David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?" The large crowd listened to him with delight. (Mark 12:37)
The verse mentioned above is a little complicated. It is contended that the Lord cannot be the son of David because David himself called Christ ‘Lord’. Then this is a statement to refute those who called Christ as son of David. Here ‘Lord’ means Jesus Christ. The phrase “Son of David” is used in many occasions as another corresponding name for Jesus Christ. Then does the above verse contradict with this fact?
The title Jesus as the son of David often appears in the gospel of Mark. A blind beggar on the way to Jericho from Jerusalem called him son of David (10:48) and the crowd in the scene to enter into Jerusalem also praised the approaching kingdom of David (11:10). The above mentioned verse also comes under this category. Meanly this title was developed within the Judean Christian community of Palestine. It is an unavoidable circumstance. The Christians in Palestine have to accept their tradition about the Messiah in order to persuade the Jews.
However, as we can confirm from the above verse that the early Christianity accepted that Jesus as the son of David in a totally different manner. Jesus is not a son of David according to his parental chronicle. Jesus is rather the Messiah, the Christ whom David called ‘Lord’. Jesus had shifted his position to another which is beyond the ancestral chronicle as a pre-existing being. According to John’s gospel, Jesus was retroactive to the time of creation.
By accepting the tradition of Jews, the Judean Christian community accepted two identities of Jesus. One is son of David and the other is Christ. The former points out the true humanity while the latter the true divinity. Here the fact remains, that, these two characters become a single personality and this is the mysterious being of Jesus Christ that the early Christians understood.
The verse mentioned above is a little complicated. It is contended that the Lord cannot be the son of David because David himself called Christ ‘Lord’. Then this is a statement to refute those who called Christ as son of David. Here ‘Lord’ means Jesus Christ. The phrase “Son of David” is used in many occasions as another corresponding name for Jesus Christ. Then does the above verse contradict with this fact?
The title Jesus as the son of David often appears in the gospel of Mark. A blind beggar on the way to Jericho from Jerusalem called him son of David (10:48) and the crowd in the scene to enter into Jerusalem also praised the approaching kingdom of David (11:10). The above mentioned verse also comes under this category. Meanly this title was developed within the Judean Christian community of Palestine. It is an unavoidable circumstance. The Christians in Palestine have to accept their tradition about the Messiah in order to persuade the Jews.
However, as we can confirm from the above verse that the early Christianity accepted that Jesus as the son of David in a totally different manner. Jesus is not a son of David according to his parental chronicle. Jesus is rather the Messiah, the Christ whom David called ‘Lord’. Jesus had shifted his position to another which is beyond the ancestral chronicle as a pre-existing being. According to John’s gospel, Jesus was retroactive to the time of creation.
By accepting the tradition of Jews, the Judean Christian community accepted two identities of Jesus. One is son of David and the other is Christ. The former points out the true humanity while the latter the true divinity. Here the fact remains, that, these two characters become a single personality and this is the mysterious being of Jesus Christ that the early Christians understood.
No comments:
Post a Comment