Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 22:41

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 22:41” utilice nuestra app.

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,

Jesus proposes a question concerning the Messiah – See also Mar 12:35-37; Luk 20:41-44.

Mat 22:41

While the Pharisees … – Jesus, having confounded the great sects of the Jews, proceeds, in his turn, to propose to them a question for their solution.

This was done, not for the purpose of vain parade and triumph, but:

1.To show them how ignorant they were of their prophecies.

2.To humble them in view of their ignorance.

3.To bring to their attention the true doctrine respecting the Messiah – his being possessed of a character superior to that of David, the most mighty king of Israel – being his Lord, at the same time that he was his descendant.

Mat 22:42

What think ye of Christ? – What are your views respecting the Messiah, or the Christ, especially respecting his genealogy? He did not ask them their mews respecting him in general, but only respecting his ancestry.

The article should have been retained in the translation – the Christ or the Messiah. He did not ask them their opinion respecting himself, his person, and work, as would seem in our translation, but their views respecting the Messiah whom they expected.

Whose son is he? – Whose descendant? See the notes at Mat 1:1.

The son of David – The descendant of David, according to the promise.

Mat 22:43

How then … – How is this doctrine that he is descended from David consistent with what David says when he calls him lord? How can your opinion be reconciled with that? That declaration of David is recorded in Psa 110:1. A lord or master is a superior. The word here does not necessarily imply divinity, but only superiority. David calls him his superior, his lord, his master, his lawgiver, and expresses his willingness to obey him. If the Messiah was to be merely a descendant of David, as other men descended from parents if he was to have a human nature only if he did not exist when David wrote – with what propriety could he, then, call him his lord?

In spirit – By the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As a prophet, Act 2:30; Act 1:16; 2Sa 23:2.

Mat 22:44

The Lord said … – This is the language of David.

Yahweh said to my lord the Messiah – sit thou, etc. This was a prediction respecting the exaltation of Christ. To be raised to the right hand of a king was significant of favor, trust, and power. See the notes at Mat 20:21. This was done respecting Christ, Mar 16:19; Act 7:55; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Heb 1:3; Heb 8:1; Heb 10:12. Thine enemies thy footstool. A footstool is that which is under the feet when we are sitting implying that we have it under subjection, or at our control. So, Christ shall put all enemies under his feet – all his spiritual foes – all that rise up against him, Psa 2:9, Psa 2:12; Heb 10:13; 1Co 15:25.

Mat 22:45

If David … – If he was then Davids lord if he was his superior – if he had an existence at that time how could he be descended from him? They could not answer him.

Nor is there any way of answering the question but by the admission that the Messiah was divine as well as human; that he had an existence at the time of David, and was his lord and master, his God I and king, and that as man he was descended from him.

Remarks On Matthew 22

1. Multitudes of people, who are invited to be saved, reject the gospel and perish in their sins, Mat 22:3.

2. If they perish, they only will be to blame. The offer was freely made, the salvation was provided, and the only reason why they were not saved was that they would not come, Mat 22:3.

3. Attention to the affairs of this life, the love of the world, will shut many out of the kingdom of heaven, Mat 22:5. Some attention to those things is necessary; but such a devotion to these things as to lead to the loss of the soul never can be right.

4. It is treating God ungratefully to reject his gospel, Mat 22:3-5. He has sent his Son to die for us; he has entreated us to be saved; he has followed us with mercies; and to reject all these, and refuse to be saved, is to treat him with contempt, as well as to overwhelm ourselves in condemnation. Man has no right to be damned. He is under the most solemn obligations to be saved; and after what God has done for us, deep and dreadful woe will await us if we are so foolish and wicked as to be lost.

5. Many of the poor and needy will be saved, while the haughty and rich will perish forever, Mat 22:9-10.

6. Let those who make a profession of religion look often to the great day when Christ will search them, Mat 22:11. There is a day coming that will try us. His eye will be upon us. He will read our hearts, and see whether we are clothed in his righteousness, or only the filthy rags of our own.

7. A profession of religion will not save us, Mat 22:11-13. It is foolish to deceive ourselves. Nothing but genuine piety, true faith in Jesus, and a holy life, will save us. God asks not profession merely, but the heart. He asks not mockery, but sincerity; not pretension, but reality.

8. The hypocrite must perish, Mat 22:13. It is right that he should perish. He knew his Masters will and would not do it. He must perish with an awful condemnation. No man sins amid so much light, none with so high a hand. No sin is so awful as to attempt to deceive God, and to palm pretensions on him for reality.

9. Pretended friends are sometimes more dangerous than avowed enemies, Mat 22:16. Pretended friendship is often for the purpose of decoying us into evil. It throws us off our guard, and we are more easily taken.

10. The truth is often admitted by wicked people from mere hypocrisy, Mat 22:16. It is only for the purpose of deceiving others and leading them into sin.

11. Wicked people can decide correctly on the character of a public preacher, Mat 22:16. They often admit his claim in words, but for an evil purpose.

12. It may be right for us sometimes to attend to artful and captious questions, Mat 22:18. It may afford opportunity to do good; to confound the wicked and to inculcate truth.

13. No cunning can overreach God, Mat 22:18. He knows the heart, and he perceives the wickedness of all who attempt to deceive him.

14. It is right, and it is our duty to obey the law of the land, when it does not contravene the law of God, Mat 22:21. Conscientious Christians make the best citizens. Compare the notes at Rom 13:1-7.

15. We should give honor to civil rulers, Mat 22:21, We should pay respect to the office, whatever may be the character of the ruler. We should speak well of it, not abuse it; yield proper obedience to its requirements, and not rebel against it. Men may be wicked who hold an office, but the office is ordained by God Rom 13:1-2; and for the sake of the office we must be patient, meek, submissive, and obedient, Mat 23:3.

16. Yet we are to obey civil rulers no further than their commands are consistent with the law of God, Mat 22:21. God is to be obeyed rather than man; and when a civil ruler commands a thing contrary to the laws of the Bible and the dictates of our consciences, we may, we must resist it, Act 5:29.

17. The objections of people to the doctrines of the Bible are often founded on ignorance of what those doctrines are, and distrust of the power of God, Mat 22:29. People often set up a notion which they call a doctrine of the Bible, and then fight a shadow, and think they have confuted the truth of God, while that truth was, in fact, untouched. It is a totally different thing from what they supposed.

18. When people attack a doctrine they should be certain that they under stand it, Mat 22:29. The Sadducees did not understand the true doctrine of the resurrection. The inquiry which they should have made was whether they had correct views of it. This is the inquiry which people ought always first to make when they approach a doctrine of the Bible.

19. We learn the glory and happiness of the state after the resurrection, Mat 22:30 (Luke). We shall be in some respects equal to the angels. Like them we shall be free from sin, suffering, and death. Like them we shall be complete in knowledge and felicity. Like them we shall be secure of eternal joy. Happy are those – the good of all the earth who shall have part in that resurrection of the just!

20. The dead shall be raised, Mat 22:31-32. There is a state of happiness hereafter. This the gospel has revealed; and it is the most consoling and cheering truth that has ever beamed upon the heart of man.

21. Our pious friends that have died are now happy, Mat 22:31-32. They are with God. God is still their God. A father, or mother, or sister, or friend that may have left us is there in perfect felicity. We should rejoice at that, nor should we wish them hack to the poor comforts and the many sufferings of this world.

22. It is our duty to love God with all the heart. Mat 22:37. No half, formal, cold, and selfish affection comes up to the requirement. It must be full, entire, absolute. It must be pleasure in all his attributes – his justice, his power, his purposes, as well as his mercy and his goodness. God is to be loved just as he is. If man is not pleased with his whole character he is not pleased with him at all.

23. God is worthy of love. He is perfect. He should be loved early in life. Children should love him more than they do father, or mother, or friends. Their first affections should he fixed on God, and fixed on him supremely, until they die.

24. We must love our neighbor, Mat 22:39. We must do to all as we would have them do to us. This is the law and the prophets: this is the way of justice, of peace, of kindness, of charity, of benevolence. If all men obeyed these laws, the earth would be a paradise, and man would taste the bliss of heaven here below.

25. We may ask here of each one, What think you of Christ? Mat 22:42. What do you think of the necessity of a Saviour? What do you think of his nature? Is he God as well as man, or do you regard him only as a man? What do you think of his character? Do you see him to be lovely and pure, and is he such as to draw forth the warm affections of your heart? What do you think of salvation by him? Do you depend on him, and trust in him, and expect heaven only on the ground of his merits? Or, do you reject and despise him, and would you have joined in putting him to death? Nothing, more certainly tests the character, and shows what the feelings are, than the views which we entertain of Christ. Here error is fatal error; but he who has just views of the Redeemer, and right feelings toward him, is sure of salvation.

26. We have in this chapter an illustrious specimen of the wisdom of Jesus. He successfully met the snares of his mighty and crafty foes, and with infinite ease confounded them. No art of man could confound him. Never was wisdom more clear, never more triumphant.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 41. While the Pharisees were gathered together] Jesus asks a question in his turn, utterly to confound them, and to show the people that the source of all the captious questions of his opponents was their ignorance of the prophecies relative to the Messiah.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Mark hath this story shortly, repeating only the substance of it, Mar 12:35-37; adding nothing to it, but concluding, And the common people heard him gladly. Luke repeateth it as shortly, Luk 20:41,44. For the right understanding of this discourse of our Saviour to the Pharisees, we must know, that though the Pharisees and the Jews in general did expect a Messiah or a Christ, yet they expected no more of him, or in him, than that he should be a man, the son of David, descended from his family, according to the promise, Isa 9:6; and dreamed only of a secular prince, who should deliver them from their enemies, and restore them to their ancient civil liberties. Christ seeing a pack of them together, took the liberty, which he had allowed them towards himself, to propound a question or two to them. His question was, What think ye of Christ? Not of himself, but of the Messiah whom they expected; whose Son he should be.

They say unto him, The Son of David, that is, one who should in a right line be descended from David. This was a constant and uncontrolled tradition amongst them. Hence Mark saith, the question was propounded, How say the scribes? Luke, How say they that Christ is, that is, is to be, the Son of David? This was a commonly received opinion amongst them, which our Saviour by the next words doth not contradict, but only argues that he must needs be something more; for, saith he, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord? Psa 110:1. Mark saith, David himself said by the Holy Ghost. David was a prophet, sand spake by inspiration from the Holy Ghost. Act 1:16; 2:30. Luke saith, in the book of Psalms; whence we may observe, that Psa 110:1-7 was Davids Psalm, not a Psalm composed by some other for David, as some contend. Would David have called him Lord, whom he knew to be merely his son, one that should only descend from him? He would have said, The Lord said to my son, or, will say to my son.

The Lord said, Jehovah said, unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand. Would David, speaking prophetically by the Holy Ghost concerning the Messiah, had he believed he was to be his son, and no more, have said that Jehovah should say unto him, Sit at my right hand, a place of the highest honour, dignity, and favour, until I make thine enemies thy footstool, that is, for ever? For until doth not signify a determinate time. See Poole on “Mat 1:25“.

