Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 22:43
He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
Verse 43. How then doth David in spirit (or by the Spirit – by the inspiration of the Spirit of God) call him Lord? saying,
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
He saith unto them,…. Not denying it to be a truth they affirmed; but rather granting and allowing it: he argues upon it, though he tacitly refuses their sense and meaning of the phrase, thus,
how then doth David in spirit call him Lord? that is, if he is a mere man, if he is only the son of David, according to the flesh, if he has no other, or higher descent than from him, how comes it to pass, that David, under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, by which he wrote his book of Psalms, see 2Sa 23:1 where the passage, after cited, stands, to call him Lord; which supposes him to be more than barely his son, and to be a greater person than himself, one superior in nature and dignity to him? for the phrase “in spirit”, is not to be connected with the word Lord; as if the design of it was to show, that the Messiah was Lord, or God, in spirit, or with respect to his divine nature, but, with the word “call”, expressing the influence of the Spirit of God, under which David wrote; otherwise the Pharisees would have had a direction how to have answered the question, which much puzzled them:
saying, as in Ps 110:1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
43. How then does David by the Spirit call him Lord. The assertion made by Christ, that David spoke by the Spirit, is emphatic; for he contrasts the prediction of a future event with the testimony of a present event. By this phrase he anticipates the sophistry by which the Jews of the present day attempt to escape. They allege that this prediction celebrates the reign of David, as if, representing God to be the Author of his reign, David would rise above the mad attempts of his enemies, and affirmed that they would gain nothing by opposing the will of God. That the scribes might not shelter themselves under such an objection, Christ began with stating that the psalm was not composed in reference to the person of David, but was dictated by the prophetic Spirit to describe the future reign of Christ; as it may easily be learned even from the passage itself, that what we read there does not apply either to David, or to any other earthly king; for there David introduces a king clothed with a new priesthood, by which the ancient shadows of the Law must be abolished, (Psa 110:4)
We must now see how he proves that Christ will hold a higher rank than to be merely descended from the seed of David. It is because David, who was king and head of the people, calls him Lord; from which it follows, that there is something in him greater than man. But the argument appears to be feeble and inconclusive; for it may be objected that, when David gave the psalm to the people to sing, without having any view to his own person, he assigned to Christ dominion over others. But to this I reply that, as he was one of the members of the Church, nothing would have been more improper than to shut himself out from the common doctrine. Here he enjoins all the children of God to boast, as with one voice, that they are safe through the protection of a heavenly and invincible King. If he be separated from the body of the Church, he will not partake of the salvation promised through Christ. If this were the voice of a few persons, the dominion of Christ would not extend even to David. But now neither he, nor any other person, can be excluded from subjection to him, without cutting himself off from the hope of eternal salvation. Since then there was nothing better for David than to be included in the Church, it was not less for himself than for the rest of the people that David composed this psalm. In short, by this title Christ is pronounced to be supreme and sole King, who holds the preeminence among all believers; and no exception ought to be allowed to ranking all in one class, when he is appointed to be the Redeemer of the Church. There can be no doubt, therefore, that David represents himself also as a subject of his government, so as to be reckoned one of the number of the people of God.
But now another question arises: Might not God have raised up one whom he appointed from among mankind to be a Redeemer, so as to be David’s Lord, though he was his son? For here it is not the essential name of God, but only Adonai (83) that is employed, and this term is frequently applied to men. I reply: Christ takes for granted that he who is taken out of the number of men, and raised to such a rank of honor, as to be the supreme Head of the whole Church, is not a mere man, but possesses also the majesty of God. For the eternal God, who by an oath makes this claim for himself, that
before him every knee shall bow, (Isa 45:23,)
at the same time swears that
he will not give his glory to another, (Isa 42:8.)
But, according to the testimony of Paul, when Christ was raised to kingly power,
there was given to him a name which is above every name, that before him every knee should bow, (Rom 14:11; Phi 2:9.)
And though Paul had never said this, yet such is the fact, that Christ is above David and other holy kings, because he also ranks higher than angels; which would not apply to a created man, unless he were also
God manifested in the flesh, (1Ti 3:16.)
I do acknowledge that his divine essence is not expressed directly and in so many words; but it may easily be inferred that He is God, who is placed above all creatures.
