Was Jesus a descendant of David?

Matthew and Luke would have us believe Jesus was both the product of a virgin birth AND a direct line-male descendant of David. They cannot both be true... And perhaps neither are.

I addressed the virgin birth here and here. Let us take a look at the other claim.

Messiah!

The first evidence in support of Jesus being a descendant of David is simply the fact that he was hailed as messiah, and given being a descendant of David was a requirement, this must be taken as evidence that that was the case.

How careful were the Jews to trace genealogies? For the priests it was vital to show your eligibility for the job, but I doubt it was important for a carpenter. It is quite plausible people would assume descent. He is the messiah, therefore he must be a descendant of David.

Paul

Paul gives us this, which seems pretty clear:

Rom 1:2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord

However this may well be a later addition. This is based on it being inserted into what we would expect to be a very brief statement of who the letter is to and from, but also that the text is not cited elsewhere, in particular by Tertullian who had very good reason to do so (this would date the interpolation to third century or later). I find this fairly convincing, though it alone does not prove Jesus was not of House David.

More here. 

Verses in 1 Timothy and Titus advise us not to worry about genealogies. 

1 Timothy 1:4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to useless speculation rather than advance the plan of God, which is by faith, so I urge you now.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are useless and worthless.

Why would Paul bother about genealogies unless there was some controversy? And what controversy would concern Paul besides Jesus' ancestry? It seems fair to say that Paul would only tell us not to worry about them if they were not favourable.

The problem with that argument is that both letters are believed to be pseudepigraphic, written perhaps in the second century by some unknown author. It is possible this later author had those same concerns, but unlikely, as genealogies for Jesus were established by then from the gospels. Any controversy at that time is as likely due to made up claims either way, telling us nothing about the real situation.

Mark

When Mark was written, Jesus was seen as the Jewish messiah, and the absence of a genealogy here is definitely hard to explain if one was available.

In fact, Mark does have the crowds proclaiming Jesus as the messiah, saying he is the son of David.

Mark 10:47 And when he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” 48 Many were sternly telling him to be quiet, but he kept crying out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”

But a few verses later:

Mark 11:9 And those who went in front and those who followed were shouting:

“Hosanna!

Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord;

10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David;

Hosanna in the highest!”

This suggests the entire crowd considered themselves the children of David, so the statement about Jesus may be no more than that. But is it possible that Mark 10:47-48 is the basis for the later authors believing Jesus was a descendant of David?

Matthew and Luke

The gospels of Matthew and Luke are both very clear, tracing the descent explicitly, but this really serves to highlight the absence in Mark. Plus, of course, the genealogies are significantly different.

The reason for the difference is likely the curse of Jeconiah (the last king before the captivity):

Jeremiah 22:30 This is what the Lord says:

‘Write this man down as childless,

A man who will not prosper in his days;

For no man among his descendants will prosper

Sitting on the throne of David

Or ruling again in Judah.’”

Given this, the author of Luke contrived a genealogy that carefully avoids Jeconiah.

However, many believe the curse was lifted, given Jeconiah's grandson, Zerubbabel, became king, and this verse is understood to be the lifting of the curse (the signet ring motif harks to other verses in Jeremiah):

Haggai 2:23 ‘On that day,’ declares the Lord of armies, ‘I will take you, Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, My servant,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will make you like a [w]signet ring, for I have chosen you,’” declares the Lord of armies.

The author of Matthew, more familiar with scripture - as evidence by numerous references thoughout his gospel - realised Jesus had to be descended through both Jeconiah and Zerubbabel.

One of the genealogies must be wrong - it is not that much more of a stretch to suppose both are.

We also see this (also in Mark 12:35-37 and Luke 20:40-42):

Mat 22:41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question: 42 “What do you think about the [w]Christ? Whose son is He?” They *said to Him, “The son of David.” 43 He *said to them, “Then [x]how does David [y]in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying,

44 ‘The Lord said to my Lord,

“Sit at My right hand,

Until I put Your enemies under Your feet”’?

45 Therefore, if David calls Him ‘Lord,’ [z]how is He his son?” 46 No one was able to offer Him a word in answer, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him any more questions.

This seems very much as though Jesus is saying the messiah is not be a descendant of David, which very much argues against Jesus being of that House.

Why would Matthew and Luke both claim descent from David, and include verses siayng Jesus was not descended frm David? I would suggest both authors wants to include everything they could. They both had Mark, so both wanted to include the above passage, but at the same time both had genealogies they wanted to include (nd virgin birth claims too!).

John

Like Mark, John does not have genealogies, but in this case I think that can be rationalised. John is at pains to distance Jesus from the Jews and by this time claims to be the Jewish messiah were not important. He really has no great reason to want to include it even if it exists. It is interesting to note that the name David appears in only one verse in John; an important one for this discussion:

John 7:41 Others were saying, “This is the [a]Christ.” But others were saying, “Surely the Christ is not coming from Galilee, is He? 42 Has the Scripture not said that the Christ comes from the descendants of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” 43 So a dissension occurred in the crowd because of Him.

Again, this is very much saying Jesus was not of the House of David.

Summary

While I can readily imagine early Christians making up that Jesus was a descendant of David, the opposite is not true. There is absolutely no reason for these verses that indicate Jesus was not of House David unless that really was the case.

The argument really hangs on Romans 1:2. If that is authentic, it becomes highly likely Jesus was a descendant of David. If it is a later interpolation, then it is far more likely Jesus was not a descendant.

In my view it probably is a later addition.