Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

[iamlamad]

According to what you said above, all references to a kingdom after Acts 2 is a "past/present tense context".

One simple verse by Apostle Paul completely dumps your theory that the Kingdom of God is now manifest upon this earth today...

1 Cor 15:50
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
KJV

When you have put off this flesh on the "last trump", and at the "twinkling of an eye" have put on the "spiritual body" which Paul taught there in 1 Cor.15, then... you can say the Kingdom of God has manifested on earth. Until then, like Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world...":


John 8:23
23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
KJV

John 18:36
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is My kingdom not from hence.
KJV

Exactly! And even the entire human race was given over to Satan. HE OWNS the human race. That is why Jesus said we must be BORN AGAIN. We must obtain a NEW FATHER, to be pulled from the lineage of Adam. When a human is born again, their spirit is severed from the lineage of Adam, and become a NEW SPIRIT with God as their Father.

 

[BABerean2]

Yes, indeed the God of heaven in the form of Jesus Christ the Son, will set up an earthly kingdom.

Joh 4:20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

Joh 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

Joh 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.



Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.




Heb 11:15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.

Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.




2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

2Th 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

2Th 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

 

[Acts2:38]

According to what you said above, all references to a kingdom after Acts 2 is a "past/present tense context".

One simple verse by Apostle Paul completely dumps your theory that the Kingdom of God is now manifest upon this earth today...

1 Cor 15:50
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
KJV

When you have put off this flesh on the "last trump", and at the "twinkling of an eye" have put on the "spiritual body" which Paul taught there in 1 Cor.15, then... you can say the Kingdom of God has manifested on earth. Until then, like Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world...":

I am sorry to say you failed to see the context of 1 Cor. 15. You fell for what you accused me of, cherry picking. I can see that you actually tried to come up with something (or so I assume), so I'll give you the time.

Look at the context fully, then come back to me. Paul is writing to people who are already in the kingdom. The Corinthians had done some things that Paul needed to confront them about.

One example:
33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

Your missing completely the context thinking that you got one over on me and saying it "completely dumps" on my theory.

38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

More text in 1 Cor. 15 you missed in cherry picking as this has nothing to do with the matter I challenged you with.

What are the Colosse Christians "translated" into in Colossians 1:13?

John 8:23
23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
KJV

John 18:36
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is My kingdom not from hence.
KJV

Yes, I know of these verses, however, I fail to see how they help you. In fact, I already mentioned John 18:36 as stating that the kingdom is a spiritual kingdom not of this world. Please reread my posts if you failed to spot that.

I hope you are not going to have me go in circles explaining things.

 

[Acts2:38]

Hello again and thank you for your time with me.

Let me narrow the points down and work with just one point for now. In response to me mentioning Jeremiah 22 and Matthew 1 you said:

I wonder at your reading ability. This verse is about ONE MAN, Coniah.

You missed the words I put in bold! Allow me to shorten it with the point.

Jeremiah 22:30
"...for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah."

You were half right in that it was talking about Coniah, but you failed to see that even his descendants would not rule on the throne of David anymore even in Judah.

So it was not solely about one man, but his descendants also. Jesus is a descendant and therefore cannot rule on an earthly kingdom.

My reading ability is just fine you see =)

Again I wonder. Do you take time to think about these things? This lineage is about Joseph. Sorry, my friend, but Joseph was NOT Jesus' father!

Oh I did take the time. I repeatedly study the bible. After all, I do not want to be like the people Hosea spoke about in Hosea 4:6.

It is you that messed up. Did you not see the very first line in Matthew 1?

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." (Verse 1).

Also see verse 17
17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

So, is there any way that you can say there will be an earthly kingdom?

 

[Choose Wisely]

You are free to believe this if you choose, but you will be wrong - mistaken.

Of course there are parallels in Matthew and in Rev. 6. And they both agree - no doubt about that. But did you miss this?

Mat. 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

Jesus is telling us that He is NOT YET talking about end times, but rather, church age things.

7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

So Jesus says.....The end is not yet......and then proceeds to tell you what will happen next before the end......Nation against nation.....famines........pestilence.......earthquakes.

I don't think I missed anything. You are reading right past the explanation of why the end is not yet. It's right there.

Notice the preposition "for?" He is continuing on church age and still NOT YET talking about end times.

