Mark 12:35-37

[richard2]

"And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David?

36For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord (Jesus), Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

37David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly. (NIV)"

Jesus also posed the question to some scribes in Matthew 22, but they were unable to answer him.

How have Jews (modern or historical) answered this question?

[Toto]

The question is based on the idea that the Messiah will be the descendant of David. The Jews would have seen the Messiah as a human descendant, and would not have identified this Messiah with God. It is only when you confuse the Jewish Messiah (Annointed King) with the first century idea of a messiah as savior and son of god, that you create the problem in the Psalm that Jesus cited.

about.atheism comment (http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/mark12e.htm)

Scholars also note that Jesus is making use of Psalm 110:1 here to refer the Messiah, something that was common in the early Christian church but otherwise unknown in pre-Christian Judaism.

So there is nothing for Jews to answer in this.

[TedM]

The question is based on the idea that the Messiah will be the descendant of David. The Jews would have seen the Messiah as a human descendant, and would not have identified this Messiah with God.

Where in this passage is it said that Jesus is claiming the Messiah is equivalent to God? All he does is distinguish between 'David's son' and 'lord'.

It is only when you confuse the Jewish Messiah (Annointed King) with the first century idea of a messiah as savior and son of god, that you create the problem in the Psalm that Jesus cited.

Bernard Muller has a different take on it on his website:

The cool rainy late autumn and winter must have calmed things down for Jesus. Then, the long awaited spring (of 28C.E.) finally arrived.

Note: 27-28 (fall to fall) or 28-29 (spring to spring) was probably a Sabbatical year for the Jews. If any unusual "religious" event occurred within this special one-year period, its perceived importance and derived expectation were likely enhanced. More info here
And when Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem for the Passover, at a half day's walk away:
"Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd,
[before Jericho, there is no mention of large crowd accompanying Jesus (Mk10:32)]
` were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (that is, the son of Timaeus), was sitting by the road side begging. When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"
Many rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more. "Son of David, have mercy on me!"" (Mk10:46-48)

Note: in GMark, prior to the Jerusalem trip, there is no allusion whatsoever of Jesus as a "Son of David" or King to be. According to Mk8:28, there is no mention the people of Galilee saw him as Christ and, in the anecdotal material of Jesus' days in Capernaum, nothing in his behavior would suggest anything "royal".
The shouts of "Son of David" are not a way for "Mark" to suggest Jesus was a descendant of David; because, in the same gospel, we read:
Mk:12:35-37 "Then Jesus answered and said, while He taught in the temple, "How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Spirit: '[Ps110:1] The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."'Therefore David himself calls Him 'Lord'; how is He [the Christ] then his Son [of David]?"
[the founder (father) of the Davidian dynasty, as an illustrious patriarch, could not have acknowledged one of his descendants (son) as superior to him]
` And the common people heard Him gladly."
And of course, Jesus is the Christ:
Mk14:61-62, "Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, "... Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" Jesus said, "I am ...""
"Mark" simply denied that Jesus was a descendant of David (in contrast of Ro1:3) and, nowhere else in the gospel, the author commented otherwise.

ted

[richard2]

I can hear a Christian interpreting this verse as follows:

Jesus is hinting that He is of divine origin (Lord), saying that He is both Son and Lord of David, and that He will sit on the right hand of God, just as He did after the acension.

[richard2]

In fact, I found just that interpretation here:

http://www.letusreason.org/trin15.htm

"David who was moved by the Spirit of God said in Ps.110:1 “the Lord said to my Lord sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.� Jesus quotes this Scripture in Lk.20:42 and asks the Pharisees “therefore how does David in the Spirit call him Lord. If David then calls him Lord how is he then his son?� The Pharisees knew this to be a messianic psalm so they did not answer. Neither do anti-Trinitarians have an answer for this today!

Here we have two persons called Lord, Jesus Identifies the second Lord that David called his Lord, as his Son. So Jesus identifies Himself as both the Lord and the Son. Does this not make the Son Yahweh?"

[richard2]

Tovia Singer has this to say about Psalm 110 and how the Christians fucked w/ the translation.

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/psalm110.html

[richard2]

A Christian's response to Singer:

http://messianicart.com/chazak/yeshua/psalm110.htm

What do you guys think?

[Toto]

A Christian's response to Singer:

http://messianicart.com/chazak/yeshua/psalm110.htm

What do you guys think?

B.R. Burton's main objection seems to be to Singer's overblown rhetoric, but he can't find a good reason to interpret Psalms 110 as referring to the Messiah or explain why a first c. Pharisee would be stumped by Jesus' question.

[TedM]

B.R. Burton's main objection seems to be to Singer's overblown rhetoric, but he can't find a good reason to interpret Psalms 110 as referring to the Messiah or explain why a first c. Pharisee would be stumped by Jesus' question.

