76. Christ's Flesh from Adam and Davidic Descent

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Christ’s Assumption of Flesh from Adam #

The Central Question: Was it appropriate for Christ to take flesh derived from Adam, the source of original sin?

Objections Raised:

• 1 Corinthians 15:47 describes Christ as “the second man from heaven, heavenly,” suggesting He is fundamentally distinct from Adam
• It would seem more miraculous to form Christ’s body de novo from earth (as with Adam) than from human matter derived from Adam
• If Christ’s body came from Adam’s posterity, He would have contracted original sin, which contradicts His purity

Thomas’s Response:

• Christ took human nature specifically to purge it from corruption caused by Adam’s sin
• The corruption of human nature originated with Adam; therefore, it was fitting that Christ assume flesh from the infected source itself
• “Heavenly” in Paul’s description refers to Christ’s divinity and the power that formed His body, not to the matter of His body itself
• According to matter, Christ’s body was earthly, just as Adam’s was
• The Incarnation is not primarily ordered to miraculous display but to divine wisdom and human salvation
• Christ’s body was in Adam materially but not according to seed (i.e., not through male generation), so He did not contract original sin

Christ as “Son of David” #

The Problem: How can Christ be called “Son of David” when:

• Matthew’s genealogy traces through Joseph, who was not Christ’s biological father
• Mary appears to belong to the priestly tribe (related to Elizabeth, who was daughter of Aaron), not to Judah where David reigned
• Jeremiah 22 prophesies that Jeconiah will be sterile and none of his seed shall sit on David’s throne; yet Matthew traces Joseph’s lineage through Jeconiah

Thomas’s Resolution:

• Special promises were given to Abraham and David specifically regarding Christ
• To Abraham: “In your seed shall all nations be blessed” (Genesis 22), which Paul interprets as referring to Christ (Galatians 3)
• To David: “Of the fruit of your womb I will place upon your seed” — reference to Christ’s kingship
• Abraham was both priest and prophet; David was both king and prophet
• Christ embodies all three roles (priest, prophet, king), so descent from both is theologically appropriate
• Mary must have been of David’s lineage, since Scripture affirms both that Christ came from David’s seed and that His mother was Mary
• Joseph and Mary were from the same tribe by Jewish law (exogamy was regulated by tribe)
• The prophecy against Jeconiah’s worldly reign is not violated, since Christ’s kingdom is not of this world

Reconciling Genealogical Discrepancies #

The Contradictions:

• Matthew: Jacob generated Joseph; Luke: Eli generated Joseph
• Matthew: 42 generations from Abraham to Joseph
• Luke: 77 generations from Christ back to God
• Matthew omits three kings (Joram, Ocasius, Joas); Luke includes different names
• Matthew names only three women; Luke names different ancestors

Thomas’s Solutions (drawing on Augustine, Jerome, Eusebius, and Julius Africanus):

1. Levirate Marriage Explanation: Jacob and Eli were brothers (different fathers, same mother — uterine brothers) descended from different lines:

   • Mathon (from Solomon) married a woman and had Jacob
   • When Jacob died without children, Jewish law (levirate marriage) required his brother Eli (from Nathan) to marry Jacob’s widow
   • Eli and the widow had a son named Heli
   • Jacob later died without issue, and the law required another relative to marry his widow
   • That relative was Joseph (Jacob’s brother by blood)
   • Joseph was thus both the natural son of Jacob and the legal son of Eli (by levirate right)
   • This explains how two genealogies can both be true: Matthew traces natural descent through Jacob; Luke traces legal descent through Eli

2. Theological Purpose of Different Genealogies:

   • Matthew descends from Abraham to Joseph (downward), emphasizing Christ’s assumption of mortal, sinful humanity
   • Luke ascends from Christ to God (upward), emphasizing Christ’s role in expiating sins and reconciling humanity to God

3. Numerical Symbolism:

   • Matthew’s 42 generations (6 × 7): combines labor (6) and rest (7), divided into three groups of 14
   • Luke’s 77 generations (7 × 11): universality (7) of sins transgressing the law (represented by 11, exceeding the 10 commandments)

4. Different Genealogical Traditions: Each evangelist may have followed available genealogical records for their theological purposes

5. Omitted Kings: Kings may be omitted when they are not relevant to the theological narrative; “generate” can refer to remote descendants, not just immediate sons

Key Arguments #

Argument 1: Why Christ Should Take Flesh from Adam #

Structure:

• P1: Human nature needs purgation from corruption caused by Adam’s sin
• P2: The purgation is most fitting when the one who purges assumes the corrupted nature itself
• P3: Therefore, Christ should assume flesh from Adam’s posterity
• C: Christ appropriately took flesh derived from Adam

Argument 2: Why Matthew and Luke Give Different Genealogies #

Structure:

• P1: One man can have two fathers through levirate marriage (natural and legal)
• P2: Jacob was Joseph’s natural father; Eli was his legal father
• P3: Matthew traces natural descent; Luke traces legal descent
• C: Both genealogies are true and refer to the same person

Argument 3: Why Christ Is Called “Son of David” #

Structure:

• P1: Special promises were made to David concerning Christ
• P2: Christ assumes the three roles (priest, prophet, king) that Abraham and David between them exemplify
• P3: Christ’s descent from David demonstrates fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy
• C: Christ is fittingly called “Son of David”

Important Definitions #

Incarnation (ἐνσάρκωσις): God becoming human in Christ; the assumption of true human nature by the divine person, while remaining fully divine

