I’ve been wondering about the following statement ascribed to Jesus in Mark’s Gospel (chapter 11):
35 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? 36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.”’[** you do not have permission to see this link **]
37 David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”
Here, Jesus seems to be denying that the Messiah is the son of David (whether he himself is the Messiah is not an issue in this passage, since he does not make that claim here, and it is doubtful that he ever made it). However, many interpreters will insist that he could not really be doing this; so they claim he must be trying to say that, even though the Messiah is of Davidic descent, the Messiah’s greatness far transcends having this noble lineage (or something like that).
But why dismiss so quickly the idea that Jesus denied the Messiah’s being descended from David? That may have been the most widespread belief in his day; but Jesus also shows a lot of similarity to the minority Essene movement, and they appear to have believed in a Messiah of Aaronid descent (perhaps they also believed in two Messiahs, one Aaronid and the other Davidic, though I am not convinced). It would not be very surprising if Jesus was similar to them in this respect at well, so we can’t rule out the possibility he believed in a non-Davidic (e.g. priestly) Messiah.
At any rate, belief in someone called “the Messiah” who was not of Davidic descent was a part of the Judaism of the day. Can we take this passage at face value, as showing that Jesus believed that Psalm 110 refers to a non-Davidic Messiah, so that here we have a record of him defending this non-Davidic messianism against his enemies (“teachers of the law”)?
I look forward to hearing your thoughts!
Robert said
……Why do you think the Qumran sectarians might have only believed in one priestly messiah? Their texts seem pretty clear in speaking of two messiahs, though I will say that in some contexts I interpret the word messiah in a very low christological sense, not much different than the basic meaning of ‘anointed’, much lower than how Christians usually think of the Messiah or the Christ.
Well, I am thinking only of the sectarian texts, those which have certain distinctive themes and a distinctive vocabulary (‘Belial’, ‘Book of Hagu’, ‘Messiah of Aaron and Israel’, ‘Teacher of Righteousness’, and so on).
The usual basis for attributing dual messianism to the authors of these texts is the expression ‘Messiah of Aaron and Israel’. However, I note that, in all the manuscripts we have and all the times it occurs, this expression uses the singular form for ‘Messiah’, with only one exception, and the verbs associated with this expression are also singular (e.g. “….until there arises the Messiah of Aaron and Israel, and he will pardon their iniquity…” from the Damasic Document, CD14:18-19). It is grammatically possible for the singular to be used here while a plural is meant (a “distributive singular”); but language choices reflect underlying conceptions, and so I see the consistency with which the singular is being used here as an indicator that one Messiah is meant, and this one is described as being “of Aaron and Israel”.
The only break in the pattern of singular usage here is in the Community Rule, which has “Messiahs of Aaron and Israel”. I think this should be attributed to scribal error, though, based on the fact that the singular is consistently used elsewhere, and also because of the principle of “lectio difficilior”.
I also have a theory about the meaning of “Messiah of Aaron and Israel” i.e. a hypothesis about why this strange expression is used. That belongs on the Second Temple Judaisms forum, I think.
Robert said
In the era of form criticism, some scholars did put forward the idea that this story originally developed out of a need to defend the idea that Jesus was the Christ even though he had not been of Davidic descent. I’ve always been intrigued by this idea, but there’s no proof of it. And if there is any truth to this idea, it need not indicate that Jesus himself used this psalm to indicate that he thought of himself as greater than the Davidic Messiah. Indeed that seems rather unlikely to me.In the context of Mark’s gospel, I do think this passage only indicates that Mark was presenting Jesus as the Christ who was much exalted over prior expectations for a Davidic Messiah.
Yes, that does seem to capture Mark’s intention. As for Jesus himself, I don’t get the impression he was talking about himself at all here, just about who the Messiah was supposed to be. From other evidence, it does seem Jesus saw himself as having a major role in the unfolding drama of God and His people, but that is not coming to the fore in this passage.
Instead, it looks like Jesus was just giving a polemical argument for his view of the Messiah as against the different view of his enemies (scribes, teachers of the law, and so on). So I think of this as a glimpse of the sectarian milieu of that day, and specifically a glimpse of Jesus’ own version of Judaism in its clashes with a more dominant version.
That interpretation of the sectarian ‘messianic banquet’ certainly makes sense; at the same time, the argument would be stronger if there were clear references to two Messiahs in other sectarian writings.
I think we have to distinguish between two senses of the word ‘Messiah’. In one sense, it is equivalent to ‘anointed’, and it is used in the same way that it gets used in the Hebrew Bible, to refer to those who occupied offices that required anointing. In another sense, though it is used to designate a “religious eschatological superhero” i.e. someone very powerfully supported by God in the end-times, who is very close to God, and who rescues the people of God from disaster.
The apocalyptic Son of Man prophesied by Jesus counts as a ‘Messiah” in the second, “eschatological superhero” sense. So if Jesus really thought he was identical to the Son of Man, he thought he was a ‘Messiah’ in this second sense; the jury is still out, so to speak, on this last point, though.
