Was the Lord Jesus Christ "woman begotten" ?
As you probably already realized, this website is an apologetics website that clearly demonstrates that the whole volume of scripture speaks against a "Jesus from below", meaning the hypostatic union Jesus of Chalcedon who "took on flesh out of Mary". We will keep looking at scriptures and provide sufficient rebuttals of all the false claims against our great Lord and God Jesus Christ. This article will deal with many false claims that are based on what I would call "genealogical arguments", meaning quotations from promises made to David, about the messiah, his coming forth from Judah etc. I highly advise you to read an article about the levite ancestry of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ here: Mary was a Levite (TEXT) Let me now go ahead and quote you from the book of Mark the following:
"Then Jesus answered and said, while He taught in the temple, “How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Spirit: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” ’ Therefore David himself calls Him ‘Lord’; how is He then his Son?” And the common people heard Him gladly. Then He said to them in His teaching, “Beware of the scribes, who desire to go around in long robes, love greetings in the marketplaces, the best seats in the synagogues, and the best places at feasts, who devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. These will receive greater condemnation.”"
Did you ever notice in the church circles that when you actually become Christ-like (meaning walking like he walked, see 1 John 2:6), the church calls you all the names in the book? They do not want you to speak like Jesus Christ spoke in the above 5 verses. Don't even think for a minute you could walk like he walked and avoid being locked up in a police station or a psychiatry in the western world. It is actually easy to have all the persecution you wish heaped upon you in the western world. How? Behave like Jesus Christ did.
What is the "meat" in the above passage for our study? Jesus Christ flat out denied to have any human flesh and blood connection to David. It's funny how commentators get lost in their fantasy, claiming Jesus references the hypostatic union here. This is nonsense. The wording "How then is he" can be found in other places of the bible and guess what it generally means? It negates the thing said. "How then is he...?" is equivalent to "He is not !", meaning: "How can you reason that to be the case when clearly it is stated that...". Ok, you want examples. Let us quote the interlinear and analyze it. (Side note: Is it not outright insane how many bible word lexicons point you to how some Greek philosophers used certain Koine terms and then try to tell you that you now have to understand a word in that sense as Plato or Aristotle used it? This claim means that the bible is not sufficient to figure out what God is saying. Dwell on that thought for some time.)
This style is found in a couple other verses in the New Testament. Matthew 26:54 asks how the scriptures can be fulfilled if Jesus is not crucified. Matthew 12:26 asks how satan's kingdom can stand if satan casts out satan. The Jews asked the parents of the blind born how he was able to see. The disciples ask Jesus in the parable of the sower how there can be tares among the weed. What is the difference though? It is being explained how a thing can be or it is evident if the question "How then" is being asked. Jesus Christ however does not explain how he can be the Son of David when David calls him Lord. If it would be the other way round, the hypostatic union crowd would have a case here. Suppose he said: "Jesus is the Son of David, how then can he call him Lord?" The answer then could be that really he is "God the Word" that was moving an avatar around "taken on from the virgin" and that "The Lord of David" was doing this. But this is not the case. The question is asked deliberately to refute the idea that messiah is a flesh and blood son of David.
Jesus Christ said 2 other things that must sound strange to people believing that Jesus "took from Mary":
"Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."
"For I say to you, among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."
It is valid to ask why Jesus Christ would say such a thing if he was born from Mary. I had to analyze the Greek language yet one more time and found that this wording is only used these 2 times in the New Testament and 5 times in the Septuagint and this yielded quite some astonishing results.
This should say "...among those woman begotten...". I have postulated before that the word G1537 "ek" when added to G1096 "ginomai" changes the meaning of G1096 to a channel and have provided the evidence for it. I argue that something similar happens when it is connected to G1084 "gennetos" which means "to beget". If you have G1537 "ek" connected to this word, it refers rather to birth. A channel again, a source, where something was and came out of, not necessarily the act of "procreation", "begetting". I know this from Matthew's gospel that lists who begat whom and there is G1080 (root of G1084) but no G1537. One man begets the next generation. As soon as we get to the Holy Spirit begetting Jesus though in verse 18 and 20, the preposition G1537 is added. That is significant because the Holy Spirit carries the Logos. The Logos was born out of the depth of the Spirit of God, but Logos is an expression of the Soul of God, when the Spirit is being cultivated. There is a clear distinction between Spirit and Soul, see Hebrews 4:12 and 1. Thessalonians 5:23. Jesus is G1080 "begotten" G1537 "out of" Mary in verse 16, which clearly refers to the birth, not the procreative "begetting".