If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? That is, how is he then no more than his son, no more than a mere man? Our Saviour by this argument doth neither go about to prove that the Christ was not to be the Son of David, nor that he was the Messias himself, but that their expected Messias or Christ must be more than a mere man, otherwise David would never have called him Lord, nor yet prophesied that Jehovah should call him to sit at his right hand. Matthew concludes with telling us, that as the Sadducees and the scribes were nonplussed before, so now the Pharisees mouths were also stopped. Mark saith, The common people heard him gladly. Matthew saith, No man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man ask him any more questions. Nor shall we hear of their troubling him with disputes any more; they now see disputing will not do their business, their next business is to consult how to take away his life; which is always the course of proud and malicious men, given over of God to ruin, to conceal their convictions, and proceed to execute their lusts and malice, rather than they will not have their ends. But before they meet with a fit opportunity we shall have some excellent discourses from our Saviour to the disciples and the multitude.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

While the Pharisees were gathered together,…. Or rather, “when” they were gathered together, and while they continued so, before they left him: for this is to be understood not of their gathering together, to consult privately about him; this is expressed before in Mt 22:34 but of their gathering together about Christ, to hear what answer he would return to the question their learned doctor would put to him: and he having given an answer to that, which the Scribe was obliged to allow was a good one; and he having no more to say, Christ directs his discourse not to him individually, but to all the Pharisees before he parted with them, and puts a question to them, in his turn; and which would lead on to another they could not answer, and they must therefore leave him once more with great shame and confusion.

Jesus asked them: as the lawyer put a question to him suitable to his office and character, Christ puts another to the Pharisees suitable to his office and character, as a Gospel preacher; suggesting by it, that salvation was not by the law, and the works of it, which they set up for doctors and interpreters of, and advocates for, but by the Messiah, who was promised to their fathers, and they expected.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The Pharisees Silenced.

41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, 44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? 45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? 46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

Many questions the Pharisees had asked Christ, by which, though they thought to pose him, they did but expose themselves; but now let him ask them a question; and he will do it when they are gathered together, v. 41. He did not take some one of them apart from the rest (ne Hercules contra duos–Hercules himself may be overmatched), but, to shame them the more, he took them all together, when they were in confederacy and consulting against him, and yet puzzled them. Note, God delights to baffle his enemies when they most strengthen themselves; he gives them all the advantages they can wish for, and yet conquers them. Associate yourselves, and you shall be broken in pieces,Isa 3:9; Isa 3:10. Now here,

I. Christ proposes a question to them, which they could easily answer; it was a question in their own catechism; “What think ye of Christ? Whose Son is He? Whose Son do you expect the Messiah to be, who was promised to the fathers?” This they could easily answer, The Son of David. It was the common periphrasis of the Messiah; they called him the Son of David. So the scribes, who expounded the scripture, had taught them, from Psa 89:35; Psa 89:36, I will not lie unto David; his seed shall endure for ever (Isa. ix. 7), upon the throne of David. And Isa. xi. 1, A rod out of the stem of Jesse. The covenant of royalty made with David was a figure of the covenant of redemption made with Christ, who as David, was made King with an oath, and was first humbled and then advanced. If Christ was the Son of David, he was really and truly Man. Israel said, We have ten parts in David; and Judah said, He is our bone and our flesh; what part have we then in the Son of David, who took our nature upon him?

What think ye of Christ? They had put questions to him, one after another, out of the law; but he comes and puts a question to them upon the promise. Many are so full of the law, that they forget Christ, as if their duties would save them without his merit and grace. It concerns each of us seriously to ask ourselves, What think we of Christ? Some think not of him at all, he is not in all, not in any, of their thoughts; some think meanly, and some think hardly, of him; but to them that believe he is precious; and how precious then are the thoughts of him! While the daughters of Jerusalem think no more of Christ than of another beloved; the spouse thinks of him as the Chief of ten thousands.

II. He starts a difficulty upon their answer, which they could not easily solve, v. 43-45. Many can so readily affirm the truth, that they think they have knowledge enough to be proud of, who, when they are called to confirm the truth, and to vindicate and defend it, show they have ignorance enough to be ashamed of. The objection Christ raised was, If Christ be David’s son, how then doth David, in spirit, call him Lord? He did not hereby design to ensnare them, as they did him, but to instruct them in a truth they were loth to believe–that the expected Messiah is God.

1. It is easy to see that David calls Christ Lord, and this in spirit being divinely inspired, and actuated therein by a spirit of prophecy; for it was the Spirit of the Lord that spoke by him,2Sa 23:1; 2Sa 23:2. David was one of those holy men that spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, especially in calling Christ Lord; for it was then, as it is still (1 Cor. xii. 3) that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Now, to prove that David, in spirit, called Christ Lord, he quotes Ps. cx. 1, which psalm the scribes themselves understood of Christ; of him, it is certain, the prophet there speaks, of him and of no other man; and it is a prophetical summary of the doctrine of Christ, it describes him executing the offices of a Prophet, Priest, and King, both in his humiliation and also in his exaltation.

Christ quotes the whole verse, which shows the Redeemer in his exaltation; (1.) Sitting at the right hand of God. His sitting denotes both rest and rule; his sitting at God’s right hand denotes superlative honour and sovereign power. See in what great words this is expressed (Heb. viii. 1); He is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty. See Phi 2:9; Eph 1:20. He did not take this honour to himself, but was entitled to it by covenant with his Father, and invested in it by commission from him, and here is that commission. (2.) Subduing his enemies. There he shall sit, till they be all made either his friends or his footstool. The carnal mind, wherever it is, is enmity to Christ; and that is subdued in the conversion of the willing people that are called to his foot (as the expression is, Isa. xli. 2), and in the confusion of his impenitent adversaries, who shall be brought under his foot, as the kings of Canaan were under the feet of Joshua.

But that which this verse is quoted for is, that David calls the Messiah his Lord; the Lord, Jehovah, said unto my Lord. This intimates to us, that in expounding scripture we must take notice of, and improve, not only that which is the main scope and sense of a verse, but of the words and phrases, by which they Spirit chooses to express that sense, which have often a very useful and instructive significance. Here is a good note from that word, My Lord.

2. It is not so easy for those who believe not the Godhead of the Messiah, to clear this from an absurdity, if Christ b David’s son. It is incongruous for the father to speak of his son, the predecessor of his successor, as his Lord. If David call him Lord, that is laid down (v. 45) as the magis notum–the more evident truth; for whatever is said of Christ’s humanity and humiliation must be construed and understood in consistency with the truth of his divine nature and dominion. We must hold this fast, that he is David’s Lord, and by that explain his being David’s son. The seeming differences of scripture, as here, may not only be accommodated, but contribute to the beauty and harmony of the whole. Amic scripturarum lites, utinam et nostr–The differences observable in the scriptures are of a friendly kind; would to God that our differences were of the same kind!

III. We have here the success of this gentle trial which Christ made of the Pharisees’ knowledge, in two things.

1. It puzzled them (v. 46); No man was able to answer him a word. Either it was their ignorance that they did not know, or their impiety that they would not own, the Messiah to be God; which truth was the only key to unlock this difficulty. What those Rabbies could not then answer, blessed be God, the plainest Christian that is led into the understanding of the gospel of Christ, can now account for; that Christ, as God, was David’s Lord; and Christ, as Man, was David’s son. This he did not now himself explain, but reserved it till the proof of it was completed by his resurrection; but we have it fully explained by him in his glory (Rev. xxii. 16); I am the root and the offspring of David. Christ, as God, was David’s Root; Christ, as Man, was David’s Offspring. If we hold not fast this truth, that Jesus Christ is over all God blessed for ever, we run ourselves into inextricable difficulties. And well might David, his remote ancestor, call him Lord, when Mary, his immediate mother, after she had conceived him, called him, Lord and God, her Saviour,Luk 1:46; Luk 1:47.

2. It silenced them, and all others that sought occasion against him; Neither durst any man, from that day forth, ask him any more such captious, tempting, ensnaring questions. Note, God will glorify himself in the silencing of many whom he will not glorify himself in the salvation of. Many are convinced, that are not converted, by the word. Had these been converted, they would have asked him more questions, especially that great question, What must we do to be saved? But since they could not gain their point, they would have no more to do with him. But, thus all that strive with their Master shall be convinced, as these Pharisees and lawyers here were, of the inequality of the match.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

CRITICAL NOTES

Mat. 22:44. Sit thou on My right hand.As having gloriously finished the work which was given Thee to do, and in which I rest satisfied and well pleased (Morison). As My co-regent, having power equal to Mine (Carr).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Mat. 22:41-46

A counter-attack.Hitherto various bodies of conspirators have put their questions to Christ. Now the case is reversed. Before the discomfited Pharisees have retiredwhilst they still remain gathered togetherin the deep silence which followsHe puts a question, or rather, two questions, to them. In the passage before us we see:

1. The basis these questions stood on.

2. The difficulties they presented.

3. The effects they produced.

I. The basis they stood on.This was to be found in the common convictions of both the Pharisees and the Saviour. Their convictions, on the one hand, as to the scope of those Scriptures which they held in those days in their hands. Both sides believed that these pointed unmistakably to the Messias or Christ. Some thirty years before, when these same or other scribes and Pharisees had been asked by Herod the Great to tell him where this Christ should be born, they had referred him at once to the Scriptures in question (Mat. 2:4-5). Just the same, here, tacitly, in asking like information about this Messias or Christ, the Saviours first question assumes. Just so here, is assumed also, in the reply of the Pharisees to it. It is taken for granted by both that that question can only be answered by a reference to the writings of the prophets. It is to them alone you must go if you want to know what to believe of the Christ. Their convictions, on the other hand, as to the correctness of the Scriptures in question. On this point, also, we find the Saviour and the Pharisees to be absolutely of one mind. Whatever those Scriptures can be shown to teach must be accepted as true. Clearly, on either side, there is no idea here of anything else. It is just as certain to both that the Scriptures are true as that they speak about Christ. No one cares to prove this because it is what no one denies. No one ever goes so far as to assert it. It is already believed.

II. Hence therefore, next, the peculiar difficulty of the second question propounded.The authorities referred to had spoken in more places than one on the matter in hand. In some of these places they had spoken of the Christ (as already acknowledged) as the Son of David. In another place they are found speaking of Him in a variant way. In words which were believed by all to be those of David himself speaking under the direct influence of the Spirit of God, he speaks of Christ as his Lord. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool (Mat. 22:44). The difficulty, therefore, is patent and great. If David call Him Lord, how is He then his Son? How can the same person be both at one time; both above and below; both Son and Lord; both subject and sovereign; both under another man and on a level with God? The difficulty is not to be solved by a supposed misinterpretation of either Scriptures referred to. The language of both is too plain. Neither is it to be got rid of by attributing incorrectness to either. From any supposition of that kind, as we have seen already, all are wholly debarred.