Omar6741 said
I’ve been wondering about the following statement ascribed to Jesus in Mark’s Gospel (chapter 11):35 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? 36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.”’[** you do not have permission to see this link **]
37 David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”
Here, Jesus seems to be denying that the Messiah is the son of David (whether he himself is the Messiah is not an issue in this passage, since he does not make that claim here, and it is doubtful that he ever made it). However, many interpreters will insist that he could not really be doing this; so they claim he must be trying to say that, even though the Messiah is of Davidic descent, the Messiah’s greatness far transcends having this noble lineage (or something like that).
But why dismiss so quickly the idea that Jesus denied the Messiah’s being descended from David? That may have been the most widespread belief in his day; but Jesus also shows a lot of similarity to the minority Essene movement, and they appear to have believed in a Messiah of Aaronid descent (perhaps they also believed in two Messiahs, one Aaronid and the other Davidic, though I am not convinced). It would not be very surprising if Jesus was similar to them in this respect at well, so we can’t rule out the possibility he believed in a non-Davidic (e.g. priestly) Messiah.
At any rate, belief in someone called “the Messiah” who was not of Davidic descent was a part of the Judaism of the day. Can we take this passage at face value, as showing that Jesus believed that Psalm 110 refers to a non-Davidic Messiah, so that here we have a record of him defending this non-Davidic messianism against his enemies (“teachers of the law”)?
I look forward to hearing your thoughts!
The Samaritans believe the Messiah will be a Levite , Because of Deuteronomy 18:18.
The same scenario of Mark 12:35-37 is the same scenario found in Luke 20:41-44 and Mathew 22:41-45. where Jesus was asking about the son ship of the messiah because the Jews believed the Messiah should come from the house of David as indicated in John 7:42, the answer that Jesus gave Has a very BIG impact on the Beliefs of the Jews and the Christians, Because Jesus has pointed out to them that their belief of the messiah coming from the house of David is FALSE. That Meant;
- ALL Prophesies Christians claimed about Jesus Using the Jewish scriptures ARE ALL FALSE.
- All scriptures mentioning the Messiah coming from the house of David ARE FALSE.
- All Jewish Prophecies about a Messiah coming from the House of David ARE FALSE.
That shows Christianity and Judaism Most probably have been created based on falsehood and deception.
The belief that the messiah was coming from the House of David is false because the House of David was a pharaonic house.
A good portion of the biographical information of King David comes from the 21st Dynasty.
You will find a full explanation of this in Historical Accuracy by Steve Campbell.
Second, a messiah was needed during the reign of King Herod the Great. Late 20s/early 30s was not a time far enough removed from the legacy of King Herod the Great–Herod’s renovation of the Temple was not even complete in the late 20s/early 30s.
Know the difference between when a delegation needed to be sent to Rome versus an all out Messianic rebellion.
Third, Jesus did more self-identifying as the Son of Man rather than as the Messiah. The confession of Peter was far less public.
There is no, “The messiah is going to give a sermon on the mount or on the plain.”
Jesus connected himself to David-Solomon in his entry to Jerusalem.
mzejum said
Omar6741 said
I’ve been wondering about the following statement ascribed to Jesus in Mark’s Gospel (chapter 11):
35 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? 36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.”’[** you do not have permission to see this link **]
37 David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”
Here, Jesus seems to be denying that the Messiah is the son of David (whether he himself is the Messiah is not an issue in this passage, since he does not make that claim here, and it is doubtful that he ever made it). However, many interpreters will insist that he could not really be doing this; so they claim he must be trying to say that, even though the Messiah is of Davidic descent, the Messiah’s greatness far transcends having this noble lineage (or something like that).
But why dismiss so quickly the idea that Jesus denied the Messiah’s being descended from David? That may have been the most widespread belief in his day; but Jesus also shows a lot of similarity to the minority Essene movement, and they appear to have believed in a Messiah of Aaronid descent (perhaps they also believed in two Messiahs, one Aaronid and the other Davidic, though I am not convinced). It would not be very surprising if Jesus was similar to them in this respect at well, so we can’t rule out the possibility he believed in a non-Davidic (e.g. priestly) Messiah.
At any rate, belief in someone called “the Messiah” who was not of Davidic descent was a part of the Judaism of the day. Can we take this passage at face value, as showing that Jesus believed that Psalm 110 refers to a non-Davidic Messiah, so that here we have a record of him defending this non-Davidic messianism against his enemies (“teachers of the law”)?
I look forward to hearing your thoughts!
The Samaritans believe the Messiah will be a Levite , Because of Deuteronomy 18:18.
That is a very interesting claim about the Samaritans. I wish I knew more about them, especially as they are close to dieing out completely. Do you have a source for that claim, that the Samaritans claim the Messiah will be a Levite? Thanks!
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)