Genealogical Scams and Flimflams
(Part 2)
Ř
Addressing Missionary Claims Concerning Messianic
Lineage (Continued)
Ř
Summary
IV.
Addressing Missionary Claims Concerning
Messianic Lineage (Continued)
D.
Concerning Solomon and Rehoboam:
More Missionary Myths
1.
Has Solomon Been Disqualified as Messiah's Progenitor?
The missionaries contend that because Solomon was
expected to obey G-d's Law but failed
to do so, he was disqualified from being the forefather of the Jewish
Messiah. Is this Scriptural fact or
fiction?
After relating Solomon's grandeur and successful
accomplishments during his earlier years as King of Israel (I Kgs 1:38-10:25),
Scripture proceeds to relate his failures I Kgs 11:1-10). Starting with the account of his purchasing
many horses – a violation of the prohibition the Torah placed on kings of
Israel (Deut 17:16), it continues with the account of his marrying many women,
likewise a violation of the Biblical prohibition placed upon the kings (Deut
17:17). And these women were foreign
women, another prohibition found in the Torah (Deut 7:3).
Then comes G-d's anger with Solomon, and the
consequences:
I Kings 11:11-13 – (11)
And the L-rd said to Solomon, "For as this has been with you, and you have
not observed My covenant and My statutes which I have commanded you, I will
surely tear the kingdom from you, and shall give it to your servant. (12)
However, in your days I will not do this, for the sake of David your father;
from the hand of your son I shall tear it. (13) But I shall not tear the
entire kingdom away from you; one tribe I shall grant to your son for the sake
of David My servant, and for the sake of Jerusalem, [the city] which I have
chosen.
Now, this is a severe punishment, to be sure, but
there is no mention (neither here nor elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible) of any
forfeiting of the right to kingship or disqualification from being the
progenitor to the Messiah. Even the
righteous David sinned, although not on as grand a scale as did his son Solomon
and many of Solomon's successors, yet he was promised to be the ancestor of the
Messiah.
Y
Conclusion: This is a bogus issue. The iniquity of Solomon and of any of his
legitimate successors as kings of Judah does not automatically disqualify his
descendants from being the progenitor to the Messiah.
2. Was Rehoboam A Jew via
Father or Mother?
This issue has been raised by missionaries as a
challenge to the notion that, in Judaism, a person's Jewish identity is
determined either by having a Jewish mother or by formal ritual conversion to
Judaism. Putting aside, for now, the
option of formal ritual conversion, the missionaries charge that, if a person's
mother has to be Jewish to make that person Jewish, then Rehoboam was not Jewish,
since his mother was allegedly not Jewish:
I Kings 14:21 - And
Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah; forty-one years old was
Rehoboam when he became king, and seventeen years he reigned in Jerusalem, the
city that the L-rd has chosen to place His Name there out of all the tribes of
Israel; and his mother’s name was Naamah the Ammonitess.
And, allegedly according to Torah, Ammonites and
Moabites were not allowed to convert to Judaism:
Deuteronomy 23:4 - An
Ammonite (ammoni in Hebrew) and a Moabite (mo'avi in
Hebrew) shall not enter into the congregation of the L-rd; even their tenth
generation shall not enter into the congregation of the L-rd forever;
But the Torah requires a king of Israel to be
Jewish:
Deuteronomy 17:15 - You
shall surely set over yourself a king whom the L-rd, your G-d, shall choose;
from among your brethren shall you set king over yourself; you may not place
over yourself a foreign man, one who is not your brother.
And therefore, the missionary argument continues,
since G-d would not place a man who was not a Jew on the throne of David,
Rehoboam had to be Jewish, not by his mother, Naamah the Ammonitess, but by his
father, Solomon.
On the surface, this challenge may appear to be a
"slam-dunk" for the missionaries (and, hence, for Christian
theology). On the one hand, if their
claim that Jewish identity is passed by the father were to hold up, they would
have demonstrated that the requirement of having a Jewish mother is a later
addition to Jewish Law. On the other
hand, if that challenge is defeated, the missionaries may come back and then
claim that Rehoboam was not a Jew, since his mother was not allowed to convert
to Judaism, thus he would be disqualified from having the Jewish Messiah come
from his lineage. And since he was the
only son of Solomon listed in the Hebrew Bible, that would imply that Judaism
faces an insurmountable problem with the origin of its Messiah.