III. The effects of these questions.Or, rather, of this latter onewere of two principal kinds. One was on the spot and immediate. The men that heard it had nothing to say. They could not suggest any explanation of the difficulty propounded. They could not think even of any pretext to offer in lieu. Practised in evasion, skilled in subterfuge, masters in concealment, they could not conceal the true state of the case. They said nothing because they had nothing to say. The other effect was subsequent and remote. The men who heard of this question were affected by it in the same manner and to the same extent as those on the spot. They also had nothing to say to it in the way of reply. Not only so, they had nothing further, so far as this Man was concerned, to propound. Taken in conjunction with the wonderful ease and success with which He had previously answered their subtlest inquiries, this insoluble question of His silenced all of them all the rest of His days (Mat. 22:46). As an attacking army they had ceased to exist.

So complete a reversement may teach us much as to the difficulties of Scripture. It may teach us:

1. To expect them.The more truly Scripture is Holy Scripture, the more likely it is, in the nature of things, to present difficulties sometimes to our minds. The more truly it is above man in its origin the more certain it is to be occasionally above man in its thoughts. How could so deep a truth as that which we know to have lain at the root of the difficulty here presented to the Pharisees, have been presented to their shallow human intelligences so as not to perplex them at first, and in part? It is impossible for an eye accustomed to the darkness of earth to see at first quite clearly in the noon-light of heaven! At first, at any rate, it is simply blinded with excess of light.

2. To endure them.If thus things must be we must simply let them be, as reasonable inquirers. Never, in any case, must we regard any of them, as being calls to despair. Not even these Pharisees, in their imperfect faith, appear to have been tempted to this. Because they could not possibly account for what they found foretold about the Messias, they did not therefore say there was none. What we ought rather to learn here, therefore, with our fuller knowledge, is a lesson in hope. What was perplexity to those Pharisees has become confirmation to us! What was darkness to them is a pillar of light to us! Believing, as we do, in a Christ who is both perfect God and perfect man, we see easily how He could be both Davids Lord and Davids Son, and have learned to rejoice, therefore, in the juxtaposition of those very Scriptures which were such utter bewilderment in their eyes. So let us learn to hope, therefore, of other like sources of bewilderment in their turn. Time and truth will know how to transform them also into sources of light!

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Mat. 22:41-45. Davids Son and Davids Lord.

1. As it is good to be zealous of the law, so it is necessary to know the Messiah, who redeemeth men from the curse of the law. So our Lord, having answered the Pharisees question about the law, asketh them, What think ye of Christ?
2. Christ is a very man, lineally descended of David, for He is Davids Son; so say even the Pharisees.
3. Christ is also very God, for He is Davids Lord, equal with the Father.
4. The Son of David and Davids Lord, distinguished from the Father, as one of the persons of the Godhead, is but one person; for Davids God and Davids Son is here spoken of as one person.
5. Christ is fellow-partner of Divine glory with the Father, for Sit Thou at My right hand saith the Father.
6. Christ shall not want enemies who shall oppose His kingdom.
7. Christs enemies shall be put under His power.
8. There is but one Divine power of the Son and Father, for as the Son reigneth in majesty over His enemies, so the Father putteth them down also; for Sit Thou till I put them down is Reign Thou till this be done.
9. None can reconcile the speeches in Scripture concerning Christ, except he who believeth and acknowledgeth Him to be God and man in one person; for if David call Him Lord, how is He then his Son? hath no answer but He is both God and man.David Dickson.

Mat. 22:42. The Mediator, the Guarantee of religious life.Jesus Christ is a name around which a vast accumulation of histories, ideas, beliefs have gathered. Christianity has many aspects; literary, philosophical, moral, historical, political, theological, spiritual, practical. What is the religious aspect of Christianity and of Christ? What is the aspect which exhibits our Lords relation to religion, considered as the bond between God and the human soul?

I. Nothing is more certain in the annals of mankind than this, that Jesus Christ lived in Palestine, and was put to death eighteen centuries and a half ago. If this be admitted, His life and death must possess for any intelligent man the highest possible degree of interest. No doubt, at the time, the Csar Tiberius was everywhere on the lips and in the minds of men; while the retired religious Teacher, as He seemed to be, in Palestine, was by His teaching, His acts, and the opposition which they aroused, only furnishing a little conversation and excitement to the peasantry and to the officials of a remote province. But if the importance of a life is to be measured by its results in history and to civilization, even although we should put all religious and even moral considerations aside, who would think most of the emperor? Who can deny that, at this moment, explain it how he will, Jesus Christ lives in the hearts of multitudes as the object of most cherished and devoted homage; that He governs the ideas, the aspirations, the social and political action of millions of mankind; that the most active and enterprising section of the human family, still, in various senses, places itself under the shadow of His name and patronage; and that, if He has many opponents, there is no serious probability of His being spiritually or intellectually dethroned?

II. But the question must occur, What was it in Jesus Christ which gave Him, in spite of social and political insignificance, so commanding, so unrivalled a position in history? The least answer that can be given is that His character made a profound, an ineffaceable impression upon His contemporaries; an impression so deep and abiding that it moved them, peasants and paupers as they were, to achieve the moral revolution of the civilised world. But the bearing of Jesus Christ is that of One who claims to be the First of all, the Centre of all, with entire simplicity indeed, but also with, unhesitating decision. His words are familiar to our ears; but do we dwell upon their real and awful meaning? What should we think of a religious teacher now who could permit himself to say that eternal life consisted in the knowledge of himself as well as in the knowledge of the Father, etc.? The question arises, how to account for this earnest self-assertion on the part of Jesus Christ? Is our Lords language imposture? The suggestion can only be mentioned to be condemned by the entire drift and atmosphere of His life. Is it the hallucination of an enthusiast? That a Jew should fancy himself the Messiah, and at the same time should strip that character of all the attributes that fired his youthful imagination and heart; that he should start aside from all the feelings and hopes of His age, and should acquire a consciousness of being destined to a wholly new career, and one as unbounded as it was newthis is exceedingly improbable (Channing.). Was it, then, only the natural manner of an Oriental mind; the habit of seizing truth intuitively and enunciating it authoritatively, in contrast with our western methods of demonstration and argument? But this explanation, even if on other accounts it could be admitted, does not cover the ground required. It does not justify the actual substance and contents of our Lords language about Himself. It does not explain the fact that His language about Himself is unlike anything which we find in the Hebrew prophets. The prophets, if you will, announce truth in the intuitive manner; but they do not make themselves the subjects and centres of the truth which they announce. The relation in which Christ claims to stand, both towards the Father and towards mankind, is utterly unanticipated by anything that can be traced in the prophetic literature of Israel. Our Lords language about Himself is entirely in harmony with the character of His miracles of power. Also with another phenomenon. He was sinless. The most startling moral feature in this life is that we can trace nowhere in it any, the faintest consciousness of guilt. If we bow before the general impression produced by Christs character, and He be taken at His word, He must be believed to be, in the absolute sense, Divine.

III. In Jesus Christ, then, we have the guarantee or bond of religion. He is the means of an actual communication between the soul of man and the Eternal God.Canon Liddon.

Mat. 22:42. Jesus: what do we think of Him? (For children).

I. Jesus ought not to be despised.It is said of Handel, the great musician, that while composing the well-known oratorio of The Messiah, he was frequently found in tears, and that one day, while sobbing bitterly, it was found that the words which had broken down his spirit were these three words of the prophet Isaiah, He was despised. And yet this short saying was abundantly fulfilled when Jesus came to show us His great love. Bishop Villiers tells us the following story: I once, says he, happened to be on a visit to a great castle, situate on the top of a hill. There was a steep cliff, at the bottom of which was a rapid river. Late one night there was a person anxious to get home from that castle, in the midst of a thunderstorm. The night was blackness itself. The woman was asked to wait till the storm was over, but she declined. Next they begged her to take a lantern, that she might be able to keep upon the road from the castle to her home. She said she did not require a lantern, but could do very well without one. She left. Perhaps she was frightened by the storm, but in the midst of the darkness she wandered from the path and fell over the cliff. The next day the swollen river washed to the shore the poor lifeless body of that foolish woman. Even so there are many persons in our beautiful island home to-day who refuse the Lord Jesus Christ and perish.

II. Jesus ought not to be received with coldness or delay.Jesus complains very much that many persons do so receive Him. Have you ever read those tender words in Rev. 3:20, Behold I stand at the door and knock? Learned men tell us that it means, I have been long standing at the door. Jesus is kept waiting What a difference there is in the way we go to answer knocks at the door. The postmans loud double knock makes us run, for who is not pleased to receive letters from friends? And sometimes there comes a timid knock at the back door, which nobody cares to answer. Its only a beggar! some one says, and if the door is not opened, the footsteps turn sadly away. How differently we welcome those we love.

III. Jesus is worthy of our highest reverence and of our best love and obedience.There are two words uttered by the patriarch Job a great many years ago, that we may all use in reference to Jesus Christ. The words are, My Redeemer (Job. 19:25). Will you each say of Him just now, Jesus is my Redeemer. Ah! that is why I feel that I ought to love Him. He loved me, and gave Himself for me.Robert Brewin.

What think ye of Christ?

I. As to His origin.

1. Son of man.The ideal of humanity.

2. Son of God.The Divine essence.

II. As to His character.

1. Absolutely perfect as human.Immaculate, unique, complete.

2. The embodiment of the Divine perfections.

III. As to His offices.

1. Teacher.

2. Saviour.

3. King.W. W. Whythe.

Admiration of Christ.Cyrus, in one of his wars, captured an Armenian princess, and, according to the cruel laws of ancient warfare, condemned her to death. Her husband, hearing of her peril, came at once into the camp of the conqueror, and offered to redeem her life with his own. Cyrus was so struck with the mans magnanimity that he released them both, and declared his purpose to re-instate them, with great power and riches, in their own country. And now, while all the courtiers and captains are praising the generosity of the great king, the woman stands silent and weeping. And when the question was asked of her, And what do you think of Cyrus? I was not thinking of him at all, she replied. Of whom were you thinking? I was thinking, said she, fixing her eyes all lustrous with love, shining through her tears, upon her husband, of the noble man who redeemed my life by offering to sacrifice his own. Is not this the true attitude of a Christian? Amid the adulation of the world, should we not think most tearfully and tenderly of the Divine Man who redeemed our lives, not by the offer, but by the actual sacrifice of Himself?Christian World Pulpit.

Mat. 22:46. Silenced!The issue of this disputation is set down to teach us:

1. That all Christs enemies will be beaten in disputation and put to silence. The force of Divine truth prudently put forth, is irresistible.
2. The conviction of Gods enemies may be expected, but the conversion of all the convicted can hardly be expected; for they could not answer, and they durst ask no more questions; there is all; we hear of no good use they made of this.David Dickson.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

D. JESUS QUESTION ON THE SON OF DAVID

(Parallels: Mar. 12:35-37; Luk. 20:41-44)

TEXT: 22:4146

41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, 42 saying, What think ye of the Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying, 44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet? 45 If David then calleth him Lord, how is he his son? 46 And no one was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

How can you reconcile the fact that Matthew says Jesus question was addressed to the Pharisees gathered together, whereas Mark pictures Jesus as teaching throngs in the Temple and addresses this question about the scribes to others?

