Oh, I sure thought I was. Your model is that:
1.The Messiah will be a descent of David through Solomon.
2. The Coniah curse eliminates the possibility that of an earthly kingdom.
You proffer this argument to prove the amill position. The Coniah curse is the key to your argument against the Premill position while the descent through the house of Solomon is a secondary argument. If the Coniah curse proves to be temporary your house of cards falls down. To be honest, I like your interpretation of Jeremiah 22:28-30 better than the traditional Jewish Rabbis interpretation. The problem I'm having is the significance of the signet ring, which you just blew off, and its relationship to the curse. Zerubbabel is extremely important to messianic prophecy so I think we should be careful how we treat him because it may affect other prophecies. (This could be potentially demon-deceiving stuff.) [grin]
Lets take a look at the signet ring.
"A ‘signet ring’ came to be regarded as a symbol of one’s authority - the signet ring or ‘seal’ showed the owner’s identity when stamped on almost anything. The kings of Judah and society’s well-to-do would usually carry their own seal upon their person (in the form of a ring or tied about their necks - there have been many different styles of seals recovered from archaeological digs) and so ‘seal’ documents and the like with their authority (see Esther 8:10) often making an impression in soft clay that, when hardened, would be indisputable proof that a transaction had been made. Trusted slaves could also be given their master’s seal to be able to buy goods ‘to the master’s account’/’in the master’s name’ when they attended market places and bazaars.
The signet ring therefore symbolised the person whose mark it bore but also carried with it the authority of that person - in very much the same way as a signature does in today’s society. A person who can sign on behalf of another is one who has the right to exercise the authority of that individual as they see fit."
This then appears to show that the authority that God took away from Coniah he gave back to Zerubbabel. This is not conclusive evidence in my mind that the curse was lifted but it surely resumed the Davidic line through Zerubabbel.
My concern with your model is that it may change or render null some of the very important messianic prophecies of the last minor prophets irregardless of any eschatological implications. It appears that your model totally discounts Mary's lineage.I think it's important that we don't discount Mary's lineage. Here is why I think Mary's lineage is important:
'Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the Lord. It is he who will build the temple of the Lord, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And he will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two offices.' [Zechariah 6.12-13]
In Luke it shows Mary's lineage through her father as a Davidic, Kingly, lineage. We also know that Elizabeth who was her cousin was of the Aaronic or priestly lineage. This prophecy to Jeshua(priest) and Zerubbabel(king) then seems to fit both sides of Mary's lineage. It is in Mary's lineage that this prophecy is fulfilled and the picture of a King and a Priest is highlighted by Mary's lineage. It is in this one branch of Mary that the Priesthood and Kingship are united and their is 'harmony between the two offices' .
Additionally, in the prophecies of Zechariah to Zerrubbabel God seems to be making a clean break from the Solomonic line while still holding onto his promise.
6 Then he said to me, "This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel saying, 'Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,' says the LORD of hosts. 7 'What are you, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel {you will become} a plain; and he will bring forth the top stone with shouts of "Grace, grace to it!'"" [Zechariah 4:6-7]
This seems to be a very strong statement by God regarding kingly descent. God appears to be saying here that the Messiah would not gain power through military strength or claim authority because of kingly lineage but only through the Holy Spirit. This then appears to coordinate with the Holy Spirit's work in the conception in the virgin Mary. Then Mary is the typology of both the work of the Holy Spirit and the combination of the Priesthood and Kingship.
In summary, it appears that Zerubbabel is the important link between Jesus and David and whether or not the Coniah curse was temporary or temporal seems less important than the fact that God promised that Zerubbabel would be the key link. What you now need to consider is how your model effects the prophecies relating to Zerubbabel, irregardless of any eschatological concerns, and God's breaking off the Solomonic branch for a new branch that combined the priesthood and kingship by the work of the Holy Spirit.
Exactly!
Mary is in the line of Nathan, who is in the Davidic line (being a brother of Solomon 2Sam.5:14)
Her marriage to Joseph, gave Christ the legal right to rule, and her blood line, fulfilled the Davidic convenant that one a heir from David's blood would rule on the throne (2Sam.7:14)
Here is where O POPY makes one of his famous unsupported presuppositions.
It never says that the descent would be through Solomon, the Davidic covenant states,(2Sam.7:16) And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee, thy throne shall be established forever.
In the previous verse God promises not to treat Solomon as He did Saul.
How did God treat Saul?
He gave the inheritence to an entirely different blood line.
In the case of Solomon, while his blood line was cut off, the Davidic line was not, it came through Nathan.