This is another article on messiahship, following on from, “Did Yeshua think of himself as the messiah?” This article deals with how Christians argue Jesus‘s Davidic descent in spite of the virgin birth.
The Miqra (Hebrew Bible) quite clearly states that the messiah must be of direct biological descent from David (he will be of ‘his seed‘, Ps 89:4, 29, 36). What has been promised and established by covenant from God, cannot be revoked, changed or walked back; what God promises by covenant is eternal. If God’s own Self breaks God’s Word, then God’s Word means nothing.
So I have always wondered by what logic Christians still claim that ‘Jesus‘ was the messiah of David, if Joseph was not the biological father of ‘Jesus‘.
So I asked ChatGPT the following question:
“If Joseph was a descendant of David, but was not the biological father of ‘Jesus’, as Christians claim, could ‘Jesus’ become a Davidic king by legal adoption?”
This is ChatGPT’s answer:
Short answer: no — not in the full, covenantal sense of Davidic kingship.
A king could designate or install a successor, but he could not, by adoption, turn a non-Davidic Descendant into a legitimate Davidic king under ancient Israelite law and theology.
Here’s the careful breakdown.
1. The biblical problem in plain terms
The Hebrew Bible is unambiguous on one central point:
Israel’s legitimate kings must be physical, direct, male-line descendants of King David (this is why the Pharisees and Essenes did not accept the kingship of the Hasmoneans, because they were Aaronic Levites).
This legal requirement is grounded in what the Hebrew Bible itself presents as an unbreakable divine covenant:
- “I will raise up your seed after you, who shall come forth from your own body” (2 Sam 7:12)
- “Your house and your kingdom shall be made firm forever before Me” (2 Sam 7:16)
- “I will not violate My covenant, or alter the word that went forth from My lips” (Ps 89:34–36)
- “David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel” (Jer 33:17)
In biblical Hebrew, zeraʿ (“seed”) means biological offspring — it never means “adopted”, “legal”, or “symbolic” descent. The covenant is explicitly tied to David’s physical male lineage, not to legal adoption, faith, indirect or symbolic descent.
Davidic descent cannot be conferred, and messianic eligibility cannot be transferred. Furthermore, human adoption cannot repair a break in the covenant line.
Christian theology, however, introduces a complication:
the virgin birth.
According to Matthew and Luke, Jesus was conceived without Joseph contributing any genetic material (Mt 1:18–25; Lk 1:34–35). If Joseph is not Jesus’s biological father, then — on the face of it — Jesus is not of David’s seed.
So how do Christians still claim that Jesus is the Davidic messiah?
2. The Christian theological solution
Christian theology affirms two claims simultaneously:
- Jesus was not biologically descended from Joseph
- Jesus was the Davidic messiah
From a biblical standpoint, those two claims cannot both be true at the same time.
Christian theology resolves this tension using three overlapping arguments, NONE of which come from the Hebrew Bible itself, but from later theological developments.
A. Legal descent through Joseph
The most common Christian claim is that legal fatherhood is sufficient. It is sufficient in Roman Law, but is invalid by God’s Law.
Joseph is presented as a descendant of David (Mt 1:1–16; Lk 3:23–31). By naming and raising Jesus, Joseph supposedly confers legal Davidic status, even without biological paternity.
Matthew reinforces this by narrating Joseph’s acceptance of Jesus as his son (Mt 1:24–25), implicitly framing Joseph as Jesus’s legal father.
Theological claim:
Legal descent can substitute for biological descent (note: this is based on the Roman legal system).
Biblical difficulty:
Nowhere in the Miqra is kingship transmitted by adoption. Royal legitimacy is consistently tied to physical descent (e.g. Num 1:18; 1 Kgs 8:25; 2 Chr 21:7).
B. Mary as a Davidic Descendant (a minority view)
Some Christians argue that Mary herself was of Davidic descent, usually appealing to Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:23–31), even though the text explicitly says it is Joseph’s genealogy.
This view attempts to preserve the claim to biological descent by transferring it from Joseph to Mary.
Problems with this argument:
- Luke never states that the genealogy is Mary’s.
- Tribal and royal lineage in the Miqra passes through the father and the direct male line, not the mother (Num 1:2; Ezra 2:59).
- Even if Mary were Davidic, the royal covenant is with David’s male seed (i.e. with David’s direct male-line descent), not merely with descendants in general.
C. Redefining the very meaning of what a messiah himself is
The most decisive move is theological rather than genealogical.
In Christian theology:
- Jesus is not merely a human king
- He is a pre-existent divine Son
- His kingship is not primarily political or dynastic
This allows Christians to reinterpret “Son of David” as:
- a messianic title
- a fulfilment “in spirit” rather than in literal genealogy
So ultimately, the messiah is a messiah because he is the Son of God.
Paul reflects this shift when he writes:
- “He was descended from David according to the flesh, and declared to be Son of God with power” (Rom 1:3–4)
Here, “according to the flesh” becomes theological language, not a genealogical proof. Most Christians are not aware that covenants with God cannot be changed or altered — neither by God, nor by human beings — and so this shift allows them to redefine what a messiah is.
Once messiahship is no longer:
- a Davidic king
- ruling Israel
- restoring the exiles
- rebuilding the Temple
- inaugurating universal peace
then logically, Davidic descent becomes symbolic rather than necessary.
At that point, genealogy functions as theological poetry, not legal qualification (i.e. genealogy and family trees become an irrelevance).
3. How Second Temple Jews argued the opposite
Second Temple Jews — both before and after Yeshua — argued precisely the opposite way.
For them, the logic was straightforward:
- God promised the throne to David’s physical seed (2 Sam 7:12–16).
- A messiah must therefore be:
- biologically descended from David
- through the direct male line
- No exception is stated anywhere in Scripture, nor made provision for.
This expectation is reflected in:
- Psalms of Solomon 17–18 (1st century BCE)
- Qumran texts (e.g. 4QFlorilegium)
- Later rabbinic tradition
From this perspective:
- Adoption does not transmit kingship
- Miraculous birth does not override covenantal terms
- Redefining the messiah redefines the covenant itself (which is not possible)
This is why, in Jewish polemic, the virgin birth was often seen not as a solution but as a disqualification.
4. Why the disagreement is ultimately theological, not factual
It is important to be precise here.
Christians do not claim Jesus is Davidic by the same criteria as the Hebrew Bible defines Davidic descent. They claim it because:
- they accept the authority of the New Testament, which overrides the ’Old Testament’
- they therefore accept theological reinterpretations of covenant (which are not allowed in the Hebrew Bible or by God)
- they can therefore safely redefine what “messiah” means
Second Temple Jews (and later Judaism) rejected those premises; God nowhere said that, “My covenants are eternal, until human beings change them“.
So the disagreement is not over genealogy alone, but over:
- what counts as fulfilment
- whether God’s covenantal terms can be reinterpreted
- whether a messiah must meet the original biblical criteria
5. Why Christian arguments do not work in Massorite Talmidaism
Massorite Talmidaism does not redefine messiahship in any way, because it follows biblical Yahwist logic and theology.
Within your framework:
- The messiah is a human king
- Chosen by God
- Of biological Davidic descent
- Acting within the historical, covenantal world of Israel
Therefore:
- Legal descent is insufficient
- Adoption is irrelevant
- Spiritualisation is disallowed
- Symbolism cannot override covenant terms
So if:
- Joseph is not Jesus’s biological father, and
- Mary’s Davidic descent cannot establish kingship,
then the conclusion is unavoidable:
Jesus cannot be the covenantal, biblically-defined Davidic messiah.
This does not diminish Yeshua’s role as prophet, teacher, or moral reformer — but it does place him outside the Davidic covenant category.
6. Conclusion
Christians can coherently claim that Jesus is “Son of David”, but only within Christian theology, because:
- legal descent is treated as sufficient,
- or Mary is assumed to be of Davidic descent,
- or the messiah is completely redefined beyond dynastic kingship.
However, within the framework of the Miqra and Second Temple Jewish expectations, these arguments do not hold.
If Joseph contributed no genetic material, then — by biblical standards — the Davidic covenant is not genealogically fulfilled.
The issue, therefore, is not a technical misunderstanding, but a fundamental divergence of theological systems; the Christian view is a fundamental departure from what God’s very own Self says in the Hebrew Bible.
Christianity resolves the problem by completely redefining what a messiah is.
Judaism (and Massorite Talmidaism) resolves it by remaining completely faithful to the covenant as originally written.
Both positions are internally consistent.
However, they simply do not operate by the same rules. One completely rewrites all God’s rules, and the other remains faithful to them.