The Pelagian Heresy is Alive and Well in America

[John Bauer]

[Scripture] never, ever says Jesus is a son of Adam.

It actually does (Luke 3:38).

 

[Arial]

It actually does (Luke 3:38).

Not really.
23Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph

 

[John Bauer]

Not really.
23Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph

That is not Joseph's line that Luke is tracing. And you neglected verse 38, which I cited.

 

[Arial]

That is not Joseph's line that Luke is tracing. And you neglected verse 38, which I cited.

Is Jesus a son of Adam? In the way the Bible uses it in relation to us?

 

[makesends]

On the contrary, his virgin birth meant he could sit on David’s throne.

If Joseph had fathered him, he would have been disqualified from occupying the throne of David due to the curse on Jeconiah and his descendants according to the flesh (Jer 22:24-30; cf. Matt 1:6-7, 11, 16). However, the Messiah must be David’s son (2 Sam 7; Ps 89; Isa 11), so this creates a redemptive-historical dilemma: If he is fathered by Joseph, he is disqualified. If he is not descended from David at all, he is disqualified.

The virgin birth resolves this dilemma. Jesus is legally Davidic (via Joseph, his legal father), granting him lawful claim to the throne and fulfilling the Davidic promise, and also biologically Davidic (via Mary), but through Nathan, not Solomon, thereby avoiding the Jeconiah curse.

You said, "On the contrary..." Why not both? I might even call it orthodoxy, that Mary being a virgin was the means God used to demonstrate Jesus was born without sin.

 

[John Bauer]

Is Jesus a son of Adam? In the way the Bible uses it in relation to us?

I mean, Scripture appears to use it in the same way. At least it shows no distinctions in the genealogical record. That is to say, Melchi was the son of Addi in the same way that Isaac was the son of Abraham and so on, up to Seth as the son of Adam. That appears to be genealogical continuity all the way through, from Jesus being born to Mary and Joseph all the way back to Seth being born to Adam and Eve—the only difference being that Joseph wasn’t involved in the conception of Jesus.

 

[John Bauer]

You said, "On the contrary..." Why not both? I might even call it orthodoxy, that Mary being a virgin was the means God used to demonstrate Jesus was born without sin.

Well, they are certainly both true, that’s for sure.

But I would say they’re true for different reasons. He was born of a virgin Mary for reasons of Davidic promise, and he was sinless because he wasn’t under the federal headship of Adam; rather, he was himself a federal head, the last Adam. When Paul says all those in Adam are constituted sinners (Rom 5:12-19), he is using covenantal language, not biological, as the contrast with Christ proves.

 

[Arial]

I mean, Scripture appears to use it in the same way. At least it shows no distinctions in the genealogical record. That is to say, Melchi was the son of Addi in the same way that Isaac was the son of Abraham and so on, up to Seth as the son of Adam. That appears to be genealogical continuity all the way through, from Jesus being born to Mary and Joseph all the way back to Seth being born to Adam and Eve—the only difference being that Joseph wasn’t involved in the conception of Jesus.

It is the difference that makes all the difference in the world. The genealogy is connecting Jesus to the Seed of Gen3:14-15, and to the royal kingship line. But the categories are distinct. Not to being born in Adam because he wasn't.

 

[John Bauer]

It is the difference that makes all the difference in the world.

It makes a difference to the Davidic promise, I would stipulate.

The genealogy is connecting Jesus to the seed [promise] of Gen 3:14-15 and to the royal kingship line.

Yes, but through Mary—who was every bit a sinner in Adam—which is how Jesus fulfills both without the disqualification that haunted Solomon’s line through Jeconiah.

I have argued this before, so this won’t surprise anyone to hear: “Sin is not genetic.” It is not something in our genome. (If it were, Jesus would have inherited it from Mary—which is one reason why Roman Catholics dream up ideas like Immaculate Conception.)

This could belong in the new sub-forum (dedicated to speculative theology) but I could argue that even if Jesus had been incarnated as Joseph’s offspring he would still have been sinless—because in either case he wasn’t born under Adamic headship.

However, as I pointed out, he would’ve been disqualified from inheriting the throne of David. The virgin birth is how Christ answered both promises legitimately. He is the promised seed of the woman, the messiah who would inherit David’s throne.

Just as one doesn’t need to be descended from Christ biologically to be constituted righteous, so also one doesn’t need to be descended from Adam biologically to be constituted a sinner—because our sinful condition is a matter of covenantal union, not biological ancestry.

But the categories are distinct—not to being born in Adam, because he wasn't.

Which categories? Seed and kingship?

 

[JesusFan]

On the contrary, his virgin birth meant he could sit on David’s throne.

If Joseph had fathered him, he would have been disqualified from occupying the throne of David due to the curse on Jeconiah and his descendants according to the flesh (Jer 22:24-30; cf. Matt 1:6-7, 11, 16). However, the Messiah must be David’s son (2 Sam 7; Ps 89; Isa 11), so this creates a redemptive-historical dilemma: If he is fathered by Joseph, he is disqualified. If he is not descended from David at all, he is disqualified.

The virgin birth resolves this dilemma. Jesus is legally Davidic (via Joseph, his legal father), granting him lawful claim to the throne and fulfilling the Davidic promise, and also biologically Davidic (via Mary), but through Nathan, not Solomon, thereby avoiding the Jeconiah curse.

if he had been born from Joseph and Mary due to them having sexually relations, then he would have been disqualified from being the promised messiah, as he would not had been the sinless and spotless lamb of God

 

[JesusFan]

So?
It does not mean He was not in the line of Adam and David because scripture tells us Jesus was a son of David and a son of Adam.

And was ONLY human ever born who had a sinless nature

 

[John Bauer]

if he had been born from Joseph and Mary due to them having sexually relations, then he would have been disqualified from being the promised messiah, as he would not had been the sinless and spotless lamb of God

I proved my claim from Scripture.

I would like to see you prove your claim from Scripture.

 

[Arial]

This could belong in the new sub-forum (dedicated to speculative theology) but I could argue that even if Jesus had been incarnated as Joseph’s offspring he would still have been sinless—because in either case he wasn’t born under Adamic headship.

Exactly what I was going to suggest.

Which categories? Seed and kingship?

Yes. Seed because (if memory serves) it traces back through the seed bearers. Kingship because it traces back through the royal line. Jesus is both. And yes, Jesus is the legal heir of Davids throne through Joseph but does not inherit the biological connection.

But @Tambora who this "line of Adam" conversation began with, was confusing categories--genealogy and kingship.