What is most striking in this case is the fact that nothing is made of the messianic significance of the title ('son of David'). The story shows Jesus responding to a beggar's persistence, but neither as rebuking nor as acknowledging the title. That suggests, again, that the story is framed from the perspective of the one who benefited from the event; it was his healing that was most important. It is not told with christological intent and tells us little or nothing about Jesus' own attitude to the title.
Was this article helpful?