Periodical Reviews -- By: Robert D. Ibach, Jr.
Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 164:653 (Jan 2007)
Article: Periodical Reviews
Author: Robert D. Ibach, Jr.
BSac 164:653 (January-March 2007) p. 101
Periodical Reviews
By The Faculty And Library Staff Of
Dallas Theological Seminary
“Jesus, ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of David’: The ‘Adoption’ of Jesus into the Davidic Line,” Yigal Levin, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28 (June 2006): 415–42.
The author of this article teaches at the Academic College of Judea and Samaria and Bar-Ilan University, Israel. He believes that Matthew and Luke, by arguing for both Jesus’ divine paternity and Davidic descent, confront readers with a difficult question: If Jesus was not Joseph’s biological son, in what sense is He the Davidic Messiah? Levin surveys the answers proposed by interpreters, noting the consensus that Joseph adopted Jesus according to Jewish custom and in this way gave Him Davidic status. The problem with this view, as Levin argues, is that evidence in Jewish law for adoption is virtually nonexistent for the first century. On the other hand it was a phenomenon known and practiced by the Romans, especially the aristocracy. For example the adoptive father of the emperor Augustus was Julius Caesar. Because Caesar was deified posthumously, Augustus acquired the title, “son of god.” Levin thinks the use of this Roman concept points to the Gentile rather than the Jewish cultural background of Matthew and Luke.
Levin has read widely (the article has a nine-page bibliography, including references to writers like J. Gresham Machen, Donald Barnhouse, and James M. Boice), and he has assembled information about Jewish and Gentile adoption practices in a helpful manner. However, in order to make his case that adoption was not common among Jews, Levin must dismiss various bits of evidence to the contrary. He does so by arguing that there are no legal mechanisms specified with regard to inheritance among the Jews in association with what appear to be occasional references to relationships that for all practical purposes seem to function like adoptions. He does not deny that adoptions of this sort occurred, but he says that they carried no legal rights and therefore cannot be compared to the practice of adoption among the Romans. And it is the Roman practice that seems to correspond more appropriately to what the Gospel writers affirmed about Jesus’ relationship with Joseph and therefore His Davidic descent.
However, does Levin overlook common law features of cultures that are recognized even if not formalized? More problematic is his notion that the title “Son of God” is to be understood only in an ontological sense. The quotations of Psalm 2:7 in connection with Jesus’ baptism (Matt. 3:17;
Click here to subscribe