the Fundamentalism of Evangelical Protestantism, but no less true ​

For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.

. . . It follows that those who maintain that error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration or make God the author of such error (§§338, 340).

Note that the language is not that different from a typical fundamentalist position. Despite the enlightened nature of this encyclical, some ideas expressed in it were still caught up in a pre-scientific viewpoint. **In **the nineteenth century the Church was not yet making the distinction in Scripture between lack of error in scientific and historical teaching and the lack of error in moral and religious truth.

In 1943, on the fiftieth anniversary of Leo XIII’s encyclical, the Catholic Church’s perspective on biblical interpretation changed dramatically. Pope Pius XII issued a groundbreaking encyclical (Divino Afflante Spiritu) on biblical studies that gave Catholic biblical scholars the green light to employ all scientific means possible to explore the Bible in order to expound its meaning. It affirms that the Bible contains no errors in faith and morals.

The Instruction of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, “*On the **Historical Truth of the Gospels” (1964) *explains why the literal meaning of the Gospels does not always represent “historical truth” as we might naively conceive of it.

Pius XII does also assert, explicitly, that the Bible is without error. Leo XIII condemned the distinction you mention, & none of his successors have unsaid that condemnation. In practice, it’s impossible to apply except on occasion. Another weakness is that the idea is too intellectualist, & not sufficiently incarnational - as well as being a static rather than a dynamic idea; which could also be said of much of the debate, on both sides. I think new models for discussing the Bible are needed, so that it can be be more adequately appreciated. At least the Teaching Church has ceased to be as defensive as it was - that is definitely a gain ​

If the Church is defensive, there is a danger that the Gospel becomes a partisan philosophy, instead of being the God-given, God-empowered proclamation that it is - it ceases to be Good News.

The Church has not taken a monolithic view of how one is to approach sacred Scripture for discerning God’s will. The Catholic position has progressed from what was essentially a pre-critical and ahistorical view of the Bible, consistent with fundamentalism, to a highly nuanced and historically-conscious view that stands in opposition to a fundamentalist approach.

 

[Little_Les]

Yes, of course. Christians argue for a Christian perspective. Atheists argue for an atheist perspective. Zoroastrians argue for a Zoroastrian perspective. I’m not sure why you are so continually surprised by this. If you read the source materials, though, you’ll see that Tertullian was arguing with the Jews, and was asking them to check the Roman historical records (which then, were still in existence) to verify what he was saying.

Again, the logical error of attacking the messenger. Because he had a 2nd century view of science rather than a 21st century view, his historical references are suspect!??!

Yes, Quirinius did oversee a census of Judea in 6 AD. But that isn’t the one Luke, Justin, and Tertullian are referring to.

If you read the link i posted below, all of your questions would be explained in great detail, but I suspect you are not interested in learning, just in scoring easy victories, and leading people away from Jesus Christ.

You would do well to ponder Pascal’s Wager. If you are right, and I’m wrong, who cares? We’re all just fertilizer for some lucky plant anyway by the 22nd century. If, on the other hand, I’m right and you’re wrong…you have some very weighty reasons to reconsider.

Sorry, Pillar of Truth. One shouldn’t let one’s belief system alter the facts of history.

Census of Quirinius, Wikipedia

First Jewish-Roman War Thus, for Josephus, this census was a major turning point in Jewish history (although his analysis of the history of Zealotry has been challenged by some modern scholars). This census mentioned by Josephus can be dated by his statements that Archelaus was exiled ten years after his reign began and that Quirinius conducted a census after this, in the thirty-seventh year since the Battle of Actium — hence, A.D. 6 / 7
(Antiquities 18.26 )

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I find it amusing that Little Les, while disagreeing with it, at least knows what the Catholic position is, and knows that infallible statements cannot be later contradicted without destroying the edifice of the Catholic Faith. Others, meanwhile are too busy giving away the Catholic Faith to defend the little they have left…

Believe it or not, the Church has had answers to these supposed “contradictions” since the very beginning.

Which is fine - as long as the contradictions are resolved appropriately.​

To clarify:

If a solution to a contradiction does not fit the type of contradiction, the solution won’t quite work. A proof from archaeology to show that there is no contradiction between saying the White House was damaged by a fire-breathing dragon, &, saying it was damaged by British bombardment, is fine as logic - but it doesn’t work, because fire-breathing dragons do not exist outside the imagination.

The solution may dispose of the contradiction - that does not make it an appropriate solution. It may get rid of the discomfort resulting from perceiving a contradiction - that does not show the solution is the right one. It works for the person bothered by the perception of contradiction - but it does not work as an appropriate account of the history of the White House.