Let us go beyond the surface and take a closer look
at the missionary claim. The Torah says
the following concerning intermarriage with several nations the Israelites will
face upon entering the Promised Land:
Deuteronomy 7:3-4 – (3)
And you shall not intermarry with them; your daughter you shall not give to his
son, and his daughter you shall not take for your son. (4) For he will cause your son to turn
away from following Me, and they will serve other gods; then the wrath of
the L-rd will be kindled against you, and He will soon destroy you.
The (Hebrew) wording and the knowledge of Torah are
crucial in understanding what these two verses actually say. The Torah teaches two important concepts
here. On the one hand, with the
understanding that the 'he' in v. 4 refers to the Gentile father-in-law, we
interpret 'your son' as the son of the Israelite father, who is marrying
the daughter of the Gentile father, clearly the verse indicates that the
Israelite son will 'follow other gods', which means that children of this
marriage will be Gentiles, following the race and faith of the Gentile mother.
On the other hand, with the understanding that the
'he' in v. 4 refers to the Gentile the daughter of an Israelite marries, then,
as is not uncommon in the Hebrew Bible, 'son' is interpretted to mean
grandson (e.g., Zechariah the 'son' of Iddo [Ezra 5:1]; Zerubbabel the 'son' of
Shealtiel [Hag 1:1]). So that, by
calling the son of an Israelite (Jewish) mother and Gentile father the 'son' of
the Israelite (Jewish) grandfather in v. 4, it may be deduced that this child
was to be regarded as being of the same race and faith as the mother. In either case, and according to Jewish Law,
the child of a Jewish father and a Gentile mother follows the religious status
of the mother.
Are there examples from Scripture that support this
deduction? Indeed there are. Here is one such example:
Exodus 21:4 - If his
[the Israelite servant's] master has given him a wife, and she has born him
sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he [the
Israelite servant] shall go out by himself.
This refers to a Gentile bondmaid given as wife to a
Hebrew slave. The children remain
slaves when their father is freed, showing that they bear their mother's
status. According to Torah, an
Israelite master may not give an Israelite bondmaid as a wife to someone other
than his own son, or take her as a wife for himself (Exod 21:8-9).
In the next example, the son of a Jewish mother and
a Gentile father is subjected to the Jewish Law as stated in Torah.:
Leviticus 24:10-16 –
(10) And the son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian,
went out among the people of Israel; and this son of the Israelite woman and a
man of Israel fought in the camp; (11) And
the Israelite woman’s son blasphemed the Name of the L-rd, and cursed. And
they brought him to Moses; and his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of
Dibri, of the tribe of Dan; (12) And they put him in custody, that the will of
the L-rd might be shown to them. (13)
And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying, (14) "Bring forth him who has cursed
outside the camp; and let all who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and
let all the congregation stone him. (15) And you shall speak to the people
of Israel, saying, 'Whoever curses his G-d shall bear his sin. (16) And he
who blasphemes the Name of the L-rd, he shall surely be put to death, and all
the congregation shall certainly stone him; as well the stranger, as he who is
born in the land, when he blasphemes the name of the L-rd, shall be put to
death'."
While the above example applies to both Jews and
Gentiles, the following example, clearly demonstrates that the children of the
Jewish fathers and Gentile mothers were to be cast out along with their Gentile
mothers, to "… be done according to the Torah.":
Ezra 10:2-3 – (2) And
Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said to
Ezra, "We have trespassed against our G-d, and have taken foreign wives
from the peoples of the land; yet now there is hope in Israel concerning
this matter. (3) And now, let us make a covenant with our G-d to cast out
all such women,and those born of them, according to the counsel of the
L-rd, and of those who hasten [to perform] the commandment of our G-d; and
let it be done according to the Torah.
These examples demonstrate the fact that Jewish
identity is determined by the mother, not by the father. Moreover, recent research in genetics has
isolated a genetic marker that identifies female Jewish ancestry. This marker resides in the female's
mitochondrial DNA, which scientifically confirms the provisions of Jewish
Law. Namely, that this genetic marker
is passed exclusively from a Jewish mother to her daughters, thereby
making the female the one who determines Jewish identity.
Y
Conclusion: The Hebrew Bible proves the
missionary claim, that Jewish Law was changed by the Rabbis from the father
determining Jewish identity to the mother determining Jewish identity, is
bogus!
Now that it has been demonstrated that, according to
Torah, the mother determines the Jewish identity of the children, let us check
the other side of the missionary argument - Rehoboam was not a Jew, since his
mother was not allowed to convert to Judaism, thus he would be disqualified
from having the Jewish Messiah come from his lineage.