(83) Our authorized version of Psa 110:1 runs thus: The Lord said unto my Lord. While the word Lord occurs twice in this clause, the Translators have followed their ordinary method of printing the first in small capitals, to present it to the eye of the reader as standing for the Hebrew word יהוה, ( Jehovah,) which our Author calls “the essential name of God,” while the second stands for ( אדני), ( Adonai,) my Lord, which, as he also mentions, “is frequently applied to men.” — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(43) Doth David in spirit call him Lord?The words assume (1) that David was the writer of Psalms 110; (2) that in writing it, he was guided by a Spirit higher than his own; (3) that the subject of it was no earthly king of the house of David, but the far off Christ. On this point there was an undisturbed consensus among the schools of Judaism, as represented by the Targums and the Talmud. It was a received tradition that the Christ should sit on the right hand of Jehovah and Abraham on His left. Its application to the Christ is emphatically recognised by St. Peter (Act. 2:34), and by St. Paul, though indirectly (Col. 3:1). In the argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews, it occupies well-nigh the chief place of all (Heb. 1:3; Heb. 5:6). The only hypothesis on which any other meaning can be assigned to it is, that it was written, not by David, but of him. Here it will be enough to accept our Lords interpretation, and to track the sequence of thought in His question. The words represent the LORD (Jehovah) as speaking to Davids Lord (Adonai), as the true king, the anointed of Jehovah. But if so, what was the meaning of that lofty title? Must not He who bore it be something more than the son of David by mere natural descent? If the scribes had never even asked themselves that question, were they not self-convicted of incompetency as religious teachers?
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
43. In spirit That this signifies under divine inspiration is clear from Mark, who expresses it, “For David himself by the Holy Ghost said.” Our Lord decides that David was the author of the Psalm, and that he wrote under divine inspiration.
‘He says to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying,”
But Jesus then turns their minds to the Scriptures, and He refers them to Psalms 110. Psalms 110 was a psalm ‘of David’ and David was believed by all present, including Jesus, to be its author, something which He specifically implies. If we accept that Jesus infallibly knew the mind of God that would seem to settle the question of authorship. And indeed the only grounds for thinking otherwise would be the actual interpretation of the Psalm.
Some see it as the Psalmist signifying that the king of the house of David is his lord, regardless of when it was written, possibly as a coronation psalm. But there is in fact no reason why David should not himself, in a Psalm intended to be full of hope and to be for public use, have spoken of the future coming scion of his house in this way, having in mind especially the future son of David whom he had been told was coming to establish his kingdom ‘for ever’ (2Sa 7:12; 2Sa 7:16; Psalms 2), and the mention of the ‘everlasting’ Melchizedek priesthood might well be seen as confirming this. This last reference to the Melchizedek priesthood might well also be seen as indicating an early date for authorship, at a time when such a question was still seen as important in Jerusalem. Again this would go towards confirming Davidic authorship. Note that that priesthood is also, like the kingdom in 2Sa 7:16, proclaimed as ‘everlasting’. Thus David may here reasonably be seen as referring to how he himself sees the future of his house, with a supreme king appearing, and with ‘my Lord’ being a reverential reference forward to that great supreme coming King Who would establish the everlasting Kingly Rule and the everlasting priesthood of Melchizedek, and who would truly have ‘all things’ under His feet (as in Psalms 2), and would thus be far superior to even David, and thus his ‘Lord’.
Jesus’ view of the full inspiration of the Psalms is also brought out by His words, for He speaks of ‘David in the Spirit calling Him Lord’. Thus He sees David as having been divinely inspired by the Spirit in the writing of the Psalm, and on that basis, He says, ‘If the Messiah is only David’s son, why does David call Him Lord?’ The obvious answer can only be ‘because He is to be seen as a greater than David’.
It should further be noted that there are good grounds for considering that this Psalm was interpreted Messianically in the pre-Christian period. This is confirmed by the Midrash on Psa 18:36 where Psa 110:1 is quoted by way of illustration in a Messianic sense. It is true that later the interpretation was dropped by the Rabbis, but that was because the Christians had taken it over. It was, however, firm and strong at this period. Moreover it is also constantly quoted Messianically in the New Testament. See Act 2:34, of His ascending the throne of God as both Lord and Messiah; Heb 10:12 where, after offering one sacrifice for sins for ever, He ‘sat down at the right hand of God’; and see its use with regard to the Melchizedek priesthood in Heb 6:20; Heb 7:17; Heb 7:21. Thus it would appear that this connection of the Psalm with the Messiah would have caused no problem to His listeners.
Driving home the conclusion:
v. 43. He saith unto them, How, then, doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying,
v. 44. The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool?
v. 45. If David, then, call Him Lord, how is He his Son?
v. 46. And no man was able to answer Him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask Him any more questions.