So the Church may have answers to contradictions - that does not mean they are the right ones. There is little point in showing that the a world-wide flood is possible & plausible, if Genesis is not talking about a world-wide flood. Contradiction is a mental construction - if there two Flood-accounts in Genesis, & if they were not meant to be conceived of as a single, totally consistent & contradiction-free account, then the presence of contradictions shouldn’t be a problem: to solve them becomes needless.

Solutions to Biblical difficulties have to take into account the character of the difficulty - if the difficulty arises from treating a traditional answer, or any other for that matter, as valid when it might not be, then an answer that suits the character of the text better needs to be found.

Contradictions become problems only if we require the composers of the text to have both

• our own understanding of the text - &
• our understanding of the history of its formation
  If the narratives of the Flood - or of the Nativity - don’t have the characteristics attributed to them by later traditions of interpretation, then why must we attribute to them accuracy of a kind their composers did not claim for them ?

Besides, contradiction is a relation of things to each other. Matthew by himself does not contradict Luke, not Luke by himself contradict Matthew; they contradict one another only if they are brought into connection with each other. A Christian familiar only with one of them would have seen no contradiction - yet if one of them is wrong, a Christian reading the one with the wrongness might think the wrongness was right. He would have been wrong too - but that would not hinder his thinking that the wrongness was right, & he could therefore (wrongly) suppose that the gospel he knew was wrongness-free.

Total inerrancy can be asserted - that does not mean it cannot be based on error even so. It has to account for all difficulties of all types, not just those of the perceived meanings of the texts. ISTM that that to insist on inerrancy warps the Bible into being an error-free body of written signs, at the cost of draining away the Christ-centred significance that gives it life & power. A train time-table may be totally inerrant - that doesn’t make it a gospel. TI has no specifically Christian significance - the Nativity narratives do: so why need they be TI ?

 

[Pete_Holter]

Good evening Les,

Getting back to the Nativity Narratives, we find much contradiction in these supposedly divinely inspired writings.

1.Observe that Matthew is absolutely explicit that he is listing “the total number of generations” (Matt 1:7) and that he is giving the genealogy of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Do you think he told the truth?

“All the generations” does not necessarily mean “all the generations that historically existed”, but “all the generations as presented in this genealogy.” The superiority of this latter interpretation is supported by your next point where you note that Matthew’s genealogy omits certain people as recorded in 1 Chronicles 3:10-12. Also, Matthew’s first genealogical condensation omits a lot of people: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David…” (Matt. 1:1).

1. Matthew omits three kings of Israe (Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah)l so he is not giving the “total number” And his three sets of 14 would be 42 persons. Matthew lists only 41 names.

The apparent discrepancy in number seems to be caused by the way in which Matthew summarizes the genealogies with David acting as the repeated hinge between the first and second group of names and the deportation acting as the repeated hinge between the second and third groupings with the effect being this: Matthew includes David in both the first and second groups of names and in both of the summarized counts of the first and second groups. Jechoniah, although listed in both the second and third groups of names, is only included in the summarized count of the third group. Reasons for this interpretation pertaining to Jechoniah are (1) Matthew chose the deportation as the event that gets counted twice in his summary and not Jechoniah, (2) if Jechoniah was numbered only among the names in the second group, there would be fifteen generations there and only thirteen in the third group, and (3) if Jechoniah was numbered among both groups, as David is, there would be a total of 43 generations in the way that the genealogy is summarized.

This is why there are only 41 names: David is counted twice in the way that Matthew constructs his summary. I think this fits Matthew’s presentation well and favorably avoids both the highly improbable scenario that Matthew can’t count and the impossibility of there being even a single error in the Word of God.

I hope that this proposed solution does not appear unreasonable.

3 Matthew includes Jeconaih in his geneaology. But In punishment for Jeconiah’s sin, God ordained that none of Jeconiah’s seed would reign over Israel.

Could you please give me the Scriptural reference for this?

You’ve made the claim later in this thread that you do not believe that Jesus is “of the seed of David”. It follows that one of these “contradictions” cannot be a problem for you… unless something has changed for you since either of these posts… and I pray that, by the power of God’s Spirit, something has changed, and that you have been humbled by the touch of God’s grace.

May the LORD be with you!!!

“But hasty and careless readers are led astray by many and manifold obscurities and ambiguities, substituting one meaning for another; and in some places they cannot hit upon even a fair interpretation. Some of the expressions are so obscure as to shroud the meaning in the thickest darkness. And I do not doubt that all this was divinely arranged for the purpose of subduing pride by toil, and of preventing a feeling of satiety in the intellect, which generally holds in small esteem what is discovered without difficulty” (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Bk. 2, Ch. 6).

