Jesus, ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of David’: The ‘Adoption’ of Jesus into the Davidic Line

Abstract

The authors of both the first and third Gospels, by insisting on both Jesus' divine paternity and his Davidic descent, pose a conundrum: if Jesus was not Joseph' biological son, in what sense is he the Davidic Messiah? Most modern scholars assume that Joseph must have adopted Jesus in some form or another, thus giving him Davidic status, and many even point to such adoption as a ‘Jewish custom’. This article examines this assumption and shows that adoption was unknown in Jewish law of the period. Furthermore, such adoption was well known in Roman law, especially among the aristocracy. In the case of such emperors as Augustus, whose adoptive fathers had been deified posthumously, this gave them the status of divifilius, ‘son of god’. The inclusion of such a Roman concept into the Gospels may be an indication of the Gentile, rather than Jewish, cultural backgrounds of the evangelists.

Taking a holistic view of the biblical perspectives on childlessness: Implications for Nigerian Christians and the church in Nigeria

“…Mt 1:24-25;13:55;Lk 2:21-22). Levin (2006) states that, 'the general assumption is that Jesus inherited his Davidic status by means of adoption' (p. 422). Nevertheless, the question remains as to the background against which the evangelists conceived the idea of Jesus' adoption.…”

“…431-432) In reconciling Jesus' divine sonship with his Davidic descent, then, Matthew and Luke drew upon the context with which they were familiar. Hence, Levin (2006) If the early Christians understood Jesus' being Joseph's son in terms of adoption, it means that they were familiar with the practice of raising families not only biologically but also through adoption. Therefore, unlike in the OT where childless couples had to rely virtually on divine intervention, in the NT Jewish world infertility did not seem to be considered an enormous problem, as adoption could be used 'for circumventing the challenges of childlessness' (Byron 2010:35).…”

Scriptural Completion in the Infancy Gospel of James

“…This is rightly stressed byLevin 2006, although his inference of the tradition's Gentile origin does not follow.26 Cited in Origen, Against Celsus, 1.28, 32. …”