The New Testament Gospels apply the messianic epithet “son of David” to Jesus of Nazareth (c. 6-4 BCE–c. 30 CE) (Johnson 1968; Fitzmyer 1971; Jonge 1991; Charlesworth 1995; Bauer 2019). See Jesus Christ as the “Son of David”: The Jewish Context.

The gospels of Matthew (1:1–17) and Luke (3:23–38) provide genealogies in which Jesus is presented as a descendant of King David (fl. c. 1000 BCE) (Fitzmyer 1971; Evans 2008, 1803). This presentation of Jesus has a large role in how his audience and early members of his movement perceived him (Evans 2008, 1801–1812).

The question of historicity is important (Evans 2008, 1803). Some critics maintain that the tradition of Jesus being the “Son of David” arose much later, after the earlier proclamation of Jesus being the Messiah. Further, no extant records of Davidic descent in the time of Jesus exist. The conclusion then is that the genealogies found in Matthew and Luke are likely not genuine.

A counterargument is that historian Eusebius (fl. fourth century CE) reports that emperors Vespasian (Hist. eccl. 3.12), Domitian (3.19–20), and Trajan (3.32.5–6) persecuted the family of David, intending to prevent any royal claimant from emerging to challenge the authority of Rome. Further, an ossuary dating to the first century BCE was found in Jerusalem bearing the inscription “the house of David.” According to early rabbinic literature, “the family of David” brought the wood-offering of the priests to the temple on the twentieth of Tammuz (cf. m. Ta’anith 4:5; t. Ta’anith 3.5). 

Later rabbinic sources assert that many rabbis (b. Shab. 56a), including Hillel the Elder (d. c. 10 CE) (y. Ta’anith 4.2), were descendants of David, and it is also possible that the historian Josephus Flavius (37–100 CE), in a remark that the grandson or great-grandson of Hillel, Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel (10 BCE–70 CE), emerged from “a very illustrious family” (Life 191), refers to Davidic ancestry. Historian Craig A. Evans is convinced that “the evidence of recognized Davidic lineage in the time of Jesus is compelling,”

“Christians knew of Jesus’ Davidic descent, but apparently made little of it (cf. Paul’s remarks in Rom 1:3–4). Indeed, Jesus himself challenges the adequacy of understanding the Messiah in terms of the epithet “son of David” (in Mark 12:35–37). In short, New Testament Christology is founded on other, more important traditions than mere Davidic descent. Nevertheless, Davidic messianism, especially the specific epithet, “son of David,” played an important role in the early understanding of Jesus” (2008, 1804).

“Son of David” in Mark 10:46–52

In this pericope, Jesus is accompanied by a large crowd while passing through Jericho. Then one Bartimaeus (“son of Timaeus”), a blind beggar, cries out, asking for mercy: “Son of David, Jesus, have pity on me!” (Mark 10:47). Although the crowd tries to silence Bartimaeus, he continues crying out, leading Jesus to give him an audience. Jesus learns that he wishes for his sight to be restored, a request that he accepts and heals him. Bartimaeus then follows Jesus. The story also appears in the gospels Matthew (20:29–34) and Luke (18:35–43).

This miracle narrative, during which Jesus is called the “son of David,” prepares for the entrance narrative into Jerusalem (11:1–11), where the crowd will refer to the “coming kingdom of our father David” (Evans 2008, 1805). It is also the last healing episode recounted in Mark’s gospel.

The title “son of David” could refer to a Solomonic identity (Pss. Sol. 17:21) being ascribed to Jesus (Duling 1975). Solomon, also fondly remembered for his healing powers and formulas for exorcism, is called “son of David” several times in the Hebrew Bible (1 Chr. 29:22; 2 Chr. 1:1; 13:6; 30:26; 35:3; Prov. 1:1).

The blind man’s request for the “son of David” to heal him could indicate that he sensed the approach of the kingdom of God, which was at the heart of Jesus’ proclamation (Evans 2008, 1805–1806). He possibly assumed that healings and other blessings were readily at hand (cf. 4Q521, where the coming of God’s Messiah will occasion healing, even resurrection from the dead).

Nowhere in the early sources is Jesus’ Davidic descent challenged, although much later rabbinic polemic claims Jesus to have been fathered by a Roman soldier (t. Hullin 2.23). This claim does not carry historical weight since this statement “is little more than slander in response to Christian claims of Jesus’ miraculous conception” (Evans 2008, 1806).

The blind man’s appeal to Jesus as “son of David” and the later shouts of the crowd during Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (“blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is coming” [11:10]) offer important early evidence that Jesus was known by his contemporaries to have belonged to the house of David.

References

Bauer, David R. 2019. The Gospel of the Son of God: An Introduction to Matthew. Westmont, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.

Charlesworth, J. H. 1996. “Solomon and Jesus: The Son of David in Ante-Markan Traditions (Mark 10:47).” In Biblical and Humane: A Festschrift for John F. Priest, edited by D. L. Barr and E. S. Malbon, 125–151. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Duling, D. C. 1975. “Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David.” The Harvard Theological Review 68(3/4):235–252.

Evans, Craig A. 2008. “Son of David.” In The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus, edited by Craig A. Evans, 1801–1812. Oxfordshire: Routledge (Apple Books).

Fitzmyer, J. A. 1971. “The Son of David Tradition and Matt 22:41–46 and Parallels.” In Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, edited by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 113–126. London: Chapman.

Johnson, S. E. 1968. “The David-Royal Motif in the Gospels.” JBL 87:136–150.

Jonge, M. de. 1991. “Jesus, Son of David and Son of God.” In Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, edited by Marinus De Jonge, 135–144. Leiden: Brill.