The Function of the Son of David Tradition in Mark's Gospel

• Published in: New Testament studies 1996-10, Vol.42 (4), p.523-539
• Main Author: Smith, Stephen H.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Bible; Christianity; Exegesis & hermeneutics; Judaism
• ISSN: 0028-6885; 1469-8145
• DOI: 10.1017/S0028688500021408

How significant is the Son of David tradition for Mark? At first blush the answer to that question would seem to be: not very significant at all. The title ‘Son of Man’ is, after all, far more frequent, and can be applied to Jesus in no fewer than three guises his earthly authority (Mark 2.10, 28), his suffering servanthood (8.31; 9.9, 12, 31; 10.33–4, 45), and his apocalyptic glory (8.38; 13.26; 14.21, 41, 62).1 The term ‘Son of God’, while used less frequently, appears at theologically strategic points in the narrative (1.12; 3.H; 15.39; See also 1.11, 24; 5.7; 9.7), and is clearly Mark's controlling title for Jesus, in whose light all the others are to be understood. ‘Son of David’, by contrast, while characteristic of Matthew (1.1, [20]; 9.27; 12.23; 15.22; 20.30–1; 21.9, 15), appears as a title for Jesus only twice in Mark (10.47, 48) – although its underlying concept is found in 11.9–10, and its messianic significance is briefly considered by Jesus in 12.35–7. So, to return to our initial question: does this infrequency of occurrence imply that the title is not important for Mark? On the contrary, one full section of the gospel, at least, 10.46–12.44, appears to be characterised by what one might call Jesus' ‘Son of David activity’. The illusion that Mark lacks interest in this field is created in two ways. First, the Evangelist quite conventionally confines this Son of David activity to the environs of Jerusalem, but in his scheme, Jerusalem does not loom into view until the last week of Jesus' life (10.46–16.8), so it is clear that the Son of David concept could not have been introduced prior to his entry into Judea (10.1). Secondly, it will be shown that, for Mark, the Davidic title is a low-key term, divested of all political overtones – but it is none the less important for that.