He is taking about end times, he is just saying the end is not with wars and rumors of wars. The Church age is over at the pre trib rapture.

9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

Notice the preposition, "then?" He is STILL talking about "the end is not yet." So all these verses are speaking of church age events. The "beginning of sorrows" is church age.

The Church age is over at the pre trib rapture.
He uses the word THEN because he is talking about things that happen after the wars, nation against nation, famine, pestilence and earthquakes

Notice in Luke 21 after the wars and rumors, nations against nation, famine, pestilence and earthquakes Jesus says BUT BEFORE ALL THESE. Jesus is talking about 70AD when referring to the affliction.

3 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation,

Now, finally, Jesus begins talking about the end times. So when one really reads carefully, and understands the Author's intent, they see this lines up perfectly with seals 1 through 5 being church age and seal 6 starting the end.

If you read closely you would know that the Church age is over at the pre trib rapture.

Mat. 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Rev. 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

If you keep up with modern prewrath thought, they say that God will give a HUGE sign: total darkness! Neither the sun nor the moon nor any stars will give light. For reference, you might wish to look at Paul Dorgan on "the Day of the Lord." he does a magnificent job there of teaching this error.

Stop and think: HOW did John know the moon had become as blood? Of course, because HE SAW IT. This means, the moon was visible. Therefore, it cannot possibly be the same sign as we seen in Matthew 24, where there will be total darkness.

I don't keep up with modern prewrath thought and don't read what others are saying. However, if they are saying that there will be total darkness, THEY WOULD BE WRONG. The word says the SUN WILL BE DARKENED. Also, if the moon is as blood there is no light. Blood is very dark in color.

Sorry, but you are just mistaken.

That's certainly a possibility, just not a likely one.

 

[BABerean2]

The Church age is over at the pre trib rapture.

Very few understand why modern Dispensational Theology needs a pretrib removal of the Church.

The original "classic" form of the doctrine brought to America by John Nelson Darby, claimed that God would go back and deal with the modern nation of Israel under the Old Covenant system after the pretrib removal of the Church.
What is wrong with this idea?

The New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and is specifically applied to the Church in Hebrews 12:22-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8.

The New Covenant has made the Old Covenant "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13.
The New Covenant of Christ is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20.
Therefore, God is not going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time.

Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant, the Two Peoples of God doctrine of modern Dispensational Theology falls apart.

.

 

[Acts2:38]

The New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and is specifically applied to the Church in Hebrews 12:22-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8.

The New Covenant has made the Old Covenant "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13.
The New Covenant of Christ is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20.
Therefore, God is not going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time.

I didn't think to mention this point. Great point to bring up.

 

[Davy]

I am sorry to say you failed to see the context of 1 Cor. 15. You fell for what you accused me of, cherry picking. I can see that you actually tried to come up with something (or so I assume), so I'll give you the time.

Look at the context fully, then come back to me. Paul is writing to people who are already in the kingdom. The Corinthians had done some things that Paul needed to confront them about.

....

I hope you are not going to have me go in circles explaining things.

I don't see you explaining much, but it appears you instead want to hide some things, especially what all Paul covered in 1 Cor.15 regarding the verse I quoted. Paul was speaking of the bodily "change" at the "last trump" that will occur at "the twinkling of an eye":

1 Cor 15:50-53
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
KJV

I'm done speaking to you, simply not worth it.

 

[iamlamad]

Hello again and thank you for your time with me.

Let me narrow the points down and work with just one point for now. In response to me mentioning Jeremiah 22 and Matthew 1 you said:

You missed the words I put in bold! Allow me to shorten it with the point.

Jeremiah 22:30
"...for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah."

You were half right in that it was talking about Coniah, but you failed to see that even his descendants would not rule on the throne of David anymore even in Judah.

So it was not solely about one man, but his descendants also. Jesus is a descendant and therefore cannot rule on an earthly kingdom.

I still must question your reading / comprehending ability!
Matthew 1:
16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

This is the Lineage of JOSEPH who was Jesus' STEP father. Therefore your theory is false. Jesus can and WILL have a Kingdom on earth.

My reading ability is just fine you see =)

Oh I did take the time. I repeatedly study the bible. After all, I do not want to be like the people Hosea spoke about in Hosea 4:6.

It is you that messed up. Did you not see the very first line in Matthew 1?

Sorry, but verse 16 overrides verse 1. This is the lineage of JOSEPH. Joseph was not in any way in the lineage of Jesus. If you wish a true genology of Jesus, then look in Luke.

Admit it: you have been mistaken.

 

[Acts2:38]

I still must question your reading / comprehending ability!
Matthew 1:
16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

This is the Lineage of JOSEPH who was Jesus' STEP father. Therefore your theory is false. Jesus can and WILL have a Kingdom on earth.

My reading ability is just fine you see =)



Sorry, but verse 16 overrides verse 1. This is the lineage of JOSEPH. Joseph was not in any way in the lineage of Jesus. If you wish a true genology of Jesus, then look in Luke.

Admit it: you have been mistaken.

I am really sorry but you are grammatically incorrect.

Matthew 1 starts off by saying,
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

It is the book of Jesus's lineage. Joseph just happens to be in it due to the prophecy foretelling all that Jesus is descended from David's line thus being heir to the throne.

This line here,
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Merely states that Jesus was born from Joseph. That's it. It in no way states anywhere in this chapter, that this is a book about Joseph. In fact, I have no clue how you even think this. Your grammar use is way out there. Take this to any English instructor who will look at this.

Compare:
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

Tracing Jesus's lineage is what chapter 1 is about. It is to prove to us that Jesus is heir to the throne.

"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

All this states is Jesus came from Joseph, to prove to us that Jesus is from David's line, and rightful heir to the throne.

You don't even have to admit it to me but at least admit it to yourself for your own sake. How can I even debate with you if you cannot get through simple sentence structure?

 

[Choose Wisely]

Very few understand why modern Dispensational Theology needs a pretrib removal of the Church.

I could care less who needs what. More interested in what the Bible says.

The original "classic" form of the doctrine brought to America by John Nelson Darby, claimed that God would go back and deal with the modern nation of Israel under the Old Covenant system after the pretrib removal of the Church.

I tire of the John Nelson Darby drivel. Can't you take 20 minutes to prove this is wrong.

What is wrong with this idea?

The New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and is specifically applied to the Church in Hebrews 12:22-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8.

The New Covenant has made the Old Covenant "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13.
The New Covenant of Christ is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20.
Therefore, God is not going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time.

Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant, the Two Peoples of God doctrine of modern Dispensational Theology falls apart.

Most people understand the New Covenant. However, it matters what God says He is going to do. He says that Israel has been blinded and that He plans on regrafting them. I believe Him.

 

[BABerean2]

I tire of the John Nelson Darby drivel. Can't you take 20 minutes to prove this is wrong.

 

[jgr]

Most people understand the New Covenant. However, it matters what God says He is going to do. He says that Israel has been blinded and that He plans on regrafting them. I believe Him.

There's just that little condition that He includes:

Romans 11
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

I hope you're not overlooking that.

 

[Choose Wisely]

There's just that little condition that He includes:

Romans 11
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

I hope you're not overlooking that.

And you this
Rom 11
5 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

 

[jgr]

And you this
Rom 11
5 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Right; so all Israel is all who "abide not still in unbelief."

 

[iamlamad]

I am really sorry but you are grammatically incorrect.

Matthew 1 starts off by saying,
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

It is the book of Jesus's lineage. Joseph just happens to be in it due to the prophecy foretelling all that Jesus is descended from David's line thus being heir to the throne.

This line here,
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Merely states that Jesus was born from Joseph. That's it. It in no way states anywhere in this chapter, that this is a book about Joseph. In fact, I have no clue how you even think this. Your grammar use is way out there. Take this to any English instructor who will look at this.

Compare:
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

Tracing Jesus's lineage is what chapter 1 is about. It is to prove to us that Jesus is heir to the throne.

"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

All this states is Jesus came from Joseph, to prove to us that Jesus is from David's line, and rightful heir to the throne.

You don't even have to admit it to me but at least admit it to yourself for your own sake. How can I even debate with you if you cannot get through simple sentence structure?

If you still think Joseph was Jesus real father, there is very little hope for you.

Question: have you ever read any commentaries? May I suggest you look up Matthew 1 in the commentaries?