That the Messiah was to be an offspring of David is stated so often in the Old Testament that every Jew was accustomed to call Him by that name, as a matter of fact. But the Pharisees had never compared the various passages concerning the Messiah, His person and His work, and were for that reason ignorant of His mission. The fact of the twofold nature in Christ was plainly taught in the Old Testament, but their eyes had been blinded by their false hopes and aspirations. “Jesus refers only to that fact that David, Psa 110:1, calls Him his Lord: If, then, David, He says, calls Him Lord, how is He his Son? It sounds strange and is contrary to nature that a father calls his son a lord, that he also becomes subject to him and serves him. Now, David calls Christ his Lord, and such a Lord to whom God Himself says: Sit Thou at My right hand, etc. , that is, Be equal with Me, known and adored as very, true God; for on God’s chair or at His right hand no other may properly sit; He is so jealous that He will permit no one else to sit as His equal with Him, as He says in the Prophet Isaiah, chapter 48:11: Neither will I give My honor, etc. Since, then, He places Christ on a level with Him, the latter must be more than all creatures. ” To be Lord on high, equal with God, and yet to be the Son of David, according to the flesh, to have the divinity and the humanity combined in one person, that is the Messiah of prophecy. And what the learned Jews could not understand and explain, which made them speechless and utterly discomfited, is the great comfort of the believers of all time. “That is appreciating the person of Christ and knowing whose Son He is, namely, a Son of David; for He is a man, but yet also a Lord of David, as He that is sitting at the right hand of God and has His enemies, sin, death, and hell, as a footstool for His feet. Therefore, he who is in need of salvation against such enemies, let him not seek it with Moses, not through the Law, his own works, and piety; let him seek it with the Son and Lord of David, there he will surely find it. This the blind Pharisees do not know, therefore they do not respect the Lord Christ; they are satisfied with what they know out of the Law, how one should love God and one’s neighbor. And yet it is impossible to know God, much less to love God, unless one knows Christ. As He says Mat 11:27: No one knows the Father but the Son, and to whom the Son revivals it. But here we see the riches of the superabundant goodness and mercy of God, that God spared not His only-begotten Son, but delivers Him into the death of the cross for us, in order that we, liberated from sins, through Him should live forever. That is an eternal, boundless, fathomless love and mercy, which no man can know unless he knows Christ.”
Summary. Jesus tells the parable of the marriage-feast, answers the question of the Herodians regarding tribute-money, convicts the Sadducees with their denial of the resurrection, gives the Pharisees the proper information as to the greatest commandment, and proposes a question concerning the twofold nature of the Messiah which they are unable to answer.
Mat 22:43 f. ] how is it possible, that , etc.
In His question Jesus starts with what was a universal assumption in His day, viz. that David was the author of Psa 110 , which, however, is impossible , the fact being that it was only composed in the time of this monarch, and addressed to him (see Ewald on this psalm). The fact that Jesus shared the opinion referred to, and entertained no doubt as to the accuracy of the title of the psalm, is not to be questioned, though it should not be made use of, with Delitzsch and many others, for the purpose of proving the Davidic authorship of the composition; for a historico-critical question of this sort could only belong to the sphere of Christ’s ordinary national development, which, as a rule, would necessarily bear the impress of His time. With . before us, the idea of accommodation or of a play upon logic is not to be thought of, although Delitzsch himself maintains that something of the kind is possible. Among the unwarrantable and evasive interpretations of certain expositors is that of Paulus, who thinks that the object of the question of Jesus from beginning to end was the historico-critical one of persuading His opponents that the psalm was not composed by David, and that it contains no reference to the Messiah. [8]
] meaning, perhaps, that He did not do so on His own authority, but impulsu Spiritus Sancti (2Pe 1:21 ); Luk 2:27 ; 1Co 12:3 ; Rom 8:15 ; Rom 9:2 . David was regarded as a prophet, Act 2:30 ; Act 1:16 .
] the Messiah ; for the personage in the psalm is a prophetic type of the Messiah ; as also the Rabbinical teachers recognised in him one of the foremost of the Messianic predictions (Wetstein, Schoettgen), and only at a later period would they hear of any other reference (Delitzsch on Heb 1:13 , and on Psa 110 .).
, . . .] see on 1Co 15:25 .
[8] For the correct view of this matter, see Diestel in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol . 1863, p. 541 f.; see also the pointed elucidation, as well as refutation of the other interpretations, in Keim, III. p. 154 ff.; comp. Gess, I. p. 128 f. Then there is the explanation, frequently offered since Strauss suggested it, and which is to the effect that Jesus wished to cast discredit upon the currently received view regarding Messiah’s descent from David, and that He Himself was not descended from David, a circumstance which is supposed to have undoubtedly stood in the way of His being recognised as the Messiah (Schenkel, Weisse, Colani, Holtzmann); all which is decidedly at variance with the whole of the New Testament, where the idea of a non-Davidic Messiah would be a contradictio in adjecto .
43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
Ver. 43. How then doth David in spirit ] The Spirit possessed David after a sort, and by his mouth uttered what he would publish to the Church concerning the Godhead of Christ. “Holy men spake of old as they were acted by the Holy Ghost,” as they were forcibly moved, or borne away, and, as it were, carried out of themselves by the Holy Ghost ( ), 2Pe 1:21 .