How would you explain Jesus bringing up the question about the Son of David here in this day of controversies in the Temple? By presenting them this theological puzzle, is He doing it to show these critics that they were not so learned after all? Why must the Pharisees understand the correct answer to this vital question, before they can be saved?

How does His question and its correct answer really lead them to the answer to their original challenge: By what authority do you do these things and who gave you such authority? (Mat. 21:23)?

How does His question and its correct answer really promote our understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son? Do you think the Trinity doctrine is involved here?

Why do you think Jesus brought up this particular Psalm to teach these Pharisees? What is its meaning, according to Jesus? Do you think He does it to deny that the Christ is to be the Son of David? If not, what is He driving at?

What kept the Pharisees from being able to answer Jesus question? Do you think it was their inability to accept Jesus as Son of God? Or was it their inability to conceive of a divine-human Messiah who was both Son of God and Son of David? Or is there some other reason?

Why do you think they did not dare question Him any further after this?

What is the peculiar value of Jesus use of questions like this as a teaching method? What may we learn from His method of dealing with men?

If Jesus did not reveal to these Pharisees unique or original information, but rather cited them a significant text out of their own Bible, indicating (1) the book in which the text is found, (2) the author of the text and (3) the inspiration of the author, what should we conclude about the text cited and about the Bible that included it? Do you think Jesus word may be trusted on this subject, even if much of modern scholarship were to doubt the reliability of Jesus conclusions?

What is the effect of this text on you? If the Jews proved it humanly possible not to grasp the inner harmony between two apparently contradictory concepts well-grounded in Scripture, what of our weaknesses? Cannot human ignorance and bias blind me too as I write this study of Matthew? What should we do about this problem?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

As Jesus taught in the temple courts, He turned to the Pharisees still assembled and put this question to them, What is your opinion about the Messiah? Whose son is He to be?

They answered, He is Davids son.

How can the theologians maintain that the Messiah is to be the SON of David? In fact, in the Book of Psalms David himself, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, refers to him as LORD, declaring: Jahv said to my LORD, Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies a footstool for your feet. So, if David himself can call him LORD, in what sense is he his SON?
No one was able to reply to His question. From that day on no one presumed to ask Him any further trick questions. The great throng enjoyed listening to Him.

SUMMARY

To give His adversaries a clue to His real identity and a means whereby they could save themselves, Jesus drew their attention to Scriptures that clearly pictured the Messiah as not merely the SON of David, but unquestionably his LORD. They were baffled to explain this apparent incongruency in their understanding of what the Christ must be. He had revealed their incompetence on a key issue, so they abandoned all attempts to out-maneuver Him in open debate. Common people, however, relished listening to His teaching.

NOTES
I. A COMMON CONVICTION (22:41, 42)

Mat. 22:41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question. (Cf. v. 34: They came together upon hearing He had muzzled the Sadducees.) Now, blocked by the great throng (Mar. 12:37) and stunned into inaction by the indisputable correctness of His answer to their question, the Pharisees become the captive audience for Jesus penetrating analysis. Inflexible, unthinking monotheism might rightly affirm: You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that He is one, and there is no other but He . . . (Mar. 12:32), and still remain blind to the Scriptural doctrine of the Messiahs deity. The Legalists had queried Jesus about the Law. Now He must lead them to understand the Messiah. They would be but condemned by the Laws demand to love perfectly. They needed a divine-human Savior who could make them perfect and empower them to love. But they must understand who it is that will help them so they can recognize Him when He comes.

Mat. 22:42 saying, What think ye of Christ, whose son is he? Still the question facing the world, why did Jesus ask it?

To bring everyonedisciples, crowds, even the Pharisees themselvesto see the blindness of the supposed learning to these teachers of the Law whose leadership so many revered. If rabbinic scholasticism could not answer a question concerning the basic concept of Messiahship, could their guidance be depended upon, if they refused to admit Jesus as Messiah? Jesus intends to open the eyes of those who followed blind guides (cf. Mat. 15:14).

To save the leaders themselves. His is no base attempt to embarrass them in debate or only to confuse them. His question clearly aims to lead them to clarify their own concepts by revealing the confusion that already reigns in their mind. The low-key approach even in His final question proves He wanted to lead them to see the truth and believe Him. To accomplish this, He used a sound pedagogic procedure:

He set truth in as neutral a setting as possible. Rather than direct attention to Himself, which would have only served to arouse their prejudice, He formulated a question in an objective form. Unlike the question asked the disciples (Mat. 16:13; Mat. 16:15), He was not asking them what they thought of Him as a potential candidate for Messiahship. Rather, He requested them to lay their own concept of Messiah out on the table for examination. This stimulated, rather than blocked, some real, deep thinking about this issue.

However, Lenski (Matthew, 884) believes this question was objective merely in form, because the events of the Last Week with Jesus Messianic Entry into Jerusalem surrounded by people glorifying Him as the Son of David and the children shouting in the temple, had raised the burning question: can this Nazarene be all that is claimed for Him? So the Pharisees know that it was not an academic or a theoretical inquiry but the supreme question concerning his own person (ibid.).

So we must not over-emphasize the objectivity of this question, as if Jesus only purpose were to push the Jewish leaders to revise their entire theory of the Messiah. He did this much, but Jesus is not playing academic games with people who are not far from the kingdom. He could save some of them. Others would mull over His meaning and perhaps accept it and Him. So, He was really hinting at a real application of this doctrine, even if at first glance it would seem to be purely theoretical. So, because they knew His claims and rejected them, He mercifully stated His question in as unprejudicial a manner as He could.

He formulated two appropriate questions that went right to the heart of their problem. Because they would instinctively veto as heresy anyones allegation to be both divine and human, He must make them see that they had misunderstood the prophets who had predicted a divine-human Messiah. These two questions, taken in their proper order, brought out the true prophetic message and contemporaneously showed the contradiction of the Jews belief. But it was a well-tested didactic method for proceeding from the known and believed to the unknown and questioned.

He needed to save these leaders from their own pride, especially since they prided themselves on being the cream of Jewish scholarship (Joh. 7:47 ff.). Nothing could be more devastating to their theological arrogance than to be caught unprepared to answer a question so basic on an issue so fundamental as this.

To lead all to understand the Messiahs true identity. His question could not but have recalled to their mind the countless times He had been publicly acclaimed as the Son of David (Mat. 21:9; cf. Mat. 9:27; Mat. 12:23; Mat. 15:22; Mat. 20:30). However, they answered without hedging: they say unto him, The son of David. 2Sa. 7:13 f; 2Sa. 23:5; Psa. 78:68-72; Psa. 89:3 f., Psa. 89:20-37; Psa. 132:11; Jer. 23:5 f., are texts they could have cited in support of their answer. Jewish scholars had already cited Mic. 5:2 (Mat. 2:4-6; cf. Joh. 7:42). Jesus too believed thisso far as it went. However, they occupied a grossly oversimplified, therefore mistaken, position, because they conceived of the Messiah as ONLY the son of David. What they believed was not totally untrue, just pitifully inadequate. While it is true that the Messiah is Davids descendant, this was but a partial definition that stopped short of the whole picture the Old Testament draws of the promised Christ. Further, their grossly secular mental image of the son of David envisioned a restored, nationalistic Israel ruled in Jerusalem by the re-established government of Davids line on a political throne. Although not without exceptions, the popular view of Messiahship involved national glory, political and military power and material wealth. (Cf. Joh. 6:14 f.; Mat. 20:20-28, Act. 1:6; cf. Edersheim, Life, II, Appendix IX; Psalms of Solomon Mat. 17:23-27.) Now, however, the moment has come to clear the air of these faulty notions however widely held they might be.

Another purpose (or was it result?) of Jesus question was to teach that the revelation of God is not to be treated as a fallible textbook composed of contradictory statements. Edersheim, (Life, II, 406) summarized this:

As in the proof which He gave for the Resurrection and in the view which He presented of the Great Commandment, the Lord would point to the grand harmonious unity of Revelation. Viewed separately, the two statements [i.e. Davids Son or Davids Lord?] would seem incompatible. But in their combination in the Person of the Christ, how harmonious and how full of teaching . . . concerning the nature of Christs Kingdom and of His work!

In the previous incident Jesus had underlined the unity of God (Mar. 12:29, see notes on Mat. 22:37). In our present text His quotation of Psalms 110 pictures the Messiah as reigning together with God. So doing, Jesus demonstrated that Gods oneness does not contradict the divine nature and authority of Christ.

II. A CORRECTING QUOTATION (22:43, 44)

Mat. 22:43 He saith unto them, How then doeth David in the Spirit call him Lord? Combining the three Gospels, notice the deliberateness of Jesus affirmation: (1) David, (2) inspired by the Holy Spirit, (3) in the book of Psalms: what a powerful declaration of the authority of this text!

David himself, an authority higher than the scribes, should know what these theologians could but guess at! The astonishing fact is that the great king David, at the top of the Hebrew social pyramid, refers to Someone as his superior. Speaking as one of the people, he lays down his crown at the feet of another, a great King at Gods right hand! And yet, this Psalm is messianic, concerning the Son of David, a fact that creates the puzzle: how can anyone at the same time be both inferior to another as his descendant and on a par with God as his Lord, i.e. both king and subject?

inspired by the Holy Spirit: Jesus alludes to a fact well-known, even claimed by David himself (2Sa. 23:1 f.) and later repeated by Peter (Act. 2:30).

in the book of Psalms (Luk. 20:42). This is not Lukes accommodation to aid non-Jewish readers, because Jesus actually said it. Otherwise, if Luke can adjust His words at will, how can we rely on his accuracy?

That the ancient Hebrews recognized both the inspired, Davidic authorship and Messianic nature of this Psalm is evidenced in the Jews tacit acceptance of Jesus statement of the case here. Otherwise, with the self-assurance of modern critics, they could have retorted, But that Psalm is neither Messianic nor Davidic.

WHAT IS JESUS VIEW OF Psalms 110?

Plummer (Matthew, 311) feels that modern criticisms serious objections to the Davidic authorship of Psalms 110 may be fatal. (However, see Delitzsch, Psalms, III, 183f. for good defense of its Davidic setting. Cf. also Young, Introduction to the Old Testament, 313ff.) Abandoning hope of certainty, Plummer tries to come to terms with Christs argument by attempting three possible explanations of what might have happened here:

Our Lord is arguing from His opponents own premises, expressing no opinion as to their correctness. . . . This is one of those sayings in which He takes up ideas and expressions current at the time and uses without really endorsing them.

This argument is based on the ignorance of the Pharisees who wrongly thought David wrote the Psalm. Jesus knew better, but capitalized on their ignorance for His own purpose. We are left thus with an unethical Christ who established His holy identity by demonstrating the contrary, His lack of scruples.

In the limitations of knowledge to which our Lord submitted in becoming man, He Himself shared the belief, current among all the teachers of that age, that the Psalm was written by David.

This argument is based on Jesus ignorance: He knew no better, so repeated the common mistake which only modern scholarship has corrected. We are left with an ignorant and mistaken Messiah who by the use of an erroneous view, tried to convince others who shared the same error, of the truth of an erroneous conclusion!

