Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 4196
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:42 am

Mark 12.35-37 is sometimes pressed as evidence that Mark does not think of Jesus as the physical descendant of David:

Mark 12.35-37: 35 And Jesus began to say, as He taught in the temple, "How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? 36 David himself said in the Holy Spirit, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet."' 37 David himself calls Him 'Lord'; so in what sense is He his son?" And the large crowd enjoyed listening to Him.

Is Jesus deliberately dissociating his own Messiahship from physical Davidic descent? Or is this a matter of Jesus forcing the crowds to realize that the Messiah is more than just the descendant of David, that he is also Lord in some real sense? Other instances of Jesus being called the son of David in the gospel go unchallenged:

Mark 10.46-52: 46 Then they come to Jericho. And as He was leaving Jericho with His disciples and a large crowd, a blind beggar named Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, was sitting by the road. 47 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!" 49 And Jesus stopped and said, "Call him here." So they call the blind man, saying to him, "Take courage, stand up! He is calling for you." 50 Throwing aside his cloak, he jumped up and came to Jesus. 51 And answering him, Jesus said, "What do you want Me to do for you?" And the blind man said to Him, "Rabboni, I want to regain my sight!" 52 And Jesus said to him, "Go; your faith has made you well." Immediately he regained his sight and began following Him on the road.

Mark 11.1-11: 1 As they approach Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, He sends two of His disciples, 2 and says to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here. 3 If anyone says to you, 'Why are you doing this?' you say, 'The Lord has need of it'; and immediately he will send it back here." 4 They went away and found a colt tied at the door, outside in the street; and they untie it. 5 Some of the bystanders were saying to them, "What are you doing, untying the colt?" 6 They spoke to them just as Jesus had told them, and they gave them permission. 7 They bring the colt to Jesus and put their coats on it; and He sat on it. 8 And many spread their coats in the road, and others spread leafy branches which they had cut from the fields. 9 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!" 11 Jesus entered Jerusalem and came into the temple; and after looking around at everything, He left for Bethany with the twelve, since it was already late.

The beggar near Jericho twice calls Jesus the son of David, despite the crowd's insistence on his silence, and Jesus responds to him. Is Jesus thus acknowledging that he is, in fact, the son of David? If so, in what sense? Is this a symbolic title which Jesus seems to accept for himself, or does it denote a physical lineage? Less directly, in a grand entrance into Jerusalem which Jesus himself has arranged in some way, the crowds seem to link the coming of Jesus with the coming of the Davidic kingdom.

There is one other instance of David being discussed in the gospel, for whatever it may be worth:

Mark 2.23-28: 23 And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees were saying to Him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?" 25 And He says to them, "Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; 26 how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?" 27 Jesus said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

Here Jesus and his disciples act in a Davidic manner, as it were.

Interestingly, the other gospels seem to go off in different directions. Matthew and Luke both list David in their genealogies for Jesus (Matthew 1.6; Luke 3.31), yet both also have a virgin birth which, if true, would directly and fatally compromise Jesus' descent from David through the paternal line. John, on the other hand, has people doubting that Jesus is the Messiah precisely because he was not known to have descended from David; nor was he born in Bethlehem (John 7.42).

But what about Mark? No genealogy is given, and the only statements related to Davidic descent in the gospel can be taken in more than one way.

What do you think? Did Mark regard Jesus as a physical descendant of David, as a spiritual descendant of David, as both, or as neither?