There are two very strong arguments to counter this
claim. First, of course, is the
above-stated Torah requirement that a king of Israel must be a Jew (Deut 17:15)
and, as we read in I Kgs 11:13, G-d approved Rehoboam to reign as king. Surely G-d would not break His own
rule. So it may safely be concluded
that Rehoboam was indeed a Jew. How he
acquired his Jewish identity is not spelled out in the Hebrew Bible, but there
are only two options available here – either his mother, Naamah converted to
Judaism before she bore him, or he himself converted to Judaism.
Second, recall the prohibition in Deut 23:4 about an
Ammonite and a Moabite not being allowed to convert to Judaism. In the Hebrew text, the terms ammoni
and mo'avi are used, which translate as Ammonite male and Moabite
male – the respective Hebrew terms for a female are ammonit
and mo'avit. Nehemiah
states the reason for this:
Nehemiah 13:1-2 – (1) On
that day they read from the Book of Moses in the hearing of the people; and was
found written in it that the Ammonite and the Moabite should never come into
the congregation of G-d; (2) Because
they did not meet the people of Israel with bread and with water, but hired
Balaam against them, that he should curse them; but our G-d turned the curse
into a blessing.
Now recall that Ruth was a Moabitess. According to the missionary claim, she could
not have converted to Judaism per Deut 23:4.
Given, as demonstrated, that the mother determines Jewish identity, how
could Ruth have become the ancestor of David, the greatest king of the Jewish
people? Clearly, she converted to
Judaism, and she indicates her intentions to Naomi, her mother-in-law, when she
says to her, “…For where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will
lodge; your people are my people, and your G-d is my G-d;…” (Ruth 1:16-17) The Sages of the Talmud (Tractate Ketubot,
7b) explain the reason why only Ammonite and Moabite males may not convert to
Judaism. It is because only the man was
expected to leave his house and bring food and drink to the traveler – a woman
was not expected to do that for obvious reasons. Accordingly, the interpretation of the law (Deut 23:4), which had
to be rendered by ten elders, is that the prohibition to enter into the
assembly of the L-rd, i.e., to be admitted into the community of Israel,
applied only to Ammonite and Moabite males, not to females.
Y
Conclusion: The missionary claim that
Rehoboam's mother, Naamah the Ammonitess, could not convert to Judaism per Deut
23:4 is bogus! Naamah the Ammonitess
was able to convert to Judaism just as Ruth the Moabitess, David's
great-grandmother, was able to do it several generations earlier.
E. The Curse on Jeconiah
What is the Curse on Jeconiah? King Jehoiachin of Judah (y'hoyachin
in Hebrew; he is also Jeconiah, y'chan'yah in Hebrew, and
also Coniah, conyahu in Hebrew) was an evil king (II Chro
36:9). In the Book of Jeremiah, we find
the following passage:
Jeremiah 22:24-30 – (24)
"As I live," says the L-rd, "even if Coniah the son of
Jehoiakim king of Judah were a signet (khotam in Hebrew)
upon My right hand, I would tear you off. (25) And I will give you to the hand of those who seek your life,
and to the hand of those whose face you fear, to the hand of Nebuchadrezzar
king of Babylon, and to the hand of the Chaldeans. (26) And I will cast you out, and your mother who bore you, to
another country, where you were not born; and there shall you die. (27) But to the land to which they desire to
return, there shall they not return.
(28) Is this man Coniah a despised broken vessel? An object that no one
cares for? Why are they cast out, he and his seed, and banished to a land which
they know not? (29) O earth, earth,
earth, hear the word of the L-rd."
(30) Thus says the L-rd: "Inscribe this man [Coniah] childless,
a man who will not prosper (lo-yitzlakh in Hebrew) in his
days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David,
and ruling any more in Judah."
This passage, which comes at the end of a chapter
containing a series of judgments upon several kings of Judah – Shallum (who is
believed by to be Jehoahaz), Jehoiakim, and Jeconiah – appears to end the royal
branch through Jeconiah.
Some Christian missionaries seize on this Curse
on Jeconiah and claim that it effectively ended David's royal line. Even though Zedekiah reigned for 11 years
following Jeconiah's removal, they still maintain their claim for two
reasons. First, since Zedekiah was
Jeconiah's uncle, the usual father-son chain of ascension to the Davidic throne
was broken. Second, they use the
following verse to support their contention that, not only all of Zedekiah's
sons were killed, but that the rest of the royal seed were slaughtered
as well:
Jeremiah 52:10(KJV) - And
the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes: he slew also all
the princes of Judah (kol sarei y'hudah in Hebrew) in
Riblah.