The Psalmist lets David quote an utterance of Jehovah, . . . The argument of Jesus is based on David being the speaker of the words quoted; and this argument is justified if the author of the Psalm lets David appear as spokesman. It does not require the Davidic authorship of the Psalm.

But in quoting this Psalm, Jesus presents an argument that turns on Davids personally having spoken these words (auts Daud, Mark and Luke). Jesus argument against popular misuse of the son of David prophecies urges that Davids own words be considered proof against a merely earthly Messiah. The argument is fallacious, if his authorship is not a fact. If the person who uttered the words were but a mere literary personification of David, and not the great king of Israel in person, then Jesus contention fails to prove His point. If a merely literary David said this by the Holy Spirit (Mar. 12:36), perhaps the inspiration was purely literary too, i.e. not real.

Peter, inspired by the same Spirit, sets forth an argument based on Davids personally having said this (Act. 2:30). His case is weakened, if David is not the writer. Because David did not personally ascend to Gods right hand, he could not refer to himself when speaking these words. But it was a physical David, not a literary personification that spoke this, because Peters argument depends for its force on its being the same David who did not go into heaven as the one who spoke Psa. 110:1.

It is mistaken to affirm, with Plummer (ibid.) that the question of Davidic authorship was not raised, assuming that, since the Pharisees did not raise it, no one else did. But JESUS raised it, by laying before His questioners what David himself said on the subject of his son the Messiah, in contrast to their own inadequate notions.

Our faith in Jesus as Revealer of the Father and complete Fulfiller of the Law and the Prophets must distinguish us from those who follow a fallible Jesus who is limited by the dubious intellectual climate of His age, and from those who, in the name of modern scientific scholarship oppose Jesus evidence to the authorship of this text. Our love for Him disposes us to prefer His solid information to others guesses. We respect His position to know (Mat. 11:27). We know what Spirit inspired Him to say this (Act. 10:38).

Mat. 22:44 The Lord said unto my Lord. (Psa. 110:1; also cited in Act. 2:34 f.; Heb. 1:13; alluded to in 1Co. 15:25; Heb. 10:12 f. Study Hebrews as a virtual exposition of this Psalm.) The double use of Lord (both in Greek and English) might confuse the English reader, but the Hebrew is unmistakable: Jahv said to my Lord, i.e. the Covenant God of Israel addressed a message to Him whom David describes as my Lord. It is not usual for a man to call his son his lord in the sense of master, superior, benefactor. But if he does, it requires explanation, especially when the person who does it is someone as important for the salvation and glory of Israel as this ancestor of the Messiah. Lord not merely superiority of rank and ownership in this context, but also deity, since Lord (adon = krios) is used for God in Psa. 110:5.

Sit at my right hand pictures the glorious, heavenly reign of the Messiah sharing Gods throne. (Cf. Heb. 1:3; Heb. 8:1; Heb. 10:12; Heb. 12:2; Act. 5:31; Act. 7:55 f.; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; 1Pe. 3:22; Rev. 3:21.) This also harmonizes with the Son of man prophecy of Dan. 7:9-14. At the right hand is the highest place of honor (cf. Mat. 20:21) and to be invited to sit there by the King of heaven implies that the Messiah shares in His favor, His sovereignty and His power. Here especially it implies Gods satisfaction with the Messiah will have completed His mission. (Study this Psalm as a virtual interpretative parallel of Psalms 2.) Now He is invited to occupy a throne which no mere mortal would dare accept. This hits hard at the Pharisees grossly materialistic view of Messiahs Kingdom. His preeminent glory and power cannot be debased by restriction to a small, nationalistic throne on earth in some ancient city, be it even Jerusalem in Palestine. Millennialists take note: Davids throne is now occupied by its rightful Claimant. That throne is heavenly, at Gods right hand, not material or earthly. The Jews misunderstood its spiritual character; can we do better? His rule involves the earth insofar as His armies now go forth in His name to conquer (Psa. 110:2). His Church began at Jerusalem (Luk. 24:47-49; Act. 1:4; Act. 1:8) and continues to extend His mighty scepter in the midst of His enemies. The day of His wrath (Psa. 110:5 f.) will conclude this era. So, the Messiah is not merely superior, but essentially similar, to David. Rather, He enjoys a nearness to God that is unique, absolutely unshared by any other son of David, including David himself who sat on a literal throne in Jerusalem.

Sit does not imply His entering into a period of inactivity and idleness. His enthronement is to Kingship, a fact shown by New Testament use of this Psalm. His sitting at Gods right involves a ruling on earth among His enemies (Psa. 110:2) by means of His volunteer troops (Psa. 110:3; cf. Davids own method, 2Sa. 11:1), while He exercises the office of priest-king, like Melchizedek (Psa. 110:4). What mere human being, what Pharisean son of David, could rightly accept this invitation to be elevated to such a relationship with God and wield all authority in heaven and on earth? (Cf. Mat. 11:27; Mat. 28:18.)

Till I put your enemies under your feet. God intends to defeat all Christs enemies, subjecting them to His control (Heb. 10:13; 1Co. 15:24 ff.; Eph. 1:21 f.; but remember 2Co. 10:3-5!) This too harmonizes with Psalms 2. Under your feet pictures His opponents public, humiliating subjection (cf. Jos. 10:24; 1Ki. 5:3) that leaves Him undisputed, universal Ruler. Till tells what God is doing during the epoch beginning from Jesus exaltation and glorification until His coming again in judgment at the Last Day. The heavenly regency of the Messiah here described will not continue forever; just so long as it is necessary to triumph. The defeat of His enemies is the turning point at which another stage of Gods rule shall begin. (Cf. Act. 3:21; 1Co. 15:24 ff.) Who are the enemies of this heavenly King? The Psalmists vision would suggest that the true enemies of the Messiah are not merely or even primarily those of the nationalistic Israel, but those of all men: sin, Satan and death. (Cf. 1Co. 15:26; Heb. 2:14 f.; 1Jn. 3:8.) Unquestionably, however, among them are all those who oppose or even refuse to love the Lord (1Co. 16:22; Psa. 2:12)!

III. A CRUCIAL QUESTION (22:45)

Mat. 22:45 If David then calls him Lord, how is he his son? Their view involved a difficulty: the two lines of prophecy are contradictory unless, in some way unguessed by these Pharisees, the Messiah could be both Son of David (human) and Lord of David (divine). Some have mistakenly supposed that Jesus question intended to deny Davidic sonship. So far from denying it, He casts doubt on the worldly political sense usually attributed to it. The rabbis had chosen the wrong starting point and gone no further. Starting with earthly royal dignity in a restored kingdom, they concluded only in the temporal, the material and mundane. Had they used Messiahs heavenly Lordship as their point of departure, their minds might have been open to Someone superior to David on a spiritual level, even without the usual trappings of earthly royalty. Jesus question not only exposed their theological disarray, but also generously indicated the road back to the truth. In fact, if the Holy Spirit who is the Author of both prophetic lines, is also a God of truth, to place both these Scriptures side by side should lead them to a broader understanding of the Messiahs nature and furnish them a better reason to accept Jesus claim to Messiahship.

But note the form of His question. Unexpectedly, He does not say, Now we all admit that the Messiah is to be Davids Son, so how is it possible for Him also to be Davids Lord? Instead, His question, expanded, is, We all admit the obvious implication of Davids own confession that the Messiah is indisputably to be Davids divine, exalted Lord. In what sense, then, must we understand that the Messiah is also Davids SON? This is by far the great question and more crucial for the Pharisees: how could a divine Being become also Davids descendant?! What is the Lord implying? (See notes on Mat. 21:15 f. where He dealt with the Son of David issue for the Sadducees too!)

Do you realize that this Psalm means that the Christ will be a human being in whom are combined those traits that qualify Him to be Davids Lord? This means that you could suddenly find yourself confronted by the great Lord of David, walking around in human flesh! It means that precisely because of His quite normal, unpretentious humanness and lack of the conventional majesty earths nobility parades, you would mistake Him for any normal man. That is, until you heard Him speak, until you witnessed His divine credentials, His miraculous deeds that sanction the highest claims He could ever make. Ever meet anyone like that lately?

If anyone be thought to blaspheme by claiming to be both divine and human, both Son of God and Son of David, then the Old Testament itself must be rejected, because it too clearly predicted that the Christ must be both. However, since the Old Testament is Judaisms highest possible authority and rightly revered by the Pharisees themselves, then, if prophecy means anything, the true Messiah, when He appears, must necessarily claim to be both human and divine. Consequently, when ANYONE appeared on the scene making the claims that Jesus made, the Jews must objectively test his statements to determine whether this person is objectively the predicted Messiah. (See authors Vol. III, p. 377 on prophetic credentials.)

For Matthews readers the correct answer need only be implied, since our author has already assembled all the data necessary to answer Jesus question. It is now time for the reader to begin to face the issue and put the pieces together.

The genealogy placed Jesus solidly within the legal family of Davidic descendants (Mat. 1:1-17).

The annunciation to Joseph unquestionably pointed to Baby Jesus true Father, God, and His human mother, the virgin Mary (Mat. 1:18-25). The Messiahs birth, then, is to be an incarnation, the process whereby Davids Lord became Davids Son. Eliminate the virgin birth of Jesus from the realm of true history and this quandary Jesus placed before the Pharisees becomes meaningless. The Pharisees could not deny the incarnation without surrendering the possibility of having any Christ at all! But to admit this meant that theyand anyone elsemust accept Jesus as the only One qualifying to be the Christ. This, because the more fair-minded among the authorities admitted Jesus to be a Teacher come from God, because no one could do these signs that you do, unless God be with him (Joh. 3:1 f; Joh. 12:42 f.).

Gods voice from heaven pointedly proclaimed Him Gods Son (Mat. 3:17).

For further materials collected by Matthew, see special study Messiah at the end of this volume.

So, Matthews Gospel furnished his readers what these Pharisees had first-hand opportunity to investigate, the explanation that solved the conundrum: Christhood is founded, not exclusively on Davidic lineage, but upon His true, divine sovereignty, precisely the way, centuries before, David had prophesied.

Why did Jesus not answer His own question? Would it not have been enlightenment for everyonescribes, disciples and crowds alike? He chose rather to leave them intellectually stimulated to seek out the appropriate answer. By suggesting just enough to spur everyones curiosity to want to investigate this mystery, He was leading them to imagine Messiahship in a way they had not thought of it before. Now it is up to them. Later, the same Spirit that inspired the prophets, would also inspire the Apostles to explain this mystery (Luk. 1:31-35; Joh. 1:1-18; Rom. 1:3 f.; 2Ti. 2:8; Rev. 22:16).

IV. ALL QUESTIONING CANCELLED (22:46)

Mat. 22:46 And no one was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions. (Cf. Mat. 22:34; Mar. 12:34; Luk. 14:6; Luk. 20:40.) Sadly, no Gospel text reports that, following these debates, Jesus following increased due to an unprecedented influx of converted Pharisees, Sadducees and Herodians. Unfortunately for them, their open attacks had succeeded in producing only negative results:

They had exposed their own moral poverty and professional incompetence by failing to discredit Him by the persuasiveness of well-reasoned theological argument. They only succeeded in revealing their own shallowness and ignorance.