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 8037
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Nov 11, 2017 8:18 am

Tertullian reports or infers the Marcionites interpreted the blind beggar of Jericho story as beginning with 'son of David' (when the beggar was blind) and 'Lord' (when the beggar could see) as a sign or symbolic representation that Jesus was a god and not the son of David. All of which brings up an interesting point - does that make Marcionism a reaction to a pre-existent understanding that 'Jesus' (whomever he was) was originally a known messianic figure? I've wrestled with this in my own head for years. Similar to the 'many will come in my name saying 'I am he' but do not follow them' (or whatever it was). There seems to be an inherent understanding of Jesus as a or the messiah, the son of David, but then the author of a particular recension of the gospel said - no, that was blind or a misunderstanding here is the right understanding - Jesus was god, crucified for your sins etc. It would seem to fit in with the heretical understanding of the followers of Peter fighting with the followers of Paul (or Peter with Paul) over Paul's reliance on a vision over the testimonies of those who actually saw Jesus and believed him to be the messiah.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 8037
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Nov 11, 2017 8:21 am

Tertullian 4

When then that blind man had been told that he was passing by,
why did he cry out, Jesus thou son of David, have mercy on me, except
that he was with good reason regarded as the son of David, which
means, of the family of David, in consideration of his mother and
his brethren, who had in fact on one occasion because of people's

IV.36 ADVERSUS MARCIONEM 471
knowledge of them, been reported to him as being present? But
they that went before rebuked the blind man, that he should hold
his peace. Quite properly: because he was making a noise, not
because he was wrong about the son of David. Or else you must
prove that those who rebuked were convinced that Jesus was not the
son of David, if you wish me to believe that that was their reason
for putting the blind man to silence. Yet even if you did prove
this, the man would more readily assume that those people were
in ignorance, than that the Lord could have allowed to pass a
false description of himself. But the Lord is patient.d He is not
however one who stands surety for error—but rather a revealer
of the Creator—so that he would not have failed first to take
away the cloud of this aspect of that man's blindness, and so
prevent him from thinking any longer that Jesus was the son of
David. Far from it: to preclude you from speaking ill of his
patience, or from attaching to him any charge of keeping back
the truth, or from saying he is not the son of David, he expressed
the clearest possible approval of the blind man's commendation,
rewarding it with the gift of healing, and with witness to his faith.
Thy faith, he says, hath made thee whole. What do you say was the
substance of that blind man's faith? That Jesus had come down
from that god of yours with intent to overthrow the Creator and
destroy the law and the prophets? that he was not the one fore-
ordained to come forth from the root of Jesse and from the fruit
of David's loins, a giver of gifts also to the blind? No, there did
not yet exist, I think, people of Marcion's sort of blindness, that
such should have been the content of that blind man's faith which
he expressed in the cry, Jesus, thou son of David. Jesus knew that
this was what he is, and wished it to be known of all men, so that
although the man's faith was based on better eyesight, although
it was possessed of the true light, he gave it the further gift of
external vision, so that we too might be taught what is the rule,
and also the reward, of faith. He who wishes to see Jesus, must
believe him the son of David by descent from the virgin: he
who does not so believe will never be told by him, Thy faith hath
saved thee, and consequently will remain blind, falling into the
ditch of an antithesis, which itself falls into a ditch. For this is
what happens when the blind leads the blind. For if, <as you
suggest>, blind men once came into conflict with David at his
recapture of Sion,e fighting back to prevent his admission—

IV.37 ADVERSUS MARCIONEM 473
though these are a figure of that nation equally blind, which
was some time to deny admission to Christ the son of David—
and therefore Christ came to the blind man's help by way of
opposition so that by this he might show himself not the son of
David, being of opposite mind, and kind to blind men, such as
David had ordered to be slain: <if this is so> why did he say he had
granted this to the man's faith, and false faith at that? But in
fact by this expression son of David I can, on its own terms, blunt
the point of the antithesis. Those who came into conflict with
David were blind: but here a man of the same infirmity had
presented himself as suppliant to the son of David. Consequently,
when he gave this satisfaction, the son of David was in some
sort appeased and restored his sight, adding also a testimony to
the faith by which he had believed this very fact, that he must
address his prayer to the son of David. For all that, David I
think will have been offended by the insolence of those Jebusites,
not by the state of their health.