 

[Little_Les]

Good evening Les,

“All the generations” does not necessarily mean “all the generations that historically existed”, but “all the generations as presented in this genealogy.”
).

Matthew 1 "Thus the total number of generations from Abraham to David is fourteen generations; from David to the Babylonian exile, fourteen generations; from the Babylonian exile to the Messiah, fourteen generations.

How do you define “total number…is” then if it means other than all?

 

[Little_Les]

Good evening Les,

The apparent discrepancy in number seems to be caused by the way in which Matthew summarizes the genealogies …

Yes. Ho omits some so that his “fourteen generations” story seems credible.

 

[Little_Les]

Good evening Les,

Could you please give me the Scriptural reference for this?

Jeremiah 36:30-31
"The LORD now says of Jehoiakim, king of Judah: No descendant of his shall succeed to David’s throne; his corpse shall be cast out, exposed to the heat of day, to the cold of night.

I will punish him and his descendants and his ministers for their wickedness; against them and the citizens of Jerusalem and the men of Judah I will fulfill all the threats of evil which went unheeded. "

 

[agangbern]

God’s promise was very specific that the genealogy of Jesus would be through King Solomon’s offspring. Not Nathan’s. He was never a king of Israel.

1 Chron 22:9-10:
" However, a son is to be born to you. He will be a peaceful man, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. For Solomon shall be his name, and in his time I will bestow peace and tranquillity on Israel.

It is he who shall build a house in my honor; he shall be a son to me, and I will be a father to him, and I will establish the throne of his kingship over Israel forever." (NAB)

And, as I have pointed out, in Hebrew embroyology, geneaology was exclusively male, never female.

“2 Sam 7: 12-13:
“And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your heir after you, SPRUNG FROM YOUR LOINS , and I will make his kingdom firm. It is he who shall build a house for my name. And I will make his royal throne firm forever.” (NAB)”

Romans 1:3:
“Concerning his Son, who was made to him OF THE SEED OF DAVID, according to the flesh…” (DR)

Key concepts: “Solomon” “seed” “from your loins” “royal throne forever.”

Not Nathan or Mary.

The word “Solomon” in 1 Chron 22:9-10 does not categorically refer to King Solomon. In the Douay version it reads thus: “The son, that shall be born to thee, shall be a most quiet man, for I will make him rest from all his enemies round about, and therefore he shall be called Peaceful; and I will give peace and quietness to Israel all his days.”

It is clear, the word “solomon” as used in 1 Chron 22:9-10 does not mean “King Solomon”, but it simply means “Peaceful”. It still refers to Jesus Christ. Only Christ has a “royal throne forever”. Nathan is a seed of David. He is from his loins too. The genealogy narrated by Luke went up to Nathan who is David’s son. Therefore the child that was born after Nathan’s generation is still in the line of David. Therefore, Jesus Christ is still the fulfillment of the prophecy.

 

[Little_Les]

The word “Solomon” in 1 Chron 22:9-10 does not categorically refer to King Solomon. In the Douay version it reads thus: “The son, that shall be born to thee, shall be a most quiet man, for I will make him rest from all his enemies round about, and therefore he shall be called Peaceful; and I will give peace and quietness to Israel all his days.”

It is clear, the word “solomon” as used in 1 Chron 22:9-10 does not mean “King Solomon”, but it simply means “Peaceful”. It still refers to Jesus Christ. Only Christ has a “royal throne forever”. Nathan is a seed of David. He is from his loins too. The genealogy narrated by Luke went up to Nathan who is David’s son. Therefore the child that was born after Nathan’s generation is still in the line of David. Therefore, Jesus Christ is still the fulfillment of the prophecy.

Sorry.

Nathan was never king, Solomon was. please note from your Douay Rheims 1 Chron 29:1

“And king David said to all the assembly: Solomon my son, whom alone God hath chosen, is as yet young and tender: and the work is great, for a house is prepared not for man, but for God.” (DR)

1 Chron 22:9-10:
" However, a son is to be born to you. He will be a peaceful man, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. For Solomon shall be his name, and in his time I will bestow peace and tranquillity on Israel.

It is he who shall build a house in my honor; he shall be a son to me, and I will be a father to him, and I will establish the throne of his kingship over Israel forever." (NAB)

NOTE: “Whom alone God hath chosen”

 

[agangbern]

Sorry.

Nathan was never king, Solomon was. please note from your Douay Rheims 1 Chron 29:1

“And king David said to all the assembly: Solomon my son, whom alone God hath chosen, is as yet young and tender: and the work is great, for a house is prepared not for man, but for God.” (DR)

1 Chron 22:9-10:
" However, a son is to be born to you. He will be a peaceful man, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. For Solomon shall be his name, and in his time I will bestow peace and tranquillity on Israel.