It is clear from Burton's article that there are a number of reasons to conclude that that pre-Christian Jews would probably have interpreted Psalms 110 as Messiac, and thus 'lord' would have referred to a Messiah.

ted

[judge]

The question is based on the idea that the Messiah will be the descendant of David. The Jews would have seen the Messiah as a human descendant, and would not have identified this Messiah with God. It is only when you confuse the Jewish Messiah (Annointed King) with the first century idea of a messiah as savior and son of god, that you create the problem in the Psalm that Jesus cited.


I'm not sure one has to associate the messaih as the son of god to have this problem.

How can anyones son be their lord?

To me it seems the problem still remains.

[richard2]

Here's is a really in-depth article about Psalm 110 from a Jewish perspective:

http://www.messiahtruth.com/ps110.html

[Vorkosigan]

And when Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem for the Passover, at a half day's walk away:
"Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd,
[before Jericho, there is no mention of large crowd accompanying Jesus (Mk10:32)]
` were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (that is, the son of Timaeus), was sitting by the road side begging. When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"
Many rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more. "Son of David, have mercy on me!"" (Mk10:46-48)

My structural analysis suggests, to start off, that this pericope is probably a later addition by a redactor, and is not evidence of anything.

Note: in GMark, prior to the Jerusalem trip, there is no allusion whatsoever of Jesus as a "Son of David" or King to be. According to Mk8:28, there is no mention the people of Galilee saw him as Christ and, in the anecdotal material of Jesus' days in Capernaum, nothing in his behavior would suggest anything "royal".

Actually, there are some hidden allusions to Jesus' kingly role. His family members have Maccabee names, for example, an allusion to the previous Jewish dynasty. The allusions to Jesus as high priest scattered throughout Mark 1-6 are secondarily allusions to a kingly role, since the two roles were fused in the last Jewish state.

The shouts of "Son of David" are not a way for "Mark" to suggest Jesus was a descendant of David; because, in the same gospel, we read:
Mk:12:35-37 "Then Jesus answered and said, while He taught in the temple, "How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Spirit: '[Ps110:1] The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."'Therefore David himself calls Him 'Lord'; how is He [the Christ] then his Son [of David]?"
[the founder (father) of the Davidian dynasty, as an illustrious patriarch, could not have acknowledged one of his descendants (son) as superior to him]

As I pointed out earlier, this could well be sarcasm or irony on the part of Jesus.

Mk14:61-62, "Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, "... Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" Jesus said, "I am ...""
"Mark" simply denied that Jesus was a descendant of David (in contrast of Ro1:3) and, nowhere else in the gospel, the author commented otherwise.

The writer of Mark does not deny that Jesus is the descendent of David. That is merely one interpretation of Jesus' words and not the only possible one. Note that the passage has a chreia-like pattern that suggests Jesus is being ironic: The Messiah is David's son? But how can that be, when David himself calls him Lord?

More importantly, the writer of Mark has a program of presenting Jesus as King, priest, and messiah. When the writer alludes to a passage, he wants you to go back and look -- not only does Ps 110 contain a descent-ascent motif, but in the entire Torah it is the only place where the king is explicitly spoken of as a high priest (Fletcher-Louis 2003). The Psalm refers to Simon Maccabaeus and entered Torah after his times. Simon united the offices of King and High Priest. The writer is giving us a wink and nudge here. Q: How David's son be his lord? A: When he's the King, High Priest and Messiah all in one!

Finally, "nowhere else in the gospel, the author commented otherwise" might well be wrong. Consider Mk 4:21

21: And he said to them, "Is a lamp brought in to be put under a bushel, or under a bed, and not on a stand?(RSV)

The lamp reference is a Davidic one, found in 2 Kings 8:19 and elsewhere.


Nevertheless, for the sake of his servant David, the LORD was not willing to destroy Judah. He had promised to maintain a lamp for David and his descendants forever. (NIV)

To anyone familiar with Judaism listening to the Gospel of Mark, the lamp reference would have had a Davidic undertone.

There is a strong King reference in the opening line of Mark -- recall that the title "Son of God" was worn by Kings throughout the Hellenistic world -- Roman Emperors, Romulus, etc. Mark 1:11 contains another king reference. Price points out that Mk 1:11 is cobbled together from 3 OT texts, including Psalm 2, Isaiah 42:1, and Gen 22:12 (LXX):

"The theological point of this rich mosaic of conflated texts is to combine in Jesus Christ the roles of king, servant, and sacrifice. It is both clever and profound. But it is not historical, unless one wishes to imagine God sitting with his Hebrew Psalter, Greek Septaugint, and Aramaic Targum open in front of him, deciding what to crib." (2003, p 120-1).

Helms (1988, 47) points out that for the ancient Hebrews the anointed King was understood as the "Son of God." Not only does Psalm 2:7, a coronation psalm, imply this, but it is also found in 2 Sam 7:14, where the Lord promises to David:

I will be his father, and he will be my son. (NIV)

Note how in that context "son of god" function as another Davidic reference.

Mark is a very rich tapestry, and Bernard's reading of it does not capture it very robustly.

Vorkosigan

[TedM]

Interesting comments. Thanks Vork.

ted