Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 22:45
If David then call him, Lord, how is he his son?
Verse 45. How is he his son?] As the Jews did not attempt to deny the conclusion of our Lord’s question, which was, the Messiah is not only the son of David according to the flesh, but he is the Lord of David according to his Divine nature, then it is evident they could not. Indeed, there was no other way of invalidating the argument, but by denying that the prophecy in question related to Christ: but it seems the prophecy was so fully and so generally understood to belong to the Messiah that they did not attempt to do this; for it is immediately added, No man was able to answer him a word – they were completely nonplussed and confounded.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
If David then call him Lord,…. That is, the Messiah, which is taken for granted, nor could the Pharisees deny it,
how is he his son? The question is to be answered upon true and just notions of the Messiah, but unanswerable upon the principles of the Pharisees; who expected the Messiah only as a mere man, that should be of the seed of David, and so his son; and should sit upon his throne, and be a prosperous and victorious prince, and deliver them out of the hands of their temporal enemies: they were able to make answer to the question, separately considered, as that he should be of the lineage and house of David; should lineally descend from him, be of his family, one of his offspring and posterity, and so be properly and naturally his son; but how he could be so, consistent with his being David’s Lord, puzzled them. Had they understood and owned the proper divinity of the Messiah, they might have answered, that as he was God, he was David’s Lord, his maker, and his king; and, as man, was David’s son, and so both his root and offspring; and this our Lord meant to bring them to a confession of, or put them to confusion and silence, which was the consequence.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
45. If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? Here was a point for them to explain. Nor can they admit it without acknowledging that while he is human as descended from David, so he is divine as the right hand assessor of the Almighty. It shows that his royalty is not on earth but in heaven. He sits at the right hand of God as King, while his enemies on earth are being subdued before him. On the Jewish view, our Lord was to be a conquering descendant of David on the Jewish throne. The relation therefore between the lordship and sonship of Christ, they are unable to explain.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“If David then calls him Lord, how is he his son?”
That all being so, how can he be called simply David’s son? The idea behind the title is therefore to be seen as insufficient for a description of the Messiah. ‘Calls Him Lord’ is here to be seen as indicating all that is included in the quotation in Mat 22:44. Thus David is seen as declaring and proclaiming the supreme power and authority that will be the Messiah’s, setting Him far above himself (compare Rom 1:3-4), and we know from what is previously said that this title Messiah refers to Jesus. The supreme light (Mat 4:16) is now shining before Israel.
This does not, of course indicate that the Messiah would not be the son of David lineally. It indicates rather that he could not be seen in the way that He was by the Pharisees, as inferior to or simply on a level with David, and as acting in the same way that David did. He must not be equated with David on the same terms. In Hebrew thought ‘son of –’ indicated not only relationship, but likeness in standing and behaviour. However, the point here is that there was no way in which David could be seen as the full archetype of the Messiah because the Messiah was so much greater than David. He operated in ways, and with a power, that David could never have dreamed of, in other words, as He Himself did.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 22:45 f. , . . .] The emphasis rests on the correlative terms and : If, then, as appears from this language of the psalm, David, whose son He is, according to your express confession, still calls Him Lord , how is this to be reconciled with the fact that He is at the same time the psalmist’s son ? Surely that styling of Him as Lord must seem incompatible with the fact of such son ship! The difficulty might have been solved in this way: according to His human descent He is David’s son ; but, according to His divine origin as the Son of God, from whom He is sprung, and by whom He is sent (Mat 9:27 , Mat 17:26 ; Joh 1:14 ; Joh 1:18 ; Joh 6:46 ; Joh 7:28 f.; Rom 1:3 f.), in virtue of which relation He is superior to David and all that is merely human, and, by His elevation to the heavenly (Act 2:34 ), destined to share in the divine administration of things in a manner in keeping with this superiority,
He is by David, speaking under the influence of the Holy Spirit, called his Lord . The Pharisees understood nothing of this twofold relation, and consequently could not discern the true majesty and destiny of the Messiah, so as to see in Him both David’s Son and Lord . Hence not one of them was found capable of answering the question as to the . Observe that the question does not imply a negative , as though Jesus had asked, ;
] “Nova dehinc quasi scena se pandit,” Bengel.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
Ver. 45. Lord, how is he his Son? ] This is that great mystery of godliness, which angels intently look into, 1Pe 1:12 , as the cherubims did of old into the mercy seat. That Christ should be David’s Lord and David’s Son, God and man in one person, this is that wonder of wonders. Well might his name be Wonderful, Isa 9:6 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Mat 22:45. , if David therefore) It was the duty of the Jews to study that point with the utmost earnestness, especially at that time. It is considerably more evident of Christ that He is the Lord, than that He is the Son of David.[981]
[981] So great is the glory of the Son of God! David as well as Abraham alike, Joh 8:56, saw the day of Christ, the last great day we may suppose, when all His adversaries shall become the Lords footstool.-V. g.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
how: Joh 8:58, Rom 1:3, Rom 1:4, Rom 9:5, Phi 2:6-8, 1Ti 3:16, Heb 2:14, Rev 22:16
Reciprocal: Psa 8:1 – our Luk 20:42 – the Lord
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2:45
The argument of Jesus was, how could David recognize Christ as his Lord if he was only his son as the Pharisees claimed.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 22:45. How is he his son? The solution is not given here; but plainly preached by the Apostles from the day of Pentecost: the Messiah was Son of David according to the flesh, yet the preexistent eternal Son of God: the God-man (comp. Rom 1:3-4). If the Pharisees were ignorant of this solution, it was their own fault, since the Old Testament plainly pointed to it. Probably they were not ignorant. (The words of Caiaphas, chap. Mat 26:63, indicate knowledge on this point.) Our Lords claims involved this: He had been called the Son of David; He had claimed to be the Son of God some time before (Joh 10:24-38), and they afterwards accused Him of so doing. They at least knew what His solution was, and that He claimed to be both Son of David and Lord.