It is he who shall build a house in my honor; he shall be a son to me, and I will be a father to him, and I will establish the throne of his kingship over Israel forever." (NAB)

NOTE: “Whom alone God hath chosen”

King Solomon, with the physical house that he built, was simply a prefigure of the one who was coming, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. The prophesied “house”, the Church, was built by Jesus Christ. Therefore, He is the fulfillment of the prophecy.The question of whether Nathan was king or not is no longer of value because David, Nathan’s father, was himself King.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

Which is fine - as long as the contradictions are resolved appropriately.​

To clarify:

If a solution to a contradiction does not fit the type of contradiction, the solution won’t quite work. A proof from archaeology to show that there is no contradiction between saying the White House was damaged by a fire-breathing dragon, &, saying it was damaged by British bombardment, is fine as logic - but it doesn’t work, because fire-breathing dragons do not exist outside the imagination.

I don’t follow you here…it would seem that there would be a contradiction, unless the British used a fire-breathing dragon as part of their arsenal.

The solution may dispose of the contradiction - that does not make it an appropriate solution. It may get rid of the discomfort resulting from perceiving a contradiction - that does not show the solution is the right one. It works for the person bothered by the perception of contradiction - but it does not work as an appropriate account of the history of the White House.

OK, I think I see what you are getting at. Yes, we have to try to find the CORRECT solution, of course. When dealing with these ancient historical matters, however, one may or may not be able to find the answer with CERTAINTY. One may have to be satisfied with showing very probable solutions to the geneology or census problems, for example. It wouldn’t be right to throw out any old solution that resolves the discrepancy, but OTOH Little Les is asserting that he can PROVE that the Bible contains errors, and that is an exceedingly difficult bar to reach.

So the Church may have answers to contradictions - that does not mean they are the right ones. There is little point in showing that the a world-wide flood is possible & plausible, if Genesis is not talking about a world-wide flood. Contradiction is a mental construction - if there two Flood-accounts in Genesis, & if they were not meant to be conceived of as a single, totally consistent & contradiction-free account, then the presence of contradictions shouldn’t be a problem: to solve them becomes needless.

Certainly. That is why we have to seek diligently to find out what the literary genre of the writing is. And, again, we may not be able to determine this with CERTAINTY.

Total inerrancy can be asserted - that does not mean it cannot be based on error even so. It has to account for all difficulties of all types, not just those of the perceived meanings of the texts. ISTM that that to insist on inerrancy warps the Bible into being an error-free body of written signs, at the cost of draining away the Christ-centred significance that gives it life & power. A train time-table may be totally inerrant - that doesn’t make it a gospel. TI has no specifically Christian significance - the Nativity narratives do: so why need they be TI ?

Because God is held by the Church to be the primary author of Scripture, and God cannot be the author of error? I don’t see why the Scripture being inerrant drains it of any power it might have otherwise had.

 

[Pillar_of_truth]

Sorry, Pillar of Truth. One shouldn’t let one’s belief system alter the facts of history.

Census of Quirinius, Wikipedia

First Jewish-Roman War Thus, for Josephus, this census was a major turning point in Jewish history (although his analysis of the history of Zealotry has been challenged by some modern scholars). This census mentioned by Josephus can be dated by his statements that Archelaus was exiled ten years after his reign began and that Quirinius conducted a census after this, in the thirty-seventh year since the Battle of Actium — hence, A.D. 6 / 7
(Antiquities 18.26 )

I’ve already said three or four times that I am NOT disputing the fact that there was a census that Quirinius conducted in 6 AD. However, this was not the census that Luke was referring to. There was another, earlier census that Quirinius was involved with around 3 BC. This is the one that Matthew, Luke, Justin, and Tertullian are referring to.

 

[Little_Les]

I’ve already said three or four times that I am NOT disputing the fact that there was a census that Quirinius conducted in 6 AD. However, this was not the census that Luke was referring to. There was another, earlier census that Quirinius was involved with around 3 BC. This is the one that Matthew, Luke, Justin, and Tertullian are referring to.

The census that Luke is referring to was made when Quirinus was ruler of Judea and Syria. That was in 6 A.D.

Luke 2.2 "This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria.’

If you have evidence of an earlier census of Judea conducted while Quirinius was the Roman ruler of Judea and Syria, please present it.

 

[timmo]

Originally Posted by Little Les
3 Matthew includes Jeconaih in his geneaology. But In punishment for Jeconiah’s sin, God ordained that none of Jeconiah’s seed would reign over Israel.