Since, according to this rendition (indeed, a
mistranslation by the KJV), the entire royal pool of heirs to David's throne
was wiped out, the missionaries conclude that the only way a Messiah could now
be brought forth is through a miraculous event, such as a virgin birth,
which, according to them, was G-d's plan from the outset.
Can this be true?
Was the natural Davidic line terminated with this act at Riblah?
There are different ways to arrive at the answer to
this question. Let us consider two such
approaches, both of which utilize the information found within the Hebrew
Bible.
1. Multiple Descriptions of the
Same Event
According to the KJV, a somewhat different account
from that given in its rendition of Jer 52:10 appears in the following passage:
Jeremiah 39:6(KJV) –
Then the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah in Riblah before his eyes:
also the king of Babylon slew all the nobles of Judah (kol
khorei y'hudah in Hebrew).
Since both passages describe the same event, and
since the two Hebrew phrases, kol sarei y'hudah and kol
khorei y'hudah, are synonymous, we must conclude that one of the KJV
renditions is a mistranslation. A third
passage in the Hebrew Bible, in which this event is documented, will help
determine which of the above two passages – Jer 52:10 or Jer 39:6 – is
correctly translated and which is mistranslated:
II Kings 25:7,18-21(KJV)
– (7) And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes
of Zedekiah, and bound him with fetters of brass, and carried him to Babylon.
(18) And the captain of the
guard took Seraiah the chief priest, and Zephaniah the second priest, and
the three keepers of the door: (19) And out of the city he took an
officer that was set over the men of war, and five men of them that were in the
king's presence, which were found in the city, and the principal scribe of the
host, which mustered the people of the land, and threescore men of the
people of the land that were found in the city: (20) And Nebuzaradan captain of
the guard took these, and brought them to the king of Babylon to Riblah: (21)
And the king of Babylon smote them, and slew them at Riblah in the land
of Hamath. So Judah was carried away out of their land.
Here, the author explicitly describes those who were
slain along with Zedekiah's sons.
Clearly, those were the nobles and not all the other princes of
Judah.
Y
Conclusion: The KJV rendition of Jer 52:10
is wrong, while the KJV rendition of Jer 39:6 is consistent with the Hebrew
text.
Consequently, some of the royal seed survived
the massacre at Riblah. Does the Hebrew
Bible confirm this? Let us see:
II Kings 25:22,25(KJV) –
(22) And as for the people that remained in the land of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar
king of Babylon had left, even over them he made Gedaliah the son of Ahikam,
the son of Shaphan, ruler. … (25) But it came to pass in the seventh
month, that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, of the seed
royal, came, and ten men with him, and smote Gedaliah, that he died, and
the Jews and the Chaldees that were with him at Mizpah.
Y
Conclusion: The missionary claim that the
entire pool of eligible heirs to David's throne was wiped out at Riblah is
false.
Now, just for the record, and somewhat with
"tongue in cheek", here is how the KJV translators render still
another passage in which the assassination of Gedaliah is described:
Jeremiah 41:1(KJV) - Now
it came to pass in the seventh month, that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah the
son of Elishama, of the seed royal, and the princes of the king
("v'rabei ha'melech" in Hebrew), even ten men with him, came
unto Gedaliah the son of Ahikam to Mizpah; and there they did eat bread
together in Mizpah.
This rendition leads the reader to conclude that not
all of the princes were slain at Riblah.
While this is consistent with the KJV renditions of Jer 39:6 and II Kgs
25:18-21, it conflicts with the KJV on Jer 52:10. Consequently, missionaries do not quote the KJV rendition of Jer 39:6, nor do they quote II Kgs 25:25 and
Jer 41:1 to support their claim.
Rather, they cite the mistranslated KJV rendition of Jer 52:10 as if it
were the only record of the event, since this particular text supports their
claim.
Y
Conclusion: The KJV and other Christian
translations cannot be accepted as reliably and accurately reflecting the
Hebrew text of the Hebrew Bible.
A Side Note: Here is important information
concerning the usage of the Hebrew noun sar (the plural of which
is rendered as princes by the KJV in Jer 52:10) in the Hebrew
Bible. The term sar appears
421 times, always in various contexts such as nobleman, official, ruler,
commander, and never in the context of 'royal prince'.