37. [Luke 19: 1-27.] Salvation also comes to the house of Zac-
chaeus. How did he earn it? Was it that even he believed that
Christ was come from Marcion? No, for there remained still in
the ears of all of them that blind man's cry, Have mercy upon me,
Jesus thou son of David,a and all the people were giving praises to
God—not Marcion's god, but David's. For in fact Zacchaeus,
though a foreigner,1 yet perhaps had breathed in some knowledge
of the scriptures by converse with Jews, or, what is more, without
knowing about Isaiah, had fulfilled his instructions. Break thy
bread, he says, to the hungry, and bring into thy house them that have no
covering—and this he was even then doing when he brought the
Lord into his house and gave him to eat. And if thou see the naked,
cover himb—at that very moment he promised this, when he offered
the half of his goods for all works of mercy, thus loosing the bonds
of enforced contracts, and letting loose the oppressed, and break-
ing down every unjust assessment, in the words, And if I have taken
anything from any man by false accusation, I restore it fourfold. And so
our Lord says, Today is salvation <come> to this house: he bears witness
that those were works of salvation which the Creator's prophet

37. - Luke 19: 1-10 does not say that Zacchaeus was a foreigner, unless that is
implied by his being a chief tax-collector. In LXX allophylus is the word for
Philistine.

IV.38 ADVERSUS MARCIONEM 475
had enjoined. But when he says, For the Son of man is come to save
that which was lost, I do not at present claim that he who had come
to save that which was lost, was he to whom belonged, and from
whom had become lost, that which he had come to save; I turn
my steps towards a different subject. There is no doubt that a
man is under discussion. Since a man consists of two substances,
body and soul, the question we must consider is, in respect of
which kind of substance he may be supposed to have become lost.
If of the body, then his body was lost, his soul was not. That
which was lost, is what the Son of man saves: and so the flesh
obtains salvation. If he was lost in respect of his soul, then it is
the loss of the soul which is intended for salvation: the flesh, which
has not got lost, is safe already. If the whole man was lost, in
respect of both substances, then the whole man must of necessity
be brought to salvation, and there is an end of that opinion of the
heretics who say the flesh finds no salvation. And besides, there
is confirmation of the fact that Christ belongs to the Creator, since
in full accord with the Creator he promised salvation of the whole
man. Also the parable of the servants, who are judged variously
according as they account for their lord's money entrusted to
them, indicates that God is a judge, even on the side of severity,
not only promoting to honour, but even taking away that which
a man thinks he has. Or else, if here too it is a pretence of his,
that the Creator is an austere one, taking up that which he has
not laid down, and reaping that which he has not sown, here
again the instruction comes to me from him whose the money is
which <the parable> advises me to put on usury.

[9] Cum igitur praetereuntem illum
caecus audisset, cur exclamavit, Iesu, fili David, miserere mei!
nisi quia filius David, id est ex familia David, non temere de-
putabatur per matrem et fratres, qui aliquando ex notitia utique

36. b Matt. 5:17 c Mic. 6:8

470 TERTULLIAN IV. 36
annuntiati ei fuerant? Sed antecedentes increpabant caecum, uti
taceret. Merito, quoniam quidem vociferabatur, non quia de
David filio mentiebatur. Aut doce increpantes illos scisse quod
Iesus non esset filius David, ut idcirco silentium caeco indixisse
credantur. [10] Sed et si doceres, facilius illos ignorasse praesumeret1
quam dominum falsam in se praedicationem sustinere potuisse.
Sed patiens dominus. Non tamen confirmator erroris, immo
etiam detector creatoris, ut non prius hanc caecitatem hominis
illius enubilasset, ne ultra Iesum filium David existimaret. Atquin
ne patientiam eius infamaretis, nec ullam rationem dissimula-
tionis illi affigeretis, nec filium David negaretis, manifestissime
confirmavit caeci praedicationem et ipsa remuneratione medicinae
et testimonio fidei. Fides, inquit, tua te salvum fecit. [11] Quid vis
caecum credidisse? Ab illo deo descendisse Iesum ad deiectionem2
creatoris, ad destructionem legis et prophetarum? non illum esse
qui ex radice Iesse et ex fructu lumborum David destinabatur,
caecorum quoque remunerator? Sed nondum, puto, eiusmodi
tunc caeci erant qualis Marcion, ut haec fuerit caeci illius fides
qua crediderit in voce, Iesu fili David. [12] Qui hoc se et cognovit et
cognosci ab omnibus voluit, fidem hominis etsi melius oculatam,
etsi veri luminis compotem, exteriore quoque visione donavit, ut
et nos regulam simulque mercedem fidei disceremus. Qui vult
videre Iesum, David filium credat per virginis censum. Qui non
ita credet, non audiet ab illo, Fides tua te salvum fecit, atque ita
caecus remanebit, ruens in antithesim, ruentem et ipsam anti-
thesim. Sic enim caecus caecum deducere solet. [13] Nam si aliquando
Davidem in recuperatione Sionis offenderant caeci resistentes