On the other hand, they had involuntarily enhanced His stature as a teacher, His brilliance as a skillful debater and His prestige as an authoritative source of truth. He had taken positions that neither Pharisee nor Sadducee could really argue with, because based on principles to which no exception could be taken, His answers proved unanswerable.

So they retreated into expedient silence.

To His question about the Son of David, their reaction is not one of simple ignorance, but of prejudice. Jesus had unequivocally permitted Himself to be acclaimed as Son of David many times during His public ministry, especially during the Messianic Entry into Jerusalem (see notes on Mat. 21:1 ff.) and openly claimed to be Son of God (cf. Joh. 10:36; Joh. 11:27; Joh. 5:18; Joh. 1:49; Mat. 16:16). Anyone who had heard these two claims could combine them for the correct answer: The Messiah is both Son of God or Lord of David, and Son of David. But since these were unwilling to admit that Jesus was what He claimed to be, they refused to pronounce the answer that would support His claims and reveal their disbelief. There was no other possible answer, so they sweltered in red-faced silence.

Jesus was not merely a worker of wonders or a mover of the masses only. He was also a scholarly Teacher who could meet them on their own ground and defeat them with a simple question founded on their own beliefs, their own method of interpretation and their own Bible. His genius left them baffled, disarmed and embarrassed, and yet the calmness and power of His manners left them nothing to criticize. McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 194f.) saw that

. . . in this part of Matthews narrative, including all from the public entry of Jesus into the city until his arrest, Jesus is presented, not as a miracle-worker and a fulfiller of prophecy, but as himself a prophet. His miracles of power were chiefly, though not exclusively, wrought in Galilee and Perea, while his miracles of knowledge were wrought chiefly in the intellectual center of the nation.

That no one dared ask Him any question does not mean that no disciple dared bare his own ignorance before Jesus any more, but, simply, that no opponent could find the courage to continue this battle of wits with Jesus by asking Him questions to test or trap Him.

WHAT DOES THIS SECTION REVEAL ABOUT JESUS?

Beautifully summarizing the days debate, verse 46 is Matthews conclusion of his major section that began in Mat. 21:23 with the rulers challenge to Jesus authority. This sections unitary character will be instantly recognized when it is seen how every pronouncement of Jesus thoroughly meets their demand for His credentials. During the course of this debate, two separate evidences for Jesus claims emerge, noted by McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 194f.):

The evidence of character: Jesus lived the message He promoted, while the hierarchy and national leaders of Israel betrayed their ungodliness. In each separate encounter Matthew documents the dishonesty of the religious authorities as, first with one question and then another (five in all), they maneuver to destroy His popular image. Time after time, they refuse to recognize or submit to the truth of His answers which objectively satisfied their challenges. They dodge the force of the eleven questions He put to them. When they answered His questions, their responses proved ruinous to their own position. When they saw this about to happen, they either simply refused to respond or loftily pretended to be unready to commit themselves. Because He had successfully unmasked the hypocrisy and wickedness of these pretenders, all fair-minded people could see that the arguments their nations leaders hurled against His claims were biased. His own evident goodness and His enemies lack of character is presumptive evidence in Jesus favor. While it is not the only proof of the rightness of His claims, He too will submit to His own criterion for distinguishing true from false teachers: By their fruits you will know them (Mat. 7:15-23). His godliness and wisdom and their lack of it give us reasonable ground for believing Him and not them.

The evidence of His supernatural nature and prophetic office:

He saw through their hypocrisy and exposed their well-planned intrigue. This may not seem to prove much, but ask what would have been the opinion of Jesus, had He failed to reveal their hidden motives.

He prophesied His own death and subsequent victory, the destruction of Jerusalem, the crushing end of the Jewish nation and the prevalence of non-Jews in the Messianic Kingdom. We may believe Him, because only a day or two from His execution, this Messiah is totally certain that the path of suffering would lead on to the throne, a certainty born out of the eternal purpose and planning of God and documented in Scripture.

He depended on Old Testament Scripture wherever new revelation was not required. By so doing, He remained solidly within the prophetic context of previous, well-authenticated revelations. (See the study How to Avoid Becoming a Pharisee, Vol. III, 375ff.)

WHAT DOES THIS INCIDENT REVEAL ABOUT OURSELVES?

From this incident let us learn to hold lightly to our opinions and interpretations of Scripture. If some Bible statement seems to contradict another, the fault does not lie in Scripture, but in the shallow understanding and limited information of the fallible, human interpreter. Rather than discard Scripture or hold to one verse and reject or ignore another, let us let God be true and trust Him to know what He is saying and patiently ponder the meaning of ALL He says, until our bewilderment gives way before fuller knowledge and maturer understanding of the whole revelation!
This section proves that error about Jesus Christ is fatal error. What do we think about Him? Are our views merely based on a few scraps of Scripture, or are they formed by and grounded in all that God has spoken? Is Jesus for us simply the last link in a long chain of Davidic descendants and a merely interesting topic of conversation or debate? Or is He our divine Owner, Ruler and King to whom we submit our entire life and gladly give all our love?

FACT QUESTIONS

At what point in the days activities did Jesus ask the question about the Son of David?

During what major week in Jesus earthly ministry did this question arise?

Who or what, in Jewish jargon, is the Son of David?

On what basis could the Pharisees questioned know to respond how to Jesus question about the Son of David? What Bible verses could they have cited for their answer?

Whom did Jesus quote to demonstrate that their answer was inadequate?

Give the correct interpretation of the passage Jesus cited. Where is it found? Who wrote it? What does it mean? How was Jesus using it in His argument?

What does it mean for someone to sit at Gods right hand? What does making ones enemies a footstool mean?

What according to Mark was the reaction of the common people to Jesus teaching?

What, according to the united Synoptic testimony, does Jesus teach about (1) the location of the passage cited? (2) the authorship of the passage? (3) the inspiration of its author?

10.

Where else in the New Testament is the passage Jesus quoted used to develop the Christian concept of His Messiahship? What interpretation is given in those passages?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(41) While the Pharisees were gathered together.St. Mark and St. Luke add here, as St. Matthew does in Mat. 22:46, that no man dared ask Him any more questions. They have recourse from this time forth to measures of another kind, and fall back upon treachery and false witness. It was now His turn to appear as the questioner, and to convict the Pharisees of resting on the mere surface even of the predictions which they quoted most frequently and most confidently as Messianic.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

THE LORD’S QUESTION TOUCHING THE CHRIST, Mat 22:41-46.

41. Jesus asked them The Lord has answered all their questions one by one as the opposers brought them forth. He will now turn the tables upon them to try them with a most deep and all-important question.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying,’

For ‘gathered together’ compare Mat 22:34 and its connection with Act 4:26 citing Psa 2:2. It indicated their hostility and there intention to bring Jesus crashing down. So Jesus, having dealt with their hostile questions, put to them His own question.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Is Not Just David’s Son, He Is David’s Lord (22:41-46).

Just as the Sermon on the Mount was preceded by a revelation of the glorious light that had burst on the world in Jesus (Mat 4:16) so that the Kingly Rule of Heaven was seen to be at hand (Mat 4:17; Mat 4:23), so now this revelation concerning love for God and for our neighbour is followed by the revelation of the glory of the Christ, Who is to sit on God’s right hand with all His enemies submitting at His feet (compare Mat 28:18; Mat 26:64). All that has gone between has explained why this is.

Analysis.

a Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying (Mat 22:41).

b “What do you think of the Messiah (Christ)? Whose son is he?” They say to him, “The son of David” (Mat 22:42).

c He says to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying, “The Lord said to my Lord, You sit on my right hand, until I put your enemies underneath your feet?” (Mat 22:43-44).

b “If David then calls him Lord, how is he his son?” (Mat 22:45).

a And no one was able to answer him a word, neither dared any man from that day forth to ask him any more questions (Mat 22:46).

Note that in ‘a’ Jesus asks the Pharisees a question and in the parallel no one is able to answer Him or dares to ask Him an more questions. In ‘b’ Jesus asks them if the Messiah is David’s son, and in the parallel demonstrates that he cannot be because David calls him ‘Lord’. Centrally in ‘c’ we have the evidence as to why the Messiah is David’s Lord.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Testifies of His Own Deity ( Mar 12:35-37 , Luk 20:41-44 ) In Mat 22:41-46 Jesus concludes this time of confrontation with Jewish leaders by testifying concerning His own deity using the Scriptures as evidence that prophesied the deity of the Son of David. This statement serves as a fitting conclusion to the opening question of the Jewish leaders concerning His authority (Mat 21:23).

Mat 22:42 “The son of David” – Comments – Perhaps no other name, or title, described the coming Messiah in the minds of the Jews than this title, which signified a king. All thru the Gospel of Matthew, Christ is called the son of David. With this focus, it was easy for the scholars of their day to misinterpret a man from Nazareth as being unable to fulfill the prophecy of the coming Messiah, the son of a carpenter, with no royalty attached.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The counter question of Jesus:

v. 41. While the Pharisees were gathered together Jesus asked them,

v. 42. saying, What think ye of Christ? Whose son is He? They say unto Him, The Son of David.

The attack of the Pharisees had failed; their very spokesman had been obliged to admit the truth of Christ’s answer, Mar 12:32-33. But now Christ turns to the attack by proposing a question which would impale His adversaries on the horns of a real dilemma. His question concerns the sonship of Christ, of the Messiah; from what family is He to spring? It is the most momentous subject of investigation before the world, not only at the time of Christ, but at all times. According to the way in which men decide in their estimate of Christ will their fate be decided. A mere head knowledge and lip confession, such as was made here by the Pharisees, who could answer in a mechanical manner glibly enough, is not sufficient for the true believer, as the Lord proceeds to point out in this instance.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Mat 22:41 . Comp. Mar 12:35 ff.; Luk 20:41 ff. Jesus, in His turn, now proceeds to put a question to the Pharisees (who in the meantime have gathered round Him, see on Mat 22:34 ), for the purpose, according to Matthew’s view of the matter (Mat 22:46 ), of convincing them of their own theological helplessness, and that in regard to the problem respecting the title “Son of David,” to which David himself bears testimony, and with the view of thereby escaping any further molestation on their part. According to de Wette, the object was: to awaken a higher idea of His (non-political) mission (Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, Schenkel, Keim). This view, however, is not favoured by the context, which represents Jesus as victor over His impudent and crafty foes, who are silenced and then subjected to the castigation described in ch. 23.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

DISCOURSE: 1391
AN INQUIRY INTO OUR VIEWS OF CHRIST

Mat 22:41-42. While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, What think ye of Christ [Note: Before a congregation where less critical accuracy is required, this subject may be treated thus:

Propose the question

What think ye1. Of his person (he is God, as well as man). 2. Of his sufferings (they were altogether vicarious and expiatory). 3. Of his glory (he is in heaven as a public person, our Advocate, our Head, our Forerunner).
II.

