According to the Old Testament, the messiah would be a direct linage of David (Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, Jeremiah 33:15, 2 Samuel 7:12-13), but according to the New Testament Christ has no earthly biological father, which poses a problem, since linage we carried through the father (Numbers 1:18), so my question being if Christ was the messiah, how could he be when the messiah was from the direct linage of David? And Christ did not have a direct male linage
5
-
Legally through Joseph the “adoptive father”. Literally through Mary– KristopherCommented Jul 13 at 2:10
-
1If.the O.P reads genesis chapter 3 they would note that the promise of the "crushing of the serpents head" is made to Eve...through her seed, not Adam. The promise made to Adam was that the ground would be cursed. I have downvoted the quesrion because it's errant in its fundamental assumptions.sin dates back to Adam and Eve and thus so does the messiah making atoenment. It has nothing to do with jewish tradition of lineage.– adamCommented Jul 13 at 2:18
-
Welcome to Christianity.SE! and thank you for your contribution. When you get a chance, please take the tour to understand how the site works and how it is different than others. I would also recommend reading the Help Center's sections on asking and answering questions.– agarzaCommented Jul 13 at 2:58
-
1Due to the curse uttered in regard to the royal line, Jeremiah 22:30 it was impossible for the Davidic line to transfer the throne rights. But Christ coming 'of seed of David' (adoptively) but not coming of that seed by natural generation, made the realisation of the throne rights to the Messiah possible. You need to research your question more diligently, in regard to all of the complex aspects in play.– Nigel JCommented Jul 13 at 8:09
-
Jesus is not the Messiah of Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, Jeremiah 33:15, 2 Samuel 7:12-13. These Messiahs are worldly rulers but Jesus said his Kingdom is not of this world.– DhammadhatuCommented Jul 17 at 5:53
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
I think this was an area of some disagreement in the early church. Only two Gospels speak of the virgin birth (Matthew and Luke). Paul never speaks of it in his epistles, but does say that he is of the seed of David (Romans 1:3)
Matthew and Luke explain their position by challenging the interpretation that the Messiah had to be a descendant of David:
Luke 20:41–21:4 Then Jesus said to them, “How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? 42 David himself declares in the Book of Psalms: “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand 43 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’ 44 David calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”
Paul also warns against debating genealogies:
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.
So it would appear there was some divide even among Christians as to whether Jesus was descended from David or not. Those that maintained that he was of the Davidic line don’t appear to believe in the virgin birth.
answered Jul 13 at 2:03
-
2Paul states that Christ is 'come of woman, come under law' (literal) Galatians 4:4. There is no substantiation for your above theories in the Church Fathers (which is why you have not quoted them). Nor any in scripture.– Nigel JCommented Jul 13 at 8:12
-
2@NigelJ Saying that Christ was born of a woman does not equate to saying that he had a virgin birth; you are reading into it. Rather, in context I take it to be an emphasis of how the Son of God was a human being. Likewise, the next statement that “he was born under the Law” is emphasizing that he was born a Jew. And I didn’t make any references to (later) Church Fathers since it is sufficient to see the conflict within scripture. Church Father references are welcome of course Commented Jul 13 at 8:29
-
Matthew and Luke are not challenging the idea that the Messiah had to come from David. There are plenty of texts linking Christ to the line of David. The questions are rhetorical, leading to the conclusion that Messiah is not just David's son, he's from the line of David but is greater than David. This is doubly clear because both include genealogies tying Christ to David, with Matthew showing the legal descent and claim to the throne through Joseph, and Luke apparently showing physical descent through Mary. Commented Jul 13 at 10:57
-
@user111403 Both are denying that He is a Son of David by the flesh due to the virgin birth. Luke especially emphasizes this, here: “Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,” (Luke 3:23). Joseph was of the line of David, but Jesus isn’t actually his son in these narratives. Commented Jul 13 at 11:17
-
@RyanPierceWilliams Jesus was not physically the son of Joseph (which is not the same as "not actually"), but was still physically the son of David through Mary, and it's widely believed that Luke records the physical descent. The claim that Matthew and Luke are arguing, despite prophecy, that Messiah is not the son of David is a fringe interpretation that misses the point of the text, and I'm not going to accept that it was understood that way in the early church without seeing citations. Commented Jul 13 at 12:10