36. 1 praesumeret MR1: praesumeretur R3: praesumeres Kroy. 2 de-
iectionem Urs.: detectionem MR edd.

36. d cf. Ps. 86: 15 e cf. 2 Sam. 5: 6 sqq.

472 TERTULLIAN IV. 36
quominus admitteretur (in figuram populi proinde caeci, non
admissuri quandoque Christum filium David), ideo Christus ex
diverso caeco subvenit, ut hinc se ostenderet non esse filium David,
ut3 ex animi diversitate bonus caecis, quos ille iusserat caedi. Et
cur fidei et quidem4 pravae praestitisse se dixit? Atquin et hoc
filius David, antithesim de suo retundam.5 [14] Nam et qui David
offenderant, caeci; nunc vero eiusdem carnis homo supplicem se
obtulerat filio David. Idcirco ei satisfacienti quodammodo placa-
tus filius David restituit lumina, cum testimonio fidei, qua hoc
ipsum crediderat, exorandum sibi esse filium David. Et tamen
David audacia hominum, puto, offenderit, non valetudo.
37. [1] Consequitur et Zachaei domus salutem. Quo merito? Num-
quid vel ille crediderat Christum a Marcione venisse? Atquin
adhuc in auribus erat omnium vox illa caeci, Miserere mei, Iesu
fili David, et omnis populus laudes referebat deo, non Marcionis,
sed David. Enimvero Zachaeus etsi allophylus, fortasse tamen
aliqua notitia scripturarum ex commercio Iudaico afflatus, plus
est autem <si> et ignorans1 Esaiam praecepta eius impleverat.
Confringito, inquit, panem tuum esurienti, et non habentes
tectum in domum tuam inducito: hoc cum maxime agebat, ex-
ceptum domo sua pascens dominum. Et nudum si videris, con-
tegito: hoc cum maxime promittebat, in omnia misericordiae
opera dimidium substantiae offerens, dissolvens violentiorum con-
tractuum obnexus et dimittens conflictatos in laxamentum, et
omnem conscriptionem iniquam dissipans, dicendo, Et si cui
quid per calumniam eripui, quadruplum reddo. Itaque dominus,
Hodie, inquit, salus huic domui. [2] Testimonium dixit salutaria esse
quae praeceperat prophetes creatoris. Cum vero dicit, Venit

36. 3 ut Oeh.: et MR 4 et quidem libri omnes: equidem Oeh. (sine causa)
5 retundam scribebam: retundendam libri et edd.
37. 1 <si> et ignorans R3 mg.