43. . ] by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: = . Mark. This is a weighty declaration by our Lord of the inspiration of the prophetic Scriptures. The expression was a Rabbinical one: see Schttgen in loc. Mark ( Mar 12:37 ) adds to this “the common people heard him gladly.” Here then end the endeavours of His adversaries to entrap Him by questions: they now betake themselves to other means. ‘Nova dehinc quasi scena se pandit.’ Bengel.
Mat 22:43 . , etc.: the question is meant to bring out another side of Messiah’s relation to David, based on an admittedly Messianic oracle (Psa 110:1 ), and overlooked by the scribes. The object of the question is not, as some have supposed, to deny in toto the sonship, but to hint doubt as to the importance attached to it. Think out the idea of Lordship and see where it will lead you, said Jesus in effect. The scribes began at the wrong end: at the physical and material, and it landed them in secularity. If they had begun with Lordship it would have led them into the spiritual sphere, and made them ready to accept as Christ one greater than David in the spiritual order, though totally lacking the conventional grandeur of royal persons, only an unpretending Son of Man .
in = by, as in Mat 22:1.
spirit. Greek. pneuma. App-101.
43. .] by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: = . Mark. This is a weighty declaration by our Lord of the inspiration of the prophetic Scriptures. The expression was a Rabbinical one: see Schttgen in loc. Mark (Mar 12:37) adds to this the common people heard him gladly. Here then end the endeavours of His adversaries to entrap Him by questions: they now betake themselves to other means. Nova dehinc quasi scena se pandit. Bengel.
Mat 22:43. , in Spirit) and therefore truly: see 1Co 12:3.- , calleth Him Lord) a sign of subjection: see Php 2:11 : cf. 1Pe 3:6. It was a higher honour to have Christ for his Son, than to be a king; and vet David does not say that Christ is his son, but rejoices that Christ is his Lord, and he Christs servant. But this joy has also been procured for us: see Luk 1:43; Joh 20:28; Php 3:3; Php 3:8. They who regard the Messiah only as the son of David, regard the lesser part of the conception of Him. A dominion to which David himself is subject, shows the heavenly majesty of the King, and the heavenly character of His kingdom.
in the spirit, 2Sa 23:2, Mar 12:36, Luk 2:26, Luk 2:27, Act 1:16, Act 2:30, Act 2:31, Heb 3:7, 2Pe 1:21, Rev 4:2
Reciprocal: Dan 10:17 – the servant of this my lord Mat 12:23 – Is not Luk 20:42 – himself Eph 1:20 – and set 2Ti 3:16 – All Heb 4:7 – saying Rev 1:10 – in
2:43
If Christ was no more to David than an earthly descendant why did he call him Lord. This question was based on a statement in Psa 110:1 which the Pharisees would have to accept unless they denied the Scriptures which they would not do.
Mat 22:43. How then doth David in the Spirit, i.e., by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; comp. Mar 12:36 : by the Holy Ghost
Call him Lord. Solemnly designate Him thus, implying superiority.
Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees’ answer contained a problem. How could Messiah be David’s son if David called Him his Lord? Jesus referred to Psalms 110, the most frequently quoted Old Testament chapter in the New Testament. This was a psalm that David wrote, as is clear from the superscription. Jesus regarded it as He regarded all the Old Testament, namely, inspired by the Holy Spirit (Mat 22:43; cf. Act 4:25; Heb 3:7; Heb 9:8; Heb 10:15; 1Pe 1:21). Jesus assumed that Psalms 110 was Davidic and Messianic, and the Pharisees agreed. He referred to the psalm’s inspiration here to reinforce its correctness in the minds of His hearers. David had not made a mistake when he wrote this. The "right hand" is the position of highest honor and authority (cf. Mat 19:28).
There is good evidence that almost all Jews in Jesus’ day regarded Psalms 110 as messianic. [Note: David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalms 110 in Early Christianity, pp. 11-33.] Jesus’ point was that Messiah was not just David’s descendant, but He was God’s Son also. This is a point that Matthew stressed throughout his Gospel (chs. 1-2; Mat 3:17; Mat 8:20; Mat 17:5; et al.). Jesus was bringing together the concepts that Messiah was the human son of David and the divine Son of God. [Note: See Kingsbury, Matthew as . . ., p. 82.]
Moreover this quotation also shows the preexistence of Messiah. David’s Lord was alive when David lived. Furthermore it reveals plurality within the Godhead. One divine person spoke to another.
The psalm pictured Messiah at God’s right hand while His enemies were hostile to Him. However, Messiah would crush that hostility eventually. This is precisely the eschatological picture that has been unfolding throughout this Gospel. Rejected by His own, Jesus would return to the Father, but He would return later to earth to establish His kingdom. The Jewish rabbis after Jesus’ time interpreted David’s lord as Abraham, not Messiah. [Note: France, The Gospel . . ., p. 851.]
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)