One concluding observation: Mason claims that “establishing some kind of connection with David might have been critical for a messianic figure…in Jesus’ time.” He writes: “A birth in Bethlehem, King David’s place of origin, would naturally cement Jesus’ Jewish messianic affiliation.” But during Jesus’ lifetime, belief that he was the Messiah did not require seeing him as the son of David (and therefore did not benefit from any connection with Bethlehem). In this period, the Davidic Messiah was not the only type of Messiah hoped for. Priest, prophet and teacher figures were also expected.7 It would have been much easier for a contemporary to have fitted Jesus into any one of these categories. (Remember, his mother was related to Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron, the first priest [Luke 1:5, 36].) None of these other messianic categories had any connection with Bethlehem. In consequence, Jesus could have been thought of as a Messiah without any reference to Bethlehem.
Furthermore, of the many different categories of Messiah, that of Davidic Messiah would have been the least likely match for Jesus in the eyes of his contemporaries. Indeed, Jesus’ behavior was the antithesis of that of a son of David, who was expected to be a warrior king who would rule with supreme authority. This hope is expressed most vividly in the first-century B.C. Psalms of Solomon:
See, Lord, and raise up for them their king, the Son of David, to rule over your servant Israel in the time known to you, O God. Undergird him with the strength to destroy the unrighteous rulers, to purge Jerusalem from Gentiles who trample her to destruction; in wisdom and in righteousness to drive out the sinners from the inheritance; to smash the arrogance of sinners like a potter’s jar; to shatter all their substance with an iron rod; to destroy the unlawful nations with the word of his mouth.8
Jesus, on the contrary, was the friend of tax collectors and sinners. He made no move against the Roman occupiers or the absentee landlords. He had no political agenda, and his compassion for the poor and disadvantaged was individual, not national. Moreover, he seems to have reacted against the idea of a royal Messiah.9
If the early church thought of Jesus in terms of Davidic messianism—and it certainly did10—it was not because of anything he said or did but because of who he was and where he came from. And he came from Bethlehem.