37. a Luke 18: 38, 43 b Isa. 58: 7

474 TERTULLIAN IV. 37
enim filius hominis salvum facere quod periit, iam non contendo
eum venisse ut salvum faceret quod perierat, cuius fuerat et cui
perierat quod salvum venerat facere, sed in alterius quaestionis
gradum dirigo. De homine agi nulla dubitatio est. [3] Hic cum ex
duabus substantiis constet, ex corpore et anima, quaerendum est
ex qua substantiae specie periisse videatur. Si ex corpore, ergo
corpus perierat, anima non. Quod perierat, salvum facit filius
hominis: habet igitur et caro salutem. Si ex anima perierat, ani-
mae perditio saluti destinatur: caro, quae non periit, salva est.
Si totus homo perierat ex utraque substantia, totus homo salvus
fiat necesse est, et elisa est sententia haereticomm negantium
carnis salutem. Iam et Christus creatoris confirmatur, qui secun-
dum creatorem totius hominis salutem pollicebatur. [4] Servorum
quoque parabola, qui secundum rationem feneratae pecuniae
dominicae diiudicantur, iudicem ostendit deum,2 etiam ex parte
severitatis, non tantum honorantem verum et auferentem quod
quis videatur habuisse. Aut si et hic creatorem finxerit austerum,
tollentem quod non posuerit et metentem quod non severit, hic
quoque me ille instruit cuius pecuniam ut fenerem edocet.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

iskander
Posts: 1641
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by iskander » Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:34 am

Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark.? --- No


"So too Mark records Jesus being addressed as "Son of David "without any hint of critique (10:47 ). It may therefore be that physical descent as such is not the issue : what is at stake is not Jesus' genealogical credentials but his authority : Jesus qua Messiah is not subservient to David, but is David's lord. If so the scene fits well into the present Markan story-line where the context is one of Jesus' authority being constantly challenged in a situation of mounting hostility and rejection. "

Mark 12:35-7. The Messiah and David
page 912
The Oxford Bible Commentary
Edited by John Barton and John Muddiman
OUP, 2001,
ISBN 9780199277186

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by MrMacSon » Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:01 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:42 am

Mark 12.35-37 is sometimes pressed as evidence that Mark does not think of Jesus as the physical descendant of David:

Mark 12.35-37: 35 And Jesus began to say, as He taught in the temple, "How is it that the scribes say that 'the Christ' is the son of David? 36 David himself said in the Holy Spirit, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet."' 37 David himself calls Him 'Lord'; so in what sense is He his son?" And the large crowd enjoyed listening to Him.

Is Jesus deliberately dissociating his own Messiahship from physical Davidic descent? Or is this a matter of Jesus forcing the crowds to realize that the Messiah is more than just the descendant of David, that he is also Lord in some real sense?
I find passages like that hard to fathom or tease out.

It's seems as if Jesus is portrayed as separate to 'the Christ'.

Then, with 36, 'David himself said in the Holy Spirit' - is that referring to David being enveloped in the Holy Spirit ie. being the Holy Spirit? Or being under an umbrella of the Holy Spirit?

Then there are two Lords. And then reference to David being a Lord's son, but uncertainty about in what sense.

It seems very nebulous, and open to various interpretations.

Giuseppe
Posts: 2838
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:49 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:42 am
.

What do you think? Did Mark regard Jesus as a physical descendant of David, as a spiritual descendant of David, as both, or as neither?
I think that Mark wanted to regard Jesus as a spiritual descendant of David in reaction to a previous view of Jesus as both not davidic and not the spiritual Christ (of the Creator).

There would be a perfect consistency between "many will come in my name saying 'I am he' but do not follow them" and the original version of Mark 14:62 (where Jesus answered "Yes, I am the Son of God"/"the Son of Man" and not "Christ") since only so Jesus could deny the his identity with the Christ always and everywhere, pace the opinion of the people.

So the earliest post-70 Gospel Jesus was a reaction against the claims of a lot of anonymous people having messianic claims. Who were these people? Were they Christians?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by MrMacSon » Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:25 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:49 pm

I think that Mark wanted to regard Jesus as a spiritual descendant of David in reaction to a previous view of Jesus as both not Davidic and not the spiritual Christ (of the Creator).

There would be a perfect consistency between "many will come in my name saying 'I am he', but do not follow them" and the original version of Mark 14:62 (where Jesus answered "Yes, I am the Son of God"/"the Son of Man" and not "Christ"), since only so Jesus could deny the his identity with the Christ always and everywhere, pace the opinion of the people.
That seems quite plausible.
  • Though, when you say "since only so Jesus could deny the his identity with the Christ always and everywhere"

    ''the his'' is confusing; do you mean just 'his' ?