Coffman Commentaries:
Perhaps the best, and certainly the simplest, reconciliation of these two lists is to view Matthew's account as the ancestry of Joseph, and Luke's genealogy as the record of Mary's ancestry

John Darby:
Mary was betrothed to Joseph. Her posterity was consequently legally that of Joseph, as to the rights of inheritance; but the child she carried in her womb was of divine origin, conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. The angel of Jehovah is sent, as the instrument of providence, to satisfy the tender conscience and upright heart of Joseph, by communicating to him that that which Mary had conceived was of the Holy Ghost.

We may remark here, that the angel on this occasion addresses Joseph as "son of David." The Holy Ghost thus draws our attention to the relationship of Joseph (the reputed father of Jesus) to David, Mary being called his wife.

Jamieson, Fausset, Brown: Commentary Critical and Explanatory
on the Whole Bible

16. And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus--From this it is clear that the genealogy here given is not that of Mary, but of Joseph; nor has this ever been questioned. And yet it is here studiously proclaimed that Joseph was not the natural, but only the legal father of our Lord. His birth of a virgin was known only to a few; but the acknowledged descent of his legal father from David secured that the descent of Jesus Himself from David should never be questioned.

John Lightfoot Commentary:

16. And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.


[And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary.] The mother's family is not to be called a family. Hence the reason may very easily be given, why Matthew brings down the generation to Joseph, Mary's husband; but Luke to Eli, Mary's father. These two frame the genealogy two ways, according to the double notion of the promise of Christ. For he is promised, as the 'seed of the woman,' and as the 'Son of David'; that, as a man, this, as a king. It was therefore needful, in setting down his genealogy, that satisfaction should be given concerning both. Therefore Luke declareth him the promised seed of the woman, deducing his mother's stock, from whence man was born, from Adam; Matthew exhibits his royal original, deriving his pedigree along through the royal family of David to Joseph, his (reputed) father.

Matthew Henry Commentary:
The line is brought down, not to Mary the mother of our Lord, but to Joseph the husband of Mary (Matthew 1:16); for the Jews always reckoned their genealogies by the males: yet Mary was of the same tribe and family with Joseph, so that, both by his mother and by his supposed father, he was of the house of David;

I could go one, but to what purpose? You probably will skip over them for they disagree with you.

 

[Acts2:38]

If you still think Joseph was Jesus real father, there is very little hope for you.

Question: have you ever read any commentaries? May I suggest you look up Matthew 1 in the commentaries?

Coffman Commentaries:
Perhaps the best, and certainly the simplest, reconciliation of these two lists is to view Matthew's account as the ancestry of Joseph, and Luke's genealogy as the record of Mary's ancestry

John Darby:
Mary was betrothed to Joseph. Her posterity was consequently legally that of Joseph, as to the rights of inheritance; but the child she carried in her womb was of divine origin, conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. The angel of Jehovah is sent, as the instrument of providence, to satisfy the tender conscience and upright heart of Joseph, by communicating to him that that which Mary had conceived was of the Holy Ghost.

We may remark here, that the angel on this occasion addresses Joseph as "son of David." The Holy Ghost thus draws our attention to the relationship of Joseph (the reputed father of Jesus) to David, Mary being called his wife.

Jamieson, Fausset, Brown: Commentary Critical and Explanatory
on the Whole Bible

16. And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus--From this it is clear that the genealogy here given is not that of Mary, but of Joseph; nor has this ever been questioned. And yet it is here studiously proclaimed that Joseph was not the natural, but only the legal father of our Lord. His birth of a virgin was known only to a few; but the acknowledged descent of his legal father from David secured that the descent of Jesus Himself from David should never be questioned.

John Lightfoot Commentary:

16. And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.


[And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary.] The mother's family is not to be called a family. Hence the reason may very easily be given, why Matthew brings down the generation to Joseph, Mary's husband; but Luke to Eli, Mary's father. These two frame the genealogy two ways, according to the double notion of the promise of Christ. For he is promised, as the 'seed of the woman,' and as the 'Son of David'; that, as a man, this, as a king. It was therefore needful, in setting down his genealogy, that satisfaction should be given concerning both. Therefore Luke declareth him the promised seed of the woman, deducing his mother's stock, from whence man was born, from Adam; Matthew exhibits his royal original, deriving his pedigree along through the royal family of David to Joseph, his (reputed) father.