Levirate Marriage (Latin: levirati): Jewish practice (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) in which a man marries his brother’s widow to “raise up seed” (offspring) in his deceased brother’s name. The offspring legally belongs to the deceased brother, though the living brother is the biological father

Natural Generation vs. Legal Generation: The distinction between biological paternity (natural) and paternity established by law or custom (legal). In the case of Joseph, Jacob was his natural father; Eli was his legal father by levirate right

Genealogy (γενεαλογία): A record of descent from ancestors. In Scripture, genealogy carries theological significance beyond mere historical record; different evangelists may arrange genealogies to emphasize different truths about Christ

Original Sin: The sin of Adam transmitted to all humanity through natural generation (male seed). Christ, born of a woman without male seed, did not inherit original sin

Seed (Latin: semen; Greek: σπέρμα): In biblical language, offspring or descendants; used of both biological descent through male generation and legal/covenantal descent

Examples & Illustrations #

The Levirate Marriage Case: Berquist illustrates how one person can have two fathers:

• If a man adopts me, he is my legal father
• But my biological father is the man who generated me
• I could truthfully say “my father was the man who adopted me” or “my father was the man who generated me”
• Similarly, Joseph had Jacob as natural father and Eli as legal father

Tribal Marriage Laws: Berquist notes this is not merely historical; he mentions that in contemporary Lebanese Maronite culture (his students’ context), young men returning from America often marry women from their own village/tribe rather than American-born girls, maintaining tribal endogamy. This illustrates the ongoing importance of tribal law in Mediterranean cultures

Omitted Kings: Just as we today still call a retired governor “governor” as an honorary title (and retired presidents “Mr. President”), ancient genealogies could refer to remote descendants as “generated by” a remote ancestor, or could refer to a deceased person as if still living by using his name with honor

Notable Quotes #

“Christ took human nature, that he might purge it from corruption. But human nature would not need purgation, except insofar as it was infected by an origin, vitiated, which from sinned from Adam.”

This captures Thomas’s central argument: the very reason Christ assumed flesh was to heal corrupted human nature.

“The second man, that is Christ, is said to be of heaven, not as regards the matter of his body, right? But either as regards the power that formed his body, or as regards his divinity, right? But according to his matter, the body of Christ was earthly, just as the body of Adam.”

This shows how to reconcile apparent contradictions between Paul’s “heavenly” designation and Christ’s earthly flesh.

“For he did not reign by a worldly or secular honor, for he himself said, my kingdom is not of this world.”

This resolves the Jeremiah prophecy against Jeconiah’s seed: Christ, who descended from Jeconiah through Joseph’s line, did not fulfill the prophecy of worldly reign because His kingdom is spiritual, not temporal.

Questions Addressed #

Q1: Was it suitable for Christ to take flesh from Adam?

• A: Yes. The corruption of human nature originated with Adam. For Christ to purge this corruption, it was most fitting that He assume flesh from the very source of the corruption. His assumption of Adamic flesh proves the reality of the Incarnation and the extent of His redemptive work. Moreover, He avoided original sin not by avoiding Adam’s posterity but by avoiding male generation (being born of a virgin without male seed).

Q2: How can Christ be called “Son of David” if Joseph was not His biological father?

• A: Because Mary was of David’s line. Scripture affirms both that Christ was born of David’s seed and that His mother was Mary. Therefore, Mary must have descended from David. Joseph’s role as spouse and legal father (exercised in raising Christ) was sufficient genealogically. Jewish law required marriage within one’s tribe, so both Joseph and Mary were from Judah (David’s tribe).

Q3: Why do Matthew and Luke give different genealogies?

• A: They emphasize different theological purposes. Matthew descends from Abraham to Joseph, stressing Christ’s assumption of sinful Adamic flesh and His kingly dignity (descending through Solomon). Luke ascends from Christ to God, stressing Christ’s role in expiating universal sins and reconciling humanity. The names differ because they trace different genealogical lines: Matthew traces natural paternity; Luke traces legal paternity through the levirate institution.

Q4: How can Joseph have two fathers (Jacob and Eli)?

• A: Through levirate marriage. Jacob and Eli were uterine brothers (same mother, different fathers) from different tribal lines (Jacob from Solomon’s line, Eli from Nathan’s line). Jacob married first and had Joseph as his natural son. When Jacob died without other issue, Eli (Joseph’s uncle) married Jacob’s widow and had another son (Heli) in Jacob’s name. Later, when Eli died without sufficient issue, the law may have required another arrangement. In any case, Jewish law permitted one man to be considered the son of two different fathers depending on whether one traced natural or legal descent.

Q5: Is the genealogy truly scriptural if it contains these complications?

• A: Yes. All Scripture is divinely inspired and divinely ordered. The complications do not undermine Scripture’s truth but rather demonstrate the intricate wisdom with which God ordered the Incarnation to fulfill Old Testament prophecy while maintaining the fullness of human nature in Christ.

Digressions and Context #

Berquist includes a lengthy discussion of how to read genealogical and biblical texts more broadly. He notes that modern scholars sometimes claim we cannot even be certain of the apostles’ names because the Gospels differ in naming them. He argues, against this skepticism, that such variations are not contradictions but rather reflect different genealogical traditions and the complexity of historical records. He illustrates this by noting how historians today acknowledge that “history is always more complicated than we think,” citing the famous definition of history as “one damn thing after another” (attributed to Arnold Toynbee or Henry Ford, depending on the source). This methodological point is important: Thomas’s approach to genealogy does not dismiss scriptural difficulties but rather takes them seriously and resolves them through careful logical analysis.