Biblical Answer

The implications of a 'non-royal' understanding of the Messiah on the doctrine of Christology are significant. A non-royal understanding of the Messiah would mean that Jesus did not fulfill the traditional Jewish expectation of a king or ruler who would restore Israel to its former glory. This would challenge the traditional understanding of Jesus' messianic claim, which is often seen as a central aspect of his identity and mission. If Jesus did not see himself as a king or ruler, then his messianic claim would take on a different significance, one that is not necessarily tied to the idea of a national or political restoration of Israel.

This non-royal understanding of the Messiah would also have implications for our understanding of Jesus' relationship to the Davidic covenant. The Davidic covenant is often seen as the basis for Jesus' messianic claim, and is often associated with the idea of a king or ruler who would restore Israel to its former glory. However, if Jesus did not see himself as a king or ruler, then his relationship to the Davidic covenant would take on a different significance. This could mean that Jesus' messianic claim is not necessarily tied to the idea of a national or political restoration of Israel, but rather to a different aspect of the covenant, such as the idea of a new people of God or a new kingdom of God.

The implications of a non-royal understanding of the Messiah for the doctrine of Christology are far-reaching. If Jesus did not see himself as a king or ruler, then our understanding of his identity and mission would need to be revised. This could lead to a re-evaluation of the traditional understanding of Jesus' messianic claim, and a new understanding of his relationship to the Davidic covenant. Ultimately, this would have significant implications for our understanding of the nature of God and the relationship between God and humanity. It would also have implications for our understanding of the role of Jesus in salvation history, and the nature of his relationship to the Father. Divine Christology, which emphasizes the divine nature of Christ, would need to be re-examined in light of a non-royal understanding of the Messiah. This could lead to a greater emphasis on the spiritual and mystical aspects of Christ's nature, rather than his royal or kingly aspects. In conclusion, a non-royal understanding of the Messiah would have significant implications for the doctrine of Christology, and would require a re-evaluation of our understanding of Jesus' identity and mission.