Regarding -
Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:49 pm

So the earliest post-70 Gospel Jesus was a reaction against the claims of a lot of anonymous people having messianic claims. Who were these people? Were they Christians?
- you seem to be implying the anonymous people were Christians. It would seem the anonymous people would be non-Christians.

I'd just say 'the [earliest] post-70 [human] Gospel Jesus was a reaction against the claims of a lot of anonymous people having messianic claims.

John2
Posts: 1460
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by John2 » Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:57 pm

Ben wrote:
Is Jesus deliberately dissociating his own Messiahship from physical Davidic descent? Or is this a matter of Jesus forcing the crowds to realize that the Messiah is more than just the descendant of David, that he is also Lord in some real sense? Other instances of Jesus being called the son of David in the gospel go unchallenged.
I pick the second option. Boyarin has persuaded me that early Christians (and in my view including possibly Jesus himself) were binitarians based on a Davidic Messiah and Daniel's divine/angelic "son of man." So in my view it isn't one option or the other but both.
Searchlight casting for faults in the clouds of delusion.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by MrMacSon » Sat Nov 11, 2017 4:13 pm

John2 wrote:
Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:57 pm

Ben wrote:
Is Jesus deliberately dissociating his own Messiahship from physical Davidic descent? Or is this a matter of Jesus forcing the crowds to realize that the Messiah is more than just the descendant of David, that he is also Lord in some real sense? Other instances of Jesus being called the son of David in the gospel go unchallenged.

I pick the second option. Boyarin has persuaded me that early Christians (and, in my view, including possibly Jesus himself) were binitarians based on a Davidic Messiah and Daniel's divine/angelic "son of man." So in my view it isn't one option or the other, but both.
.
I think that is a good point. There is plenty of commentary that Daniel's divine/angelic 'son of man' was 'a son of man', and Jesus was elevated in status as the definitve 'the Son of Man'.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Is Jesus the descendant of David in Mark?

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat Nov 11, 2017 5:50 pm

I think, on that matter, that Mark 12:35-37 (RSV):
And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, "How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?
David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet.'
David himself calls him Lord; so how is he his son?" And the great throng heard him gladly.
says clearly that "Mark" did not want his audience to think Jesus was a descendant of David and therefore the future king of God's Kingdom when extended on earth.
The later notions were dear to Jewish Christians and "Mark" did not want his community to believe that.
BTW, "Mark" had Jesus declaring himself he is the Christ: 9:41 & 14:61-62.

The opinions of the blind beggar of Jericho and the shoots of the crowds when Jesus was approaching Jerusalem do not conflict with that:
It is only after (at least) the second time that Jesus thinks that "Jesus, son of David" is addressed to him.
That means that Jesus would not think at the time he is "son of David". And a blind beggar is not an expert in genealogy!
As for the later crowd, they may suggest Jesus is a descendant of David, but they do not say it. "Mark" was restrained about that, but having Jesus riding a colt is certainly a way to invite a crowd to see Jesus as a would-be king, fulfilling a prophecy (Zechariah 9:9).

I think the two passages about the blind beggar and the crowd's shoots near Jerusalem were written by "Mark" to suggest how that "son of David" started: by a zealous blind beggar eager to be healed and later, by a crowd thinking an earthly kingdom of God is near. A good case of fake news!

Finally, I demonstrated here: http://historical-jesus.info/29.html that "Mark" disliked Jesus as "king of the Jews" and did damage control (more than once) on that matter.

I want to add that "Mark" also tried to dispel Jesus as "king" in the anointment at Bethany. At first Jesus is administered oil on his head as for a Jewish new king (see 1Samuel10:1a). Christians leaning towards Jewish Christianity would be happy to hear that. But wait, Jesus declares that anointment was just a preparation for burial. No anointment as for a king! But Jesus is anointed regardless, as a Christ should be!

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Secret Alias and 69 guests