Chapter 235 of 404

David’s Lord in Mk 12:35-37

In Mark, Jesus begins to hint his messianic identity publicly at Mk 12:6;¹² he begins to imply a corresponding identity greater than that of David already in Mk 12:35-37. Jesus is no mere David redivivus, no mere warrior king like David, but one far greater than David. If he is David’s “lord,” enthroned not simply in Jerusalem but at God’s right hand, how can he be his “son”?

While Jesus’ teaching could be read as repudiating the messiah’s Davidic descent, ¹³ the real problem here (as Matthew and Luke especially emphasize) seems to be how he can be David’s Lord yet at the same time David’s son,¹⁴ younger in age yet superior in rank.¹⁵ Jewish teachers often asked didactic questions that functioned as “haggadic antinomy,” in which both sides of a question were correct but their relationship needed to be resolved.¹⁶ The messiah, i.e., the “anointed” king, was by definition “son of David” in various circles of Jewish expectation. ¹⁷ Yet the title “Lord” describes him far more adequately.¹⁸

Because the language about being son of David is ambiguous, however, it does not seem very likely that the early Christians would have created a tradition that could be used to challenge Jesus’ Davidic descent, hence his messiahship.¹⁹ Jesus’ messiahship was precisely a point of debate with their Jewish contemporaries, and Jesus’ wording here could be used against his movement’s case on that point. Why would Mark, who clearly affirms that Jesus is Christ (Mk 1:1; 8:29; 9:41; 14:61-62) and seems to also affirm that he is son of David (Mk 10:47-48; cf. 11:10), take this risk if not bound here to genuine tradition?

The question of theological precedent or lack thereof does not affect the point. Early Judaism may not have understood Ps 110 in a messianic sense,²⁰ but the psalm was readily available for Jesus’ own use no less than that of his followers, and by speaking of a “lord” of David secondary to Yahweh it naturally enough lent itself to quasimessianic or supermessianic speculation. That it became widespread in a wide range of early Christian circles²¹ probably suggests that a common authority stands behind its usage. Thus it seems most likely that the passage reflects Jesus’ own teaching.²²

Whatever the original psalm means, it probably does portray an exaltation greater than that of David historically. If the psalmist spoke to a lord besides Yahweh, a lord who would be enthroned at God’s right hand as his vice-regent, then this king was someone greater than an ordinary royal descendant of David. ²³ Some in the psalmist’s day might have understood the image on the Near Eastern analogy of divine kings.²⁴

The context in Mark reinforces the striking nature of the claim, though we cannot know for sure how closely together the sayings were actually spoken. Because Jesus in Mark’s preceding passage had cited one text in which the only “Lord” was God (Mk 12:29-30), his emphasis on the subordinate “Lord” of Psalm 110 (pronounced as if it read the same in public reading and certainly in Greek, despite the difference in Hebrew) would sound striking, especially given the frequent practice of linking texts on the basis of common key words.²⁵

↑ Back to top