Matthew Henry Commentary:
The line is brought down, not to Mary the mother of our Lord, but to Joseph the husband of Mary (Matthew 1:16); for the Jews always reckoned their genealogies by the males: yet Mary was of the same tribe and family with Joseph, so that, both by his mother and by his supposed father, he was of the house of David;

I could go one, but to what purpose? You probably will skip over them for they disagree with you.

Interesting,

I believe you were focusing on the wrong point I was making, except one thing...

Matthew 1 IS about Jesus's lineage. Look at verse 1, read it, there is no way around that use of wording.

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

With that said, I never said he was a physical copy of Joseph. I think you read into something I never was trying bring up in the first place. Misunderstanding on your part and I didn't catch that till now.

The point you missed, is that even since Joseph, by all respects, would be as you say a "step father", Jesus is still heir to David's throne. Read this again...

Matthew 1:1 "...the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David..."

The author Matthew is telling us (by divine inspiration mind you 2 Peter 1:20-21; 2 Timothy 3:16) that Jesus's lineage is traced back to David. Even back to Abraham...

"...the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

With that said, no one since Coniah, Davids descendants, has ever or will ever rule on a physical throne ever again since Coniah.

Jeremiah 22:30
"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."

Jesus is considered a son of Joseph, regardless that he is "step father". Read this again,
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

As some of the commentary you pulled-

Matthew Henry Commentary:

so that, both by his mother and by his supposed father, he was of the house of David;

Exactly like I was trying to tell you as well as scripture
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

Will not rule a physical kingdom Jeremiah 22:30

John Lightfoot Commentary:

These two frame the genealogy two ways, according to the double notion of the promise of Christ. For he is promised, as the 'seed of the woman,' and as the 'Son of David'; that, as a man, this, as a king. It was therefore needful, in setting down his genealogy, that satisfaction should be given concerning both.

Again,
Exactly like I was trying to tell you as well as scripture
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

Will not rule a physical kingdom Jeremiah 22:30

Jamieson, Fausset, Brown: Commentary Critical and Explanatory
on the Whole Bible-

but the acknowledged descent of his legal father from David secured that the descent of Jesus Himself from David should never be questioned.

This is the point that you were missing. Jesus still is the son of David, son of Abraham and heir to the throne. However, it will not be a physical throne as stated in Jeremiah 22.

I hope we are on the same page now?

 

[Douggg]

Moreover, there cannot be any physical kingdom anymore since God told Coniah in Jeremiah 22:30, that none of Coniah's descendants (basically descendants of David) will ever rule on the throne of David never mind even ruling in Judah anymore. Jesus is a descendant of David if you look at Matthew 1, and therefore Jesus cannot rule on a physical throne. However, Jesus can and IS ruling from the spiritual.

Coniah was figuratively counted as childless, in that his descendants would never be king of Judah. The southern Kingdom.

30 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.

note by me ... as the King of Judah. David's throne was located in Jerusalem, at that time in the Kingdom of Judah, the southern kingdom.

Instead of just the southern kingdom, "The" messiah, rules over united Israel, i.e. is the King of Israel. Judah joined to Ephraim in Ezekiel 37. The Matthew1 lineage in that regards continues through Coniah, his son Salathiel....
Matthew 1:12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

Historically, there have been only three (man) Kings of Israel (united). Saul, David, Solomon.

God up to the time of Saul ruled Israel through the prophets instead of any earthly king. But Israel wanted a human king like the surrounding nations. Which God said through Samuel on the day God gave them Saul - that they rejected Him; that is, God as their king, in 1Samuel10:19 .

This is also stated in 1Samuel12:12

12 And when ye saw that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon came against you, ye said unto me, Nay; but a king shall reign over us: when the LORD your God was your king.

Jesus being the Lord from heaven (1Corinthians15:47) is the only who is the rightful King of Israel.
______________________________________________________________________________

Jesus's kingdom, Jesus being God, is not of this world in that His kingdom is the Kingdom of Heaven - not earth. So your point is made in that.

But I think you are mistaken to think that Jesus will not be King of an earthly Kingdom of physical Israel.

In the days of the ten kings, the Kingdom of Heaven will be brought down here to earth and becomes the ruling Kingdom of God over all the kingdoms of men.

At that time Jesus will sit over the earthly kingdom of Israel as well; the rightful King of Israel , on David's throne, essentially meaning from Jerusalem, and will rule over all the nations as King of Kings.

However, it must be said that Israel soley by herself is not the Kingdom of God which everyone else fits under - because the Kingdom of God is made up of persons from all nations, peoples, kindreds, tongues.

The Kingdom of God could be thought of as universal to mankind. The Kingdom of Israel, specific to the Jews, the twelve tribes.

In Zechariah 14,
9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

In Ezekiel 39, following Jesus's wrath at Armageddon in Ezekiel 39:17-20, in verse 21 this is Jesus having returned to earth, bringing the Kingdom of Heaven with Him....

21 And I will set my glory among the heathen, and all the heathen shall see my judgment that I have executed, and my hand that I have laid upon them.

 

[iamlamad]

Interesting,

I believe you were focusing on the wrong point I was making, except one thing...

Matthew 1 IS about Jesus's lineage. Look at verse 1, read it, there is no way around that use of wording.

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

With that said, I never said he was a physical copy of Joseph. I think you read into something I never was trying bring up in the first place. Misunderstanding on your part and I didn't catch that till now.

The point you missed, is that even since Joseph, by all respects, would be as you say a "step father", Jesus is still heir to David's throne. Read this again...

Matthew 1:1 "...the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David..."

The author Matthew is telling us (by divine inspiration mind you 2 Peter 1:20-21; 2 Timothy 3:16) that Jesus's lineage is traced back to David. Even back to Abraham...

"...the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

With that said, no one since Coniah, Davids descendants, has ever or will ever rule on a physical throne ever again since Coniah.

Jeremiah 22:30
"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."

Jesus is considered a son of Joseph, regardless that he is "step father". Read this again,
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

As some of the commentary you pulled-

Matthew Henry Commentary:


Exactly like I was trying to tell you as well as scripture
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

Will not rule a physical kingdom Jeremiah 22:30

John Lightfoot Commentary:


Again,
Exactly like I was trying to tell you as well as scripture
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

Will not rule a physical kingdom Jeremiah 22:30

Jamieson, Fausset, Brown: Commentary Critical and Explanatory
on the Whole Bible-


This is the point that you were missing. Jesus still is the son of David, son of Abraham and heir to the throne. However, it will not be a physical throne as stated in Jeremiah 22.

I hope we are on the same page now?

Jesus is a blood relative of God our Father, NOT of Coniah.

Jeremiah is speaking of blood descendants.

What do you make of this?
“Then Peter answered and said to Him, ‘See, we have left all and followed You. Therefore, what shall we have?’ So, Jesus said unto them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’”

Where will this judging take place? In heaven? Or on earth?

What do you think is the purpose for the judgment of the nations, Matthew 25?

Revelation 19:15
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Is this a spiritual "rod of Iron?" Are these nations now "spiritual?" If so, how and when did they become spiritual and not physical?

Dan 2
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

All the previous kingdoms, as in Babylon, Medo-Persia, etc, were physical kingdoms. Why would not this kingdom be the same?

Dan 7
26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

Again, the kingdom of the Beast that is destroyed in verse 26 will certainly be a physical kingdom. The kingdom that destroys it must certainly be the same.

Rev. 19
19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

This is a picture of Jesus "reigning." He is reigning over physical people in a physical battle. Their blood which will run to the horses bridle will be physical blood.

Therefore I simply disagree with your theory. Untold millions of believers believe Jesus will reign over a physical earth for 1000 years. I agree with them.

 

[jgr]

Dan 2
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

All the previous kingdoms, as in Babylon, Medo-Persia, etc, were physical kingdoms. Why would not this kingdom be the same?

Dan 7
26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

Again, the kingdom of the Beast that is destroyed in verse 26 will certainly be a physical kingdom. The kingdom that destroys it must certainly be the same.

You had included Daniel 2:44 in your cited scriptures. It declares that God will set up a kingdom "in the days of these kings". That occurred when God established His spiritual kingdom in the days of the king(s) of the fourth temporal kingdom, imperial pagan Rome. The temporal kingdom which followed pagan Rome was papal Rome, which was both a temporal political, and an apostate spiritual, kingdom. It was and will be destroyed through spiritual warfare, beginning with the Reformation, and continuing to the end (Daniel 7:26).