You use the word “seed” to mean “seed in perpetuity”, as you quote the following to support your claim.

Jeremiah 36:30-31
"The LORD now says of Jehoiakim, king of Judah: No descendant of his shall succeed to David’s throne; his corpse shall be cast out, exposed to the heat of day, to the cold of night.

I will punish him and his descendants and his ministers for their wickedness; against them and the citizens of Jerusalem and the men of Judah I will fulfill all the threats of evil which went unheeded. "

In the above quote you seem to interpret “descendant” to mean “descendant in perpetuity”.

Other translations of Jeremiah 36:30-31 use “sons”, “children”, “offspring”, “seed” etc

Jeremiah 36:30-31 is a prophesy of a punishment of certain people at a certain time.

Who is being punished is very clear :

Douay-Rheims Jer 36:31 And I will punish him, and his seed and his servants, for their iniquities, and I will bring upon them, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and upon the men of Juda all the evil that I have pronounced against them, but they have not heard.

(his “seed” here cannot refer to “descendants in perpetuity” as it refers to the those at this time being punished for their iniquities at this time).
It certainly cannot refer to Jesus, as He was without iniquity.

The nature of their crime is very clear :
“Because they have deserted their covenant with the LORD, their God, by worshiping and serving strange gods.”
Jesus, Who is God, did not desert the covenant.

**The nature of the punishment is very clear **:

Jer 20:9 3 For thus says the LORD: Indeed, I will deliver you to terror, you and all your friends. Your own eyes shall see them fall by the sword of their enemies. All Judah I will deliver to the king of Babylon, who shall take them captive to Babylon or slay them with the sword

.

Jer 22:30
11 Thus says the LORD: Write this man down as one childless, who will never thrive in his lifetime! No descendant of his shall achieve a seat on the throne of David as ruler again over Judah

footnote.
11 [30] Childless: Jehoiachin is so considered because none of his descendants will be king. From the Book of Ezekiel, who dates his oracles according to Jehoiachin’s fictitious regnal years, it is evident that the people expected Jehoiachin to return. The above prophecy of Jeremiah was uttered to dispel this hope (Jeremiah 28:4). Of the seven sons born to Jehoiachin in exile, none became king. His grandson Zerubbabel presided for a time over the Jewish community after the return from exile, but not as king.
This shows that the punishment was visited on those **of that time **who were in breach of the covenant.
The “descendants” here are obviously immediate descendants – not Jesus.

Other translations also indicate the correct interpretation:

NET ©
The LORD says, “Enroll this man in the register as though he were childless. 1 Enroll him as a man who will not enjoy success during his lifetime. For none of **his sons **will succeed in occupying the throne of David or ever succeed in ruling over Judah.”
NIV ©
biblegateway Jer 22:30
This is what the LORD says: “Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule any more in Judah.”
NASB ©
biblegateway Jer 22:30
“Thus says the LORD, ‘Write this man down childless, A man who will not prosper in his days; For no man of his descendants will prosper Sitting on the throne of David Or ruling again in Judah.’”
NLT ©
biblegateway Jer 22:30
This is what the LORD says: Let the record show that this man Jehoiachin was childless, for none of his children will ever sit on the throne of David to rule in Judah. His life will amount to nothing."
BBE ©
SABDAweb Jer 22:30
The Lord has said, Let this man be recorded as having no children, a man who will not do well in all his life: for no man of his seed will do well, seated on the seat of the kingdom of David and ruling again in Judah.
NRSV ©
bibleoremusJer 22:30
Thus says the LORD: Record this man as childless, a man who shall not succeed in his days; for none of **his offspring **shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David, and ruling again in Judah.

For Christians, like you and I les, Jesus is God. John 1:1.
He’s hardly likely to punish Himself

tim

 

[Little_Les]

"Thus says the LORD: Record this man as childless, a man who shall not succeed in his days; for none of **his offspring **shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David, and ruling again in Judah.

tim

Yep. That’s the key passage. “None of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David.”

And Matthew lists him in Jesus’ genealogy. What does that tell you?

 

[agangbern]

The census that Luke is referring to was made when Quirinus was ruler of Judea and Syria. That was in 6 A.D.

Isn’t it that 6 A.D. refers to a time after the death of the Lord? How could Luke, writing about Christ’s birth, relate such birth to a census to be done in 6 A.D. yet? I am confused…

 

[timmo]

Hi Les

Yep. That’s the key passage. “None of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David.”

And Matthew lists him in Jesus’ genealogy. What does that tell you?

It tells me that you are a GIGO person

tim