Matthew 22:41-46

D. JESUS-' QUESTION ON THE SON OF DAVID

(Parallels: Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44)

TEXT: 22:41-46

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

a.

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?

b.

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?

c.

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? (Matthew 21:23)?

d.

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?

e.

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?

f.

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?

g.

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

h.

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?

i.

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?

j.

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 David's 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: Jahvè 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)

Matthew 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 (Mark 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. (Mark 12:32), and still remain blind to the Scriptural doctrine of the Messiah's 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 Law's 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.

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

1.

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. Matthew 15:14).

2.

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:

a.

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 (Matthew 16:13; Matthew 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.

b.

He formulated two appropriate questions that went right to the heart of their problem. Because they would instinctively veto as heresy anyone's 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.

c.

He needed to save these leaders from their own pride, especially since they prided themselves on being the cream of Jewish scholarship (John 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.

3.

To lead all to understand the Messiah's 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 (Matthew 21:9; cf. Matthew 9:27; Matthew 12:23; Matthew 15:22; Matthew 20:30). However, they answered without hedging: they say unto him, The son of David. 2 Samuel 7:13 f; 2 Samuel 23:5; Psalms 78:68-72; Psalms 89:3 f., Psalms 89:20-37; Psalms 132:11; Jeremiah 23:5 f., are texts they could have cited in support of their answer. Jewish scholars had already cited Micah 5:2 (Matthew 2:4-6; cf. John 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 David's 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 David's 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. John 6:14 f.; Matthew 20:20-28, Acts 1:6; cf. Edersheim, Life, II, Appendix IX; Psalms