"OF THE HOUSE AND LINEAGE OF DAVID"

Exercise:

    Some scholars have raised a question about the seeming irrelevancy of tracing the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, when both Matthew and Luke are at pains to assert that Jesus is not the son of Joseph.  If Joseph was not actually Jesus' father, why do both Matthew and Luke use his genealogy to show that Jesus is "of the house and lineage of David"?  Read Romans 1:3-4.  Why does Paul treat the Davidic descent as fact?

Discussion:

    Several answers can be offered.  One is that, in Jewish law, an adoptive child is considered -- legally -- the child of his adoptive father, so that we are talking here of a legal rather than biological fact.  Another answer is that Matthew and Luke both consider it important to prove that Jesus is "of the house and lineage of David," in order that prophecies can be fulfilled.

    And yet, there is evidence that even in the earliest days of the church (even before Matthew wrote his Gospel), the Davidic descent was taken for granted, at a time when many (or at least a few) living people would have been in a position to disprove it, if indeed there were grounds for challenging the assertion.  Scholars agree that Paul wrote his letter to the Romans around 57-58 CE, just over a quarter century after Jesus' death, and ten or fifteen years before the earliest gospel, the Gospel of Mark: "This is the good news concerning his [=God's] son who, in terms of human nature was born a descendant of David and who, in terms of the Spirit and of holiness was designated Son of God in power by resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ..." (Romans 1:3-4). 

    A likely solution is that the belief in Davidic descent came first -- as evidenced in Romans.  Then later, when the belief in divine birth developed, the (in some ways) irrelevant belief in Davidic descent was retained, both because it was widely known and because it had the theological purpose of making Jesus the culmination of all Jewish history.

    So:  Was Jesus "of the house and lineage of David"?  We can't be sure he was; we can't be sure he wasn't.  But, given the assertion from the earliest days of the church, and the apparent lack of effort to dispute it, there is reason to believe he was.  And yet all this preoccupation with Jesus' birth and lineage is connected with the need to prove his divinity and his position as the fulfillment of Jewish history and prophecy.  Indeed, the early church (and often the modern church as well) is much more concerned with the divinity of Jesus than with his teachings.

    Romans: Paul's Letter (Epistle) to the Romans: Keep in mind that the Letters of Paul are the oldest New Testament writings that we have (even though they are placed toward the end of the New Testament).  They were written in the 50s -- twenty-some years after the crucifixion of Jesus -- with the Letter to the Romans being one of the later ones.  Matthew's Gospel was written a quarter century later, probably in the early 80s.

    So in some ways, Paul's letters may come closer to historical realities -- or at least to some of the earliest beliefs about Jesus -- than the later Gospels. (But, on the other hand, Paul really says almost nothing about the man Jesus, the historical Jesus.)