Shew the importance of it

On our thoughts of him must depend1. Our devotion to him (which will be proportioned to our admiration of his character). 2. Our interest in him (which can arise only from our knowledge of him, and our faith in him). 3. Our acceptance with him in the last day (if we have low thoughts of him now, he will have low thoughts of us then. Mar 8:38.).]?

THEY who are prejudiced against the Gospel, are ever studious to ensnare the preachers of it with captious, or, as they think, unanswerable questions. To such cavillers we should answer warily, and with meekness of wisdom: nor will it be unuseful, on some occasions, to propose to them in return some question, which shall lead their thoughts into a better channel. Our blessed Lord adopted this method after he had been successively interrogated by Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes [Note: Master, what thinkest thou of paying tribute to Csar? ver. 15, 17; of the resurrection of the body? ver. 2328; of the commandments? ver. 35, 36.]. He returned to each a satisfactory answer, and silenced them at last by proposing to them a difficulty, which, with all their boasted wisdom, they were unable to solve.

Certainly the difficulty of reconciling these two characters of the Messiah was great: yet, if the Pharisees had been duly attentive to all the prophetic representations of the Messiah, they would have known, that there was to be in him an union of the most opposite states, of life and death, of sufferings and glory; and that, consequently, the humble state of Christ, at which they took offence, was no reason at all for their disbelieving his divine mission. To shew them this, was the precise object of our blessed Lord in the question he put to them; and, in accordance with that design, I will shew,

That the discordancies of Scripture are no bar to our believing in Christ

There are, no doubt, in Scripture, very discordant representations of the Messiah
[Of his person: he was to be the root, and yet the offspring of David, a little child, and yet the mighty God [Note: Isa 9:6. Mat 22:43-45. Rev 22:16.] Of his reception in the world: he was to be an object of universal contempt and abhorrence; and yet to be universally admired and adored [Note: Isa 53:3; Isa 49:7. Psa 22:6. with Psa 72:8; Psa 72:10-11.]. Of his end: he was to die an accursed death, and yet to live for ever and ever But the Pharisees noticed only those passages of Scripture which flattered their pride, and raised their expectations of temporal grandeur; and therefore they were offended at Jesus, whose condition in the world was poor and mean, and, as they thought, irreconcileable with the office which he professed to bear.]

Yet were these discordancies no just reason for their rejecting of Christ
[In fact, if these discordancies had not been found in him, he could not have been the Messiah predicted in the Scriptures. Their union therefore in him was rather a reason why the people should believe in him; since it fulfilled every part of the inspired records, and gave to him a claim, which no other person ever did, or could, possess. The miracles which he wrought were such a demonstrative proof of his divine mission as no reasonable being could withstand. And these miracles, taken in connexion with the strict accomplishment of so many, and so apparently opposite, predictions, left no room for doubt on any rational and candid mind, that Jesus was indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.]
But my text leads me further to shew,

II.

That the union of these discordancies in Christ Jesus is the very foundation of all our hopes

If he had not been man, he could not have lived and died for us; as the Apostle says; He was made lower than the angels for the suffering of death, that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man [Note: Heb 2:9.]. On the other hand,

He must have been God, else nothing that he either did or suffered could have been available for our salvation

[Supposing him to have been a mere creature, his obedience could not merit any thing for us: for, all that he could do would be no more than his bounden duty; and, having done it all, he would be only an unprofitable servant. Nor could his sufferings make any atonement for our sins: for there is no proportion whatever between the sufferings of one creature for a time, and the sufferings of countless millions of creatures to all eternity. However exalted the creature might be; his blood could no more be available for the salvation of the whole world; than the blood of bulls and of goats; of which; we are told; it is not possible that it should take away sins [Note: Heb 10:4.]. Nor could his intercession be of any avail for us; seeing that he would have no effectual plea to urge in our behalf. Nor, in fact; could his appointment to govern the world secure to us the blessings we stand in need of; since; without omniscience; he could not know all our necessities; nor; without omnipotence could he supply them.]

But; being God as well as man; he is equal to the work he has undertaken for us
[His duty gives an infinite value both to his obedience and his sufferings; insomuch that his sufferings were a sufficient atonement for the sins of the whole world; and his obedience formed a sufficient righteousness for the justification of all who should be clothed with it. His intercession too; founded as it is in the efficacy of his atonement; is sure to prevail in our behalf; whilst; as Head over all things to his Church, he can supply out of his own fulness all who call upon him. In him; as God-man; there is such a sufficiency; that no man; however desperate his condition; has any reason to despond; nor; if with a penitent and believing heart he apply to Jesus; has he any reason to fear: for; Jesus is able to save to the uttermost all who come unto God by him.]

Application

In the parable of the Sower, our Lord said; Take heed what ye hear; and; Take heed how ye hear. Thus; in reference to my text; I would ask;

What think ye of Christ?

[Many alas! think not of him at all. Notwithstanding they call themselves Christians; Christ is as much banished from their conversation and from their minds; as if he had never come from heaven for them; and never borne their sins in his own body on the cross. God; as a Creator, is sometimes acknowledged; and sometimes; under particular providences; as the Governor of the world: but Christ, as a Redeemer, seems quite forgotten: and the very mention of him under that character is sufficient to cast a damp upon all social hilarity; and to bring reproach upon his advocate as an unmannerly enthusiast. But; beloved brethren; we should make ourselves acquainted with the character of Christ as revealed in the prophecies of the Old Testament; and as exhibited in the records of the New Testament. We should view him as God manifest in the flesh, and purchasing the Church with his own blood. We should view him in his person, work, and offices: for if we know him not as he is delineated in the Scriptures of truth, we can never truly believe in him, nor can we ever finally be saved by him. I charge you then, brethren, to inquire carefully what ye think of Christ, and to compare your thoughts with the revelation of God concerning him.]

How think ye of Christ?

[Do you think of him as you ought to think? Do you think of him with an application of him to your own soul? It is of very little use to entertain theories in your head, if you do not get them realized in your heart. You will never know him to any good purpose, unless you apply to him under all his characters for the mercies you stand in need of, and make him all your salvation and all your desire.

I ask yet further, Do you think of him with the adoring gratitude which he deserves at your hands? This is what God requires; and nothing short of this will constitute you Christians indeed. See how the redeemed honour him in heaven: they are singing incessant praises to him as having loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and made them kings and priests unto God and the Father: yea, to him they ascribe all glory and dominion for ever and ever. And such should be your state on earth; yea and such will it be to a considerable extent, if you are walking in any measure worthy of your high calling. Begin then this course, if you have not already begun it, and prosecute it with ever-increasing diligence, if you have: so will you be filled with unutterable and abiding joy [Note: 1Pe 1:8.]; so will you also be transformed into your Saviours image [Note: 2Co 3:18.], and be rendered meet for the inheritance of his saints in light.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,

Ver. 41. While the Pharisees were gathered ] i.e. Before the former meeting was dissolved. We should watch for and catch at all opportunities of working upon the worst. Dr Taylor preached every time he could get his people together, holy day or else.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

41 46. ] THE PHARISEES BAFFLED BY A QUESTION RESPECTING CHRIST AND DAVID. Mar 12:35-37 . Luk 20:41-44 . (See also Act 2:34 .) Our Lord now questions his adversaries (according to Matt.: in Mark and Luke He asks the question not to , but concerning the Scribes or interpreters of the law), and again convicts them of ignorance of the Scriptures. From the universally recognized title of the Messiah as the Son of David, which by His question He elicits from them, He takes occasion to shew them, who understood this title in a mere worldly political sense, the difficulty arising from David’s own reverence for this his Son: the solution lying in the incarnate Godhead of the Christ, of which they were ignorant.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 22:41-46 . Counter question of Jesus (Mar 12:35-37 ; Luk 20:41-44 ). Not meant merely to puzzle or silence foes, or even to hint a mysterious doctrine as to the Speaker’s person, but to make Pharisees and scribes, and Sanhedrists generally, revise their whole ideas of the Messiah and the Messianic kingdom, which had led them to reject Him.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 22:41-46

41Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question: 42″What do you think about Christ, whose son is He?” They said to Him, “The son of David.” 43He said to them, “Then how does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’saying,

44’The Lord said to my Lord,

Sit at My right hand,

Until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet’?

45If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’how is He his son?”

46No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question.

Mat 22:41-42 The Jewish leaders had asked Jesus several questions trying to test Him, now He asked them a question that showed their lack of spiritual understanding (cf. Mat 21:24-27).

Mat 22:42 “What do you think about Christ, whose son is He” This question basically dealt with the lineage of the Messiah. Jesus had accepted the OT Messianic title “son of David.” This was a common Messianic title in Matthew (cf. Mat 9:27; Mat 12:23; Mat 15:22; Mat 20:30; Mat 21:9; Mat 21:15). Jesus was clearly asserting His own messiahship. The Jews of Jesus’ day were not expecting a divine incarnation but a divine empowering like the Judges. Jesus used Psalms 110 (cf. Mat 22:44) to show the human lineage and divine lineage of the Messiah.

Mat 22:44 This same Messianic use of Psalms 110 is found in Mat 26:64. The Hebrew text of Psa 110:1 was a play on the term YHWH (Lord) and Adonai (Lord). The first would represent the God of Israel; the second would refer to the Messiah.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

Pharisees. See App-120.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

41-46.] THE PHARISEES BAFFLED BY A QUESTION RESPECTING CHRIST AND DAVID. Mar 12:35-37. Luk 20:41-44. (See also Act 2:34.) Our Lord now questions his adversaries (according to Matt.:-in Mark and Luke He asks the question not to, but concerning the Scribes or interpreters of the law), and again convicts them of ignorance of the Scriptures. From the universally recognized title of the Messiah as the Son of David, which by His question He elicits from them, He takes occasion to shew them, who understood this title in a mere worldly political sense, the difficulty arising from Davids own reverence for this his Son: the solution lying in the incarnate Godhead of the Christ, of which they were ignorant.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Mat 22:41. , but while the Pharisees were gathered together) sc. solemnly; see Mat 22:34.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

The King Asking Questions

Mat 22:41-42. While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.

The King now carried the war into the enemy’s country. Ho had answered all the questions put to him; it was his turn to propound some to those who had come to examine him. While the Pharisees were gathered together, that is, while they still lingered near him, disappointed and defeated, yet watching for any opportunity of assailing him, Jesus asked them, saying, “What think ye of Christ? “Our Lord here sets his servants the example of how they should deal with cavillers, quibblers, objectors. Having wisely answered all their questions, he pressed homo upon them the question of questions: “What think ye of Christ?” They had tried to puzzle him with their enquiries about Church and State, the future life, and the relative value of the commandments; but he put to them the much more vital question, “What think ye of Christ?”

Jesus also pressed upon his hearers a further enquiry about “the Christ” (R. V.), for the words used evidently mean the Messiah: “Whose son is he?” They say unto him, “The son of David.” They knew that the promised Deliverer would be descended from David; but they either did not know, or would not confess, that he had a divine as well as a human origin. This the Saviour brings out by further questions.

