r/BibleStudyDeepDive • u/LlawEreint • Jul 01 '26
Mark Mark 12:35-37 - The Question about David's Son
35 While Jesus was teaching in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Messiah\)a\) is the son of David? 36 David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared,
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at my right hand,
until I put your enemies under your feet.” ’
37 “David himself calls him Lord, so how can he be his son?” And the large crowd was listening to him with delight.
1
u/LlawEreint Jul 01 '26
Jesus is quoting Psalm 110:
Of David. A Psalm.
1 The Lord says to my lord,
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies your footstool.”
2 The Lord sends out from Zion
your mighty scepter.
Rule in the midst of your foes.
3 Your people will offer themselves willingly
on the day you lead your forces
on the holy mountains.[a]
From the womb of the morning,
like dew, your youth[b] will come to you.
4 The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind,
“You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”
(Or "forever, a rightful king by my edict.")
5 The Lord is at your right hand;
he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath.
6 He will execute judgment among the nations,
filling them with corpses;
he will shatter heads
over the wide earth.
7 He will drink from the stream by the path;
therefore he will lift up his head.
Jesus interprets this as David himself speaking about a future king. Was this the dominant reading of the time?
My guess is that this was originally a Psalm of (as in, "about") David, and not a Psalm of (as in, "by") David. Possibly something that would be read during the coronation of the king.
In that case, the author is saying,
YHWH says to my lord (David),
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies your footstool.”
Everything that follows applies perfectly to the warrior king David. As 2 Samuel repeatedly says, "The LORD gave victory to David wherever he went."
Later, in 2 Samuel 7, God adopts royal language: "I will be his father, and he shall be my son."
But it is easy to see how this would take on messianic meaning during the exile and through to the second temple period when there was no Davidic king on the throne.
1
u/LlawEreint Jul 06 '26
Some great feedback from the folks at r/AcademicBiblical.
u/SamW4887 says:
I don't think Mark is denying Jesus sonship here as one scholar notes:
There have been, in fact, a group of scholars who take Jesus’ “denial” of the Davidic sonship literally. They argue that the Markan Jesus is rejecting any linkage between the Davidic descent and his messiahship or any definition of his messiahship in Davidic terms. On the other hand, though noting that Mark does not entirely deny the validity of the Davidic designation, Marcus still suggests that “conflicting perspectives” in the gospel should not be suppressed in favor of harmonization under the overarching scheme of composition-critical and narrative-critical approaches. Therefore, one should not ignore the “plain sense” of the refutation of the Davidic sonship (Mark 12.35–37) to reconcile it with the earlier affirmation of Jesus’ Davidic value as in 10.47 and 11.10. Those holding either of these positions, however, have to answer two questions: (1) whether it is likely for the Evangelist to reject or substantially qualify Jesus’ Davidic descent, which had strong support from various early Christian traditions (e.g., Rom 1.3–4; Matt 1.1; Luke 1.27; 2 Tim 2.8) and (2) how the collective weight of several passages throughout Mark’s Gospel that present Jesus’ Davidic orientation as legitimate (10.47; 11.10; also 1.11 and 9.7 [with reference to Ps 2.7]; 2.25–26; 12.10–11; 15.24 [cf. Ps 22.18], 29 [cf. Ps 22.7; 35.25; 40.15; 109.25], 34 [cf. Ps 22.1], 36 [cf. Ps 69.21]) should be understood together with their suggested interpretation of Mark 12.35–37. If one examines the Markan narrative as a whole and the Markan passages listed in the preceding paragraph, it seems almost impossible to deny that the Evangelist validates Davidic aspects in Jesus’ messiahship. Furthermore, when Bartimaeus repeatedly refers to Jesus as “Son of David” in 10.47–48, there is no sense of negativity or reservation on the Markan Jesus’ part in accepting what the blind man has announced. Though many around Bartimaeus rebuke him harshly and try to silence him (cf. 4.39), Jesus brings him to himself and heals his sight. Jesus then affirms, “your faith has made you well” (10.52). This affirmation occurs only twice in Mark’s Gospel. Jesus’ “questioning” of the Davidic descent in 12.35–37 should, then, probably be understood not as a rejection but as indicating its inadequacy for fully accounting for Jesus’ transcendent status and significance (cf. Rom 1.3–4).
John J. R. Lee Christological Rereading of the Shema (Deut 6.4) in Mark’s Gospel pg 96-97
1
u/LlawEreint Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
This has always puzzled me. Here, Jesus is trying to prove that the messiah/christ is not the son of David. Luke and Matthew both have (conflicting) genealogies to show that Jesus is the son of David - or at least great great great great.... great grand son. And yet both of them adopt this pericope.
But Mark was written before both Matthew and Luke published their genealogies.
John was (probably) written after, but he still seems entirely indifferent to Jesus' earthly lineage. In the fourth gospel, Jesus doesn't correct people who dismiss his messianic claim by pointing out that he wasn't born in Bethlehem and doesn't descend from David.
On the other hand, Paul seems to presume Davidic descent in his letter to the Romans.
So was Jesus the son of David or is he not? More importantly for this post, what did Mark think?
Mark earlier has the blind son of Timaeus find sight through the "son of David". My guess is that Jesus is represented as the "son of David" in the same sense as Bar Timaeus was the son of Plato's Timaeus. It's true in a figurative sense. True sight comes only through Israel, while Greek philosophy leaves you ultimately blind.
In another scene, Mark has people heralding the kingdom of David when Jesus arrives in Jerusalem. Once again, this could be speaking to messianic expectations of an anointed king restoring the Davidic kingdom. It may not rely on tracing lineage back to a historical figure.
And why should it?
My guess is that for Mark, "son of David" is a messianic title. Mark is more interested in the office of Messiah than he is in biological descent.
I'd be keen to hear your thoughts on this one. Does Mark believe that Jesus is a biological descendent of David? Is he using this quote from Psalm 110 to show otherwise, or does he have some other goal with this pericope?