This is the key to understanding why Jesus said what he said about John the Baptist. Jesus Christ himself was NOT "woman begotten". He was "woman born", meaning "born out of a woman" as in the act of the actual coming out of the womb on the day of birth. But he was not procreated by Mary as John the Baptist was from Elizabeth. Otherwise we would be faced with a fact that John the Baptist was a greater prophet than Jesus Christ and that John the Baptist was the greatest man that ever lived. If the hypostatic union party claims that Jesus was a man from dust-flesh as all others are, then he clearly was "woman begotten". But he was not made from dust-flesh. Let us quote the 5 verses from the Septuagint book of Job that speak of those "woman begotten":
He that speaks much, should also hear on the other side: or does the fluent speaker think himself to be righteous? blessed is the short-lived offspring of woman.
But man vainly buoys himself up with words; and a mortal born of woman is like an ass of the desert.
For a mortal born of a woman is short-lived, and full of wrath.
For who, being a mortal, is such that he shall be blameless? or, who that is born of a woman, that he should be just?
For how shall a mortal be just before the Lord? or who that is born of a woman shall purify himself?
The "offspring of a woman" is mortal. He is not blameless and not just. He is short lived and cannot purify himself. As Ephesians 2:3 tells us "We were by nature children of wrath". Death is in our flesh from birth on. I know there are voices contesting this teaching. It however is a very clear bible teaching. The Hebrew masoretic text has "enosh" for "man" which means "mortal" and is derived from "to be sick". We are all sin sick in our flesh. I apologize, I am not making a case for the total depravity of Calvinism here. I hope one day I will deem a moment worthy to address the false TULIP teaching. Nathaneel was an Israelite without guile, see John 1:29. However, one man may have a more honest heart than another man, but the "pull of sin" that we have in our flesh clearly is there from birth on. Anyone that has his own children will be able to confirm this to be the case. Watch toddlers and you will learn about a sinful flesh nature quickly.
Jesus Christ was not an "offspring of a woman" in the sense of having been conceived from Mary's DNA. If he was, he would have declared John the Baptist to be greater than himself. He would have been mortal in the sense of being "sick", short lived, full of wrath, unable to purify himself, not just before the Lord. Now Origen comes in and claims that the Logos gave divine purification to the body that came from Mary. That is not found anywhere in the bible. If that was possible, there would not have been need for a savior. God could have merely touched everyone's flesh and cleaned them up. We need to die though and our flesh will go. Flesh and Blood clearly cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Let us move forward and look at this from another level.
"And [God] has raised up a horn of salvation for us In the house of His servant David."
The specific question is if Jesus Christ was required to be, and if he was factually, according to the scriptures a flesh and blood offspring of David. I have demonstrated before that his legal sonship has been proven in the scriptures by Matthew chapter 1, which portraits the flesh and blood genealogy of Joseph, who was of the house of David and served as Jesus' legal father. Let us begin by showing that the legal paternity is supreme to the fleshly paternity. This is established by the so called "levirate marriages", a case when the brother of a deceased childless sibling marries his wife and raises up offspring in his place. (recall as well the dialogues of Jesus Christ and the Jews of John 8 about abrahamic sonship)
"If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her."
There is a somewhat awkward story in the book of Genesis pertaining to the 2 sons of Judah, Er and Onan. Er is killed by the LORD, yet Onan is supposed to raise up seed to him. Onan drops it on the floor and God also kills him. The Septuagint uses the word G4690 "sperma", the Hebrew masoretic text the word H2233 "zera", both referring to "seed". This short account establishes as factual what I stated above, namely that a physical "sperm" does not trump a legal sperm.
"Then Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord killed him. And Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and marry her, and raise up an heir to your brother.” But Onan knew that the heir (sperm, zera) would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; therefore He killed him also."
The word used in the LXX for "raise up" is G450 "anhistemi", from "ana" and "histemi" - "to cause to rise." In Hebrews 1:3, we have read how Jesus Christ is the engraving of the hypostasis of God himself, the "hypo-histemi". The "horn of salvation" raised up in the house of David is that of God himself - the Word of God. I quoted Luke 1:69 at the top and need to mention that the word for "raise up" there is G1453 "egeiro", to awaken. Verse 1:78 further states that this horn of salvation is the "rising" from "on high", the G395 "anatelo". This same word is used in the LXX in Zechariah 3:8 and 6:12, where we learn about God's servant, the "branch" that was to come. This branch "branched forth out of his place". The legal son of David was in fact a branch of the root of Jesse, not a branch of the branch of Jesse.
"There shall come forth a Rod from the s tem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots."
A branch out of ones' roots refers to the forefathers.
"But from a branch of her roots one shall arise in his place, who shall come with an army, enter the fortress of the king of the North, and deal with them and prevail."
We have learned from Luke 3:38 that the legal forefather of Joseph, thus Jesus Christ, is none other than God himself. Jesus Christ himself is the root of David. He is his offspring in a legal sense through Joseph, not in a flesh and blood sense through Mary.
"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the assemblies. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star."
"Therefore David himself calls Him ‘Lord’; how is He then his Son?"
I am one more time quoting from Matthew 1 in order to show that Jesus Christ is the Son of David (and Abraham) through Joseph according to the bible.
"The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham: Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brothers...And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."
Now that I have laid this groundwork, I want to counter the idea that Acts 2:30 states a "flesh and blood" generation of Jesus Christ pertaining to David. I will quote from Acts 2, Psalms 132 and Acts 13.
"Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body (Codex Bezae: fruit of his heart), [according to the flesh], He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption."
"The Lord has sworn in truth to David; he will not turn from it: I will set upon your throne the fruit of your body. If your sons will keep My covenant and My testimony which I shall teach them, their sons also shall sit upon your throne forevermore."
"And when He had removed him, He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.’ From this man’s seed, according to the promise, God raised up for Israel a Savior—Jesus— after John had first preached, before His coming, the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. And as John was finishing his course, he said, ‘Who do you think I am? I am not He. But behold, there comes One after me, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to loose.’ “Men and brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to you the word of this salvation has been sent. For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they did not know Him, nor even the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath, have fulfilled them in condemning Him. And though they found no cause for death in Him, they asked Pilate that He should be put to death. Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb. But God raised Him from the dead. He was seen for many days by those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses to the people. And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers. God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:
‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’ "
Acts 2:30, read through the lens of Chalcedon, seems to suggest that Jesus Christ was "created from davidic flesh". There are several things problematic with that. The first thing is that the "thing according to the flesh" was "raised from the dead". It is not pertaining to the "fruit of your body according to the flesh". I hope you follow the analysis. "According to the flesh" refers to the fact that the flesh of Jesus Christ was resurrected and not that there was a "fruit of the body according to the flesh". It also declares that to be the matter of fact in verse 2:31 that this was "spoken concerning the resurrection". A subject of debate can be if "the thing according to the flesh" was part of Acts 2:30 when Luke wrote it. I am not getting lost in that debate here because I do not want to "lose" people that favor the Textus Receptus. This is why I am showing that it refers to "what was resurrected". The "fruit of the loins / body" pertains to the fact that the sons of David will be put on David's throne. Acts 13:23 reiterates this with the statement that God has "from this man's seed brought / lead / carried the savior to Israel." Psalms 132:11-12, where the Acts quote is from, gives the seed of David the requirement to keep God's covenant. As David was such a man after God's heart, he raised up to Israel a savior - Jesus Christ. This is reflected in the Codex Bezae translation of Acts 2:30 that states that God would raise up one "of the fruit of the heart" of David. The theme of Acts 2:30 is that of the resurrection, not that of a messiah being comprised of "flesh from David". Further, let us note that the promise to David was clearly passed on through Solomon.
"Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies all around. His name shall be Solomon, for I will give peace and quietness to Israel in his days. He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son, and I will be his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever."
(1 Chronicles 22:9-10)
"A Psalm of (really: to) Solomon. They shall fear You as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations. In His days the righteous shall flourish, and abundance of peace, until the moon is no more. He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth. Yes, all kings shall fall down before Him; all nations shall serve Him. His name shall endure forever; his name shall continue as long as the sun. And men shall be blessed in Him; all nations shall call Him blessed."
"When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men. But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever."
(2. Samuel 7:12-16)
"For to which of the angels did He ever say:
“You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”?
“I will be to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a Son”?"
What do the above passages contribute to the discussion? First of all, Solomon is the person of inheritance and he clearly did not fall from grace as Saul did. This is good news, we have a witness that King Solomon repented as an old man. Secondly, the "seed of David" line is not to be found in Luke 3, at least if we take a main argument of Chalcedon defenders, namely that Jesus Christ's flesh and blood genealogy from David through Mary is supposedly found in Luke 3.Luke 3 has a line through Nathan. The passage in 2. Samuel is quoted in Hebrews 1:5 pertaining to the Son of God. Solomon was the heir of the throne of David, when we go by flesh and blood offspring. This article has proven a main argument of the Chalcedon defenders as being without any scriptural support or substance, meaning that God says anywhere in the bible that the messiah "had to be" or "was" a flesh and blood descendant of David. In this context, all other passages (that are partially mistranslated in the KJV and were attempted to be perverted by "church fathers") like Romans 1:3, John 7:42 or Romans 9:5 are merely stating the fact that Jesus "came out of the seed of David", which describes the channel of his birth, not the dust-flesh derivation of his body.