Mat 22:43-45. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

These questions of our Lord themselves contain the answers to the present-day critics who deny the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and the Davidic authorship and Messianic application of certain Psalms. He saith unto them, “How then doth David in spirit call him Lord?” quoting from Ps. Exodus 1, “saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool,” our Saviour declared that these were the words of David, speaking “by the Holy Ghost” (see Mar 12:36), concerning the Christ, the Messiah. This ought for ever to settle the question about the inspiration, authorship, and application of that Psalm at least. “The Lord said unto my Lord,”-Jehovah said unto my Adonai: David, by the Holy Ghost, learned what the Father said unto the Son; and thus he was brought into connection with the whole sacred Trinity. “Sit thou on my right hand “: the Messiah was bidden to rest after his great mediatorial work was accomplished, and to sit on his Father’s right hand, in the place of honour, power, and majesty. “Till I make thine enemies thy footstool”: Jesus is to keep his seat till his foes are all prostrate at his feet.

This was the problem the Pharisees had to solve: if the Messiah was David’s Son, how was it that David, by the Holy Ghost, called him his Lord? The Christ must be something more than mere man; otherwise the Psalmist’s words would have been unsuitable, and even blasphemous. He was higher than the angels, for unto none of them did Jehovah ever say, “Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool” (Heb 1:13).

Mat 22:46. And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

If the Pharisees could have denied that the Psalm had reference to the Messiah, it would have been easy for them to reply to Christ’s question; but no man was able to answer him a word. The Rabbis of our Saviour’s day admitted that this was one of the Messianic Psalms, without recognizing what their admission involved; in later times, as at the present day, false teachers sought to wrest it from its proper meaning.

Christ’s questions silenced his adversaries in a double sense; first, they could not answer him a word; and next, neither durst any man from that day forth ash him any more questions. He remained Master of the field. They could not entrap or entangle him in his talk; if they would put him to silence, they must do it by putting him to death.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s The Gospel of the Kingdom

asked them

Cf. Mat 21:24; Joh 19:7 Jesus’ question is not personal but doctrinal: “Whose son is the Messiah?” Cf.; Act 2:25-36; Rom 1:3; Rom 1:4.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

Mat 22:15, Mat 22:34, Mar 12:35-37, Luk 20:41-44

Reciprocal: Mat 9:27 – Thou

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

2:41

The Pharisees had been trying to entrap Jesus with questions they thought could not be truly answered. That is, could not without contradicting something in his teaching, but they failed as we have seen. Now the Lord turned and put a question to them that was fair, and yet which would be impossible to explain without exposing some of their opposition to him.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Mat 22:41. Now while the Pharisees were gathered together. Probably as they gathered after the last attack.

Jesus asked them. Fuller and more exact than Mark and Luke, who seem to imply that the question was put concerning the scribes. This probably took place while His audience was changing: the Pharisees were about to withdraw, no longer daring to question Him; and the multitude (Mar 12:37) beginning to take the vacated places. Comp. chap. 23 which was addressed to the multitudes and to His disciples (Mat 22:1).

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

The Pharisees had often put forth several questions maliciously unto Christ, and now Christ puts forth one question innocently unto them; namely, What the thought of the Messiah whom they expected? They reply, that he was to be The son of David, a secular prince descending from David, that should deliver them from the power of the Romans, and restore them to their civil rights. This was the notion they had of the Messiah, that he should be a man, the Son of David, and nothing more.

Our Saviour replies, Whence is it then that David calls the Messiah Lord? The Lord said unto my Lord Psa 110:1; how could he be both David’s Lord, and David’s son? No son is lord to his father; therefore if Christ were David’s sovereign, he must be more than man, more than David’s son. As man, so he was David’s son; as god-man, so he was David’s Lord.

Note hence, That although Christ was truly and really man, yet he was more than a bare man: he was Lord unto, and was the salvation of his own forefathers.

Note, 2. That the only way to reconcile the scriptures which speak concerning Christ, is to believe and acknowledge him to be God and man in one person. The Messiah, as a man, was to come forth out of David’s loins; but as a god-man, he was David’s sovereign and Saviour. As man, he was his father’s son; as God, he was Lord to his own father.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Mat 22:41-46. While the Pharisees were gathered, &c. That is, during this conference, expecting to have found an opportunity to insnare him, as he was still teaching the people in the temple; Jesus asked them The Pharisees, having in the course of our Lords ministry proposed many difficult questions to him, with a view to try his prophetical gifts, he, in his turn, now that a body of them was gathered together, thought fit to make trial of their skill in the sacred writings. For this purpose he publicly asked their opinion of a difficulty concerning the Messiahs pedigree, arising from Psalms 110 : What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? Whose son do you expect the Messiah to be, who was promised to the fathers? They say unto him, The son of David This was the common title of the Messiah in that day, which the scribes taught them to give him, from Psa 89:35-36; and Isa 11:1. He saith, How then doth David in spirit, rather, by the Spirit; that is, by inspiration; call him Lord If he be merely the son, or descendant of David? if he be, as you suppose, the son of man, a mere man? The doctors, it seems, did not look for any thing in their Messiah more excellent than the most exalted perfections of human nature; for, though they called him the Son of God, they had no notion that he was God, and so could offer no solution of the difficulty. Yet the latter question might have shown them their error. For if the Messiah was to be only a secular prince, as they supposed, ruling the men of his own time, he never could have been called Lord by persons who died before he was born; far less would so mighty a king as David, who also was his progenitor, have called him Lord. Wherefore, since he rules over, not the vulgar dead only of former ages, but even over the kings from whom he was himself descended, and his kingdom comprehends the men of all countries and times, past, present, and to come, the doctors, if they had thought accurately upon the subject, should have expected in their Messiah a king different from all other kings whatever. Besides, he is to sit at Gods right hand till his enemies are made the footstool of his feet; made thoroughly subject unto him. Numbers of Christs enemies are subjected to him in this life; and they who will not bow to him willingly, shall, like the rebellious subjects of other kingdoms, be reduced by punishment. Being constituted universal judge, all, whether friends or enemies, shall appear before his tribunal, where by the highest exercise of kingly power, he shall doom each to his unchangeable state. And no man was able to answer him a word None of them could offer the least shadow of a solution to the difficulty which he had proposed. Neither durst any man ask him any more questions The repeated proofs which he had given of the prodigious depth of his understanding, had impressed them with such an opinion of his wisdom, that they judged it impossible to insnare him in his discourse. For which reason they left off attempting it, and from that day forth troubled him no more with their insidious questions. Macknight.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

CIX.

JEWISH RULERS SEEK TO ENSNARE JESUS.

(Court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.)

Subdivision D.

JESUS’ QUESTION WHICH NONE COULD ANSWER.

aMATT. XXII. 41-46; bMARK XII. 35-37; cLUKE XX. 41-44.

a41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, bas he taught in the temple, aJesus asked them a question [They had questioned him seeking to expose his lack of wisdom, but the question of Jesus was devoid of retaliation. It was asked to teach a most important lesson], b35 And Jesus answered and said, {a42 saying,} cunto them, aWhat think ye of the Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. [The answer was true, but it was not all the truth as the Scriptures themselves showed. And this additional truth was what the opposers of Jesus needed to learn.] 43 He saith unto them, bHow say {cthey} bthe scribes that the Christ is the son of David? {cDavid’s son?} aHow then doth David in the Spirit call him Lord, c42 For David himself saith {bsaid} in the Holy Spirit, cin the book of Psalms, {asaying,} bThe Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. {aTill I make thine enemies underneath thy feet?} 45 If b37 David himself therefore athen calleth him Lord, how band whence is he his son? [The quotation is from Psa 110:1. The context here shows that the rabbis of that day accepted this Psalm as written by David and as Messianic in meaning. Since then the Jews have denied that the Psalm is Messianic, and that it was written by David; some saying that Abraham, and others that Hezekiah, wrote it. This Psalm speaks of the Messiah as the Lord of David, and other Scriptures call him David’s son. So also the Scriptures describe Christ as conquering yet suffering, as divine yet human, as dying yet living, as judged yet judging, etc. The Jewish rulers seem able to grasp only one side of the character of Christ as revealed either in his life or in the Scriptures, and hence they [605] stumbled.] a46 And no one was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions. bAnd the common people heard him gladly. [By all their questioning, the Jews had not been able to weaken public confidence in Christ.]

[FFG 605-606]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

CHRIST THE SON OF DAVID

Mar 12:35-37; Luk 20:41-44; Mat 22:41-46. And the Pharisees being assembled, Jesus asked them, saying, What do you think concerning the Christ? Whose Son is He? They say to Him, The Son of David. He says to them, How does David in the Spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My fight hand, until I make Thy enemies Thy footstool? [Psa 110:1.] If therefore David calls Him Lord, how is He his Son? And no one answered Him a word, neither did any one from that day dare to ask Him anything. Whereas on many occasions hitherto our Lord so dumfounded all of His critics as to silence all batteries, now we have really reached the finale of all their quizzical assaults against Him, vainly hoping to capture some remark dropped from His lips. Any other man in all the ages would doubtless have suffered more or less embarrassment, and probably entanglement, if thus beset from day to day by capricious, hostile critics, all combined, their wits under heaviest contribution, to entangle Him if possible. Amid all He is perfectly tranquil, and proves utterly imperturbable, by all the powers of earth and hell, throughout all the vicissitudes of His ministry, arrest, arraignment, and suffering. We see here they readily respond that Christ is the Son of David; but why he calls Him Lord, none of them can answer. This is plain and simple, setting forth in this terse manner His humanity and Divinity, the former being the Son of David, and the latter his Lord.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Mat 22:41-46. Is Messiah Davids Son? (Mar 12:35-37*, Luk 20:41-44).Mt. brings the Pharisees into the incident, and makes the statement that Messiah is Davids son their direct answer to a question by Jesus. Hence (though it is here Jesus who is the questioner), Mat 22:46 (fear of further questions), which in Mk. comes after the Great Commandment and in Lk. after the Resurrection question. Cf. Act 2:34*.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

22:41 {8} While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,

(8) Christ manifestly proves that he is David’s son, according to the flesh, but otherwise David’s Lord, and very God.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Jesus’ question of the Pharisees 22:41-46 (cf. Mar 12:35-37; Luk 20:41-44)

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Having received several questions from His critics, Jesus now turned the tables and asked the Pharisees one. He wanted them to explain what the Scriptures taught about Messiah. This would face them and the crowd with who He really was. The real issue was Christological, not taxes, resurrection, or even the greatest commandment.

Jesus broached the subject of Messiah’s identity by asking whose son He was (Mat 22:42). This was perhaps "the most familiar subject in their theology, that of the descent of Messiah." [Note: Edersheim, The Life . . ., 2:405.] The Pharisees gave a standard correct answer based on Old Testament passages (2Sa 7:13-14; Isa 11:1; Isa 11:10; Jer 23:5). He was David’s son or descendant (cf. Mat 1:1; Mat 9:27-28; et al.). However it was not the full answer.

Jesus had previously asked His disciples a similar question about His identity (Mat 16:13; Mat 16:15). Peter, for the disciples, had given the proper full answer (Mat 16:16). That response led to commendation (Mat 16:17-21). The Pharisees’ improper response here led to condemnation (ch. 23). Everything hinges on one’s view of Jesus.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles