8

A number of people have pointed out that Matthew seems to specifically link the healing miracles of Jesus to his title as "Son of David." Some examples:

9:27 – As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed him, calling out, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!"

12:22-23 – Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"

15:22 – A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."

20:30 – Two blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was going by, they shouted, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!"

I can't remember David ever performing any healing miracles, so where does this connection come from and why does Matthew make it?

It looks like there are a couple JSTOR papers out there on this topic, but I don't have access to them. In the abstract one seems to suggest Ezekiel 34 for a possible background, but also seems to mention that there are other ideas.

Improve this question

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
4

This is a very interesting question. A short time back, I did a write up on the two Messiah theory in the first century. I think this is related.

One of the Messiahs, the one expected to come first in most accounts, was called the Son of David (occasionally, Son of Judah). While it was the Messiah Son of Levi who would come focusing on ministering, freeing captives, and healing, miracle powers would also be associated with the Son of David.

I am not disagreeing with Swasheck. I completely agree with his interpretation of Matthew showing the Jesus as the King, but the title is one for the Messiah.

Improve this answer
2
  • So you're saying that perhaps Matthew juxtaposes the title with the healings in order to make the point that Jesus fulfills both ideas of the Messiah? Or perhaps combining what you're saying with what swasheck seems to say: Matthew is illustrating Jesus as simultaneously both priest and king?
    – Soldarnal
    Commented Mar 22, 2012 at 2:58
  • You said it better than I could. Jesus fulfills both ideas of Messiah and that makes Him both priest and king.
    – Frank Luke
    Commented Mar 22, 2012 at 3:11
2

Part of Matthew's purpose is to legitimate Jesus as of royal descent and all that is wrapped up in that meaning. So, "Son of David" most likely becomes a term that Matthew employs to reinforce Jesus as king and attach such a purpose to his ministry.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.