2. From which Royal Branch May
the Jewish Messiah Emerge?
With Jeconiah's royal branch cursed so that none of
his offspring would be eligible to sit on the throne of David, and Zedekiah's
royal branch allegedly eliminated by the slaying of his sons at Riblah, from
where can we expect the Jewish Messiah to emerge?
Let us go back and consider the promise to David in
II Sam 7:12-16. Recall that there it was
specified that the Davidic dynasty had to pass through David's son who would
build the Temple – that turned out to be Solomon (see, e.g., I Kgs 8:15-20; I
Chron 17:11-15, 22:9-10, 28:3-7). From
that point on, there are no further restrictions concerning any one particular
royal branch being preferable over another.
Thus, the Jewish Messiah may emerge from ANY royal branch that
leads to Solomon.
To get a sense of the magnitude of this extensive
network of royal branches from which the Jewish Messiah may emerge, some of the
data available in the Hebrew Bible about Judah's Royal Families is displayed in
Table IV.B.2-1. Starting with Solomon,
the family statistics found in the Hebrew Bible concerning several of Judah's
Royal Families are shown (note: a ?-mark indicates that an item is unknown due
to the fact that it is not listed in the Hebrew Bible):
Table IV.B.2-1 –
Statistics about several Royal Families of Judah
|
King |
# Wives |
# Concubines |
# Sons |
# Daughters |
Source/Remarks |
|
Solomon |
700 |
300 |
1 + ? |
2 + ? |
I Kgs 4:11,15, 11:3 |
|
Rehoboam |
18 |
60 |
28 |
60 |
II Chro 11:18-22 |
|
Abijah |
14 |
? |
22 |
16 |
II Chro 13:21 |
|
Josiah |
2 |
? |
4 |
? |
I Chro 3:15 |
|
Total |
--- |
--- |
55+? |
--- |
Sons only |
Here are some observations and thoughts concerning
the data displayed in Table IV.B.2-1.
¬
The
only explicitly listed children of Solomon are his son Rehoboam and his
daughters Taphat and Basmath. Since it
is difficult to reckon that there would be only 3 children issuing from 700
wives and 300 concubines, it may be possible to posit that only the Jewish
progeny are accounted for in the Hebrew Bible.
However, this is only a speculation.
¬
Since
Rehoboam is the only listed son of Solomon, let us assume, for the sake of
simplicity, that the Messianic lineage must also pass through him.
¬
There
are 55 sons listed for just these four Royal Families. If Rehoboam were taken out of this total,
that would leave as many as 54 legitimate royal branches that lead to David
through Solomon and Rehoboam.
Admittedly, there is only a limited amount of additional information
given about the various sons, so the exact number of royal branches, even for
these four Royal Families cannot be determined. In other words, the Hebrew Bible does not necessarily specify
what actually went on with these various individuals, whether or not they
married, whether or not they left male offspring, etc., from which the
messianic line leads to King Solomon.
Y
Conclusion: The Curse on Jeconiah and the
slaughter of Zedekiah's sons at Riblah are moot issues, and have no bearing on
the viability of a flesh and blood Jewish Messiah sprouting from the seed of
David. The Jewish Messiah's lineage is
not restricted to either of these two allegedly "problematic"
branches of monarchs. As has been
demonstrated, and according to the Hebrew Bible, he may emerge from ANY
royal branch that leads to David through Solomon.
There are Christian apologists and missionaries who
take a different approach and argue that the Curse on Jeconiah was just
a temporary measure, and that it was eventually lifted. [This is a rather curious position, since it
is consistent with the traditional Jewish opinion that Jeconiah repented while
in exile, and also that exile atones for all sins (e.g. Talmud, Tractate
Sanhedrin 37b-38a) In this case, the
missionaries are actually admitting that the atonement of sins does not require
the shedding of blood!] However, their
"end game" is similar, since they say that no one ruled after
Zerubbabel, and that the Davidic line ended there, so that the only way to
bring forth a Messiah was through a miraculous event, such as a virgin birth,
which, according to them, was G-d's plan from the outset.
They evidence offered in support of this paradigm is
as follows. First, they cite a passage
that tells of the release of Jeconiah from his prison cell in Babylon, and
being invited to sit at the head of the table of all the other nations' exiled
kings in Babylon (Jer 52:31-34 and also II Kgs 25:27-30). This act supposedly negated the "will
not prosper in his days" phrase. However,
contrary to that claim, the cited passages do not say anything about Jeconiah
actually prospering in his days (the Hebrew phrase for will not prosper,
lo-yitzlakh, used in the curse, is nowhere countermanded
in these passages). In fact, Jeconiah
never returned to Judah, never returned to sit on the throne of David, and he
died in exile, just as was foretold in the curse (Jer 22:27-28).
