The direct questioning
has stopped for the moment, but Jesus continues to address some of the key
issues that are relevant to the kind of things that have been discussed. The question
on which he comments here is as to whether the Messiah is the son of David. One
of the commonest titles for the expected Messiah was indeed son of David. The
people were looking for a deliverer believing this person would come from David’s line, and be in David’s
mould. David was a great warrior king and, particularly at the time of Jesus
when they were under Roman occupation, it is not surprising that the hope was
for a military Messiah who would overthrow Roman rule.
Jesus here asks how
the Messiah can be David’s son on the grounds that David calls him Lord,
which is not how one normally refers to a son. However, perhaps this should be
seen at a deeper level, and as an indication that Jesus’ Messiahship is not
going to fit the conventional mould. After all, a Messiah who gets captured and
killed is a contradiction in terms. As William Barclay (Daily Study Bible – The Gospel of Mark) says – “what
Jesus is doing is this – he is not denying that the Messiah is the son of David,
nor is he saying that he is not the son of David. What he is saying is that he
is the son of David – and far more. The Coming One was not only David’s Son –
he was David’s Lord.” This issue is not, as in other matters, that Jesus
rejects what has been stated, but that he reinterprets it, as tradition has
taken things in the wrong direction.
I wonder if we
are caught up in any traditions that have gained unintended meanings or
unintended consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment