A look at the gaps in the lectionary.
This week: the gap between Proper 26B + 27B
The text: Mark 12:35-37
After being confronted by Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, and elders, turning the tables on each, and then finally getting respect from a scribe, Jesus uncorks a strange puzzle-like teaching about David, lordship, and expectations. It is obvious why the lectionary skips over it—it seems kind of meaningless. And this is one of the few times I kind of agree.
Not that its meaningless exactly, but that it is a bit of a mindbender—without enough payoff to make it seem worth the effort.
Jesus plays with the people’s expectations, primarily with the articulation of what it means to be considered in the Davidic Line, which is to say, what would be the public expectations for a Son of David—particularly one who has been dubbed the Christ—the longed-for Messiah come to save Israel.
The language Jesus prefers to use to describe his own activity in Mark is clearly Son of Man, and to a lesser extent, Son of God. What we see here is Jesus refer, not merely to David, but to the tradition. Tradition that includes the teaching of who David was and what he did as well as what it would mean to the people of Israel and Judah to have a figure like him arise.
In this way, we’re dealing with emotions and concepts of what is best for the people, for society, and how to progress into the future. In other words, we’re talking about politics. Son of David is a deeply political term (and so is Son of God for that matter, but that is a political as a rejection of Rome and Caesar, who himself claimed to be Son of God) because it is about how the Hebrew people see themselves, how they seek to order themselves, and what they will do about it.
The Question
Jesus calls into question the common belief that the Messiah would be a Son of David. This is not merely a linguistic act. Jesus throws out a challenge that we would see the Messiah as synonymous with Son of David—these aren’t the same concept. And this should be top of mind for people given Mark 8, when Peter calls Jesus Messiah and then seeks to protect him from harm. It seems as if Peter is making this mistake.
The central problem, of course, is that David became a king who ruled over people. And to become king, he led an army to topple the existing king. There’s more to the story than that, of course, but this is the central nut of it. David was not savior of the people—he was conqueror and ruler. To be the Son of David is to speak of power.
The wordplay in this passage doesn’t so much call into question a common belief as it does highlight something about authority and expectations—that kings command and people follow.
Jesus asks why then the king would call someone else “Lord”?
There is a problem with the idealization of leaders, expecting them to be our saviors themselves. A lesson ideal for discussing around a US presidential election. And Jesus brings their attention to the challenge in their expectations, the confusion in their beliefs, and the results of not working through it.
I Jesus the Son of David?
This is probably itself a more important question than one we ask. We like to use all of the terms like synonyms; and we do so with at least a wink and a nod to the idea that Jesus thinks of them differently than his people did. That he is a savior of the people, that he is a king who doesn’t rule, but serves. He is a child of humanity rather than a lord to govern humanity. That he is the Son of God, but not an emperor seeking to control the world.
We get that. At least in theory. But do we understand this in our hearts?
When I speak out against the kingly language of our liturgy, I get people pushing back and saying Jesus is supposed to be a king who reigns over us in opposition to the earthly kings we put our trust in. And this response is 100% correct! This is, from tradition, the right answer. And it also what people say when they want to make the US a “Christian nation”.
The subverting character of the Jesus mission is elegant, and also, when misunderstood, can lead to actions that are the opposite of what Jesus teaches.
The dangerous notion of treating Son of David as synonymous with Messiah is just as important for us as it was for them.
A final thought.
My favorite line in this passage is the last one. It reads:
“And the large crowd was listening to him with delight.”
There is something about Jesus’s twisting of expectations that delighted the crowds. Perhaps it was the challenging of the establishment or the nature of the question.
One of the things about Jesus is that his encounters with the leadership excited and delighted the masses. And I think we take that as too much a given. Which is not to say that we forget about it, but I think we forget that some of the most challenging things Jesus said to the status quo of 30 CE and 2024 CE led people to hoot and holler with delight.
At a time when Christian nationalists delight in punishing immigrants, Jesus taught of welcoming them. And people flocked to him when he preached that message.
The challenge of Jesus for us today is that people followed him for what he said to them and many people follow him today for theology about him. In other words, a lot of people are looking for a Son of David to rule them rather than a Messiah to liberate them.