A second piece of evidence offered in support of the
claim is that Zerubbabel, Jeconiah's great-grandson, allegedly prospered and
ruled Judah, and the passage commonly cited to back this up is:
Haggai 2:23 – "On
that day," says the L-rd of Hosts, "I will take you, O Zerubbabel the
son of Shealtiel, My servant;" says the L-rd, "and I will make you
like a signet (khotam in Hebrew); for I have chosen you,"
says the L-rd of Hosts.
This passage was carefully chosen, and is claimed to
be messianic, since it "connects" with Jer 22:24, the opening verse
in the Curse on Jeconiah, via the signet ring, which allegedly
symbolizes kingship.
First, it is important to note that the Haggai
passage does not point to the Messianic era (the days of the Third
Temple). Note the tenses used here –
Zerubbabel has been chosen to do a certain job, and he will be
made like a signet. In Hag
2:23 the prophet refers to the previous verses (vs. 20-22) in which he assures
Zerubbabel of G-d's protection, and where he describes the downfall of the
Persian Empire at the hands of the Greeks, an event that occurred a few years
after this prophecy was made.
Next, let us consider the signet ring and the
significance attached to it throughout the Hebrew Bible. None of the 14 occurrences of the Hebrew
word khotam, signet ring, in the Hebrew Bible (Gen 38:18;
Ex 28:11,21,36, 39:5,14,30; I Kgs 21:8; Jer 22:24; Job 38:14; Hag 2:23; Song
8:6[2x]) indicates any connection with being chosen as king, or perhaps even
the Messiah. The same is true for the
other Hebrew word used for signet ring (though not exclusively), taba’at,
which appears 7 times as signet ring (Gen 41:42; Est 3:10,12,
8:2,8[2x],10). Gen 41:42 and Est 8:2
clearly demonstrate that the signet ring symbolizes authority, but not
kingship, since the king, alive in both cases, is the one who gives his
signet ring to the other person.
Is there a connection between a signet ring and
right to kingship? The wording in Jer
22:24 is, "even if Coniah … were a signet …" – note the
conditional nature of the phrase. Given
that Coniah was already the king at the time the curse was put on him and his
descendants, the context here is that due to Coniah’s wickedness, even if he
were vested with G-d’s authority, say when he first ascended to the throne, it
would surely have been removed from him.
Now let us return to Zerubbabel. What is the meaning of G-d's words to Zerubbabel,
"… I will make you like a signet; for I have chosen you …"? The answer to this question is found in
Chapter 4 in the Book of Zechariah, where Zerubbabel is told that he has been
chosen (anointed) to build the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Although Jeconiah was thoroughly wicked, his
great-grandson, Zerubbabel, was righteous and played a central role in the
restoration of the second commonwealth.
In fact, because of his faithfulness, Zerubbabel was bestowed with great
authority over the Jewish people. This
authority was, however, limited since Zerubbabel did not sit on the throne of
David and rule as king of Judah.
Instead, Zerubbabel only acted as Governor of Judah (e.g. Hag 1:1, Ezra
5:14).
Consequently, the claim by missionaries that
Zerubbabel's appointment negated the phrase "for no man of his
seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in
Judah", does
not hold, since the "prospering" is linked to ruling as King of
Judah, not to being the Governor.
Y
Conclusion: G-d shows his mercy to the
righteous Zerubbabel, and rewards him with the task of building the Second
Temple and governing Judah. This does
not necessarily indicate a reversal of the Curse on Jeconiah.
V.
Summary
The purpose of this presentation was to demonstrate
the robustness and resilience of the Jewish messianic paradigm in the face of
the relntless attempts by Christian missionaries to destroy it and justify the
Christian messianic model. We are,
indeed, fortunate that the Christian messianic scheme is not only plagued with
many insurmountable problems, among these is the pair of irreconcilable
"messianic" genealogies that was reviewed above, but is anathematic
and contradictory to the teachings of the Hebrew Bible, a similitude of which –
the "Old Testament" – is part of their own Bible.
(Rabbi
Tovia Singer and his tape series, "Let's Get Biblical" have been a
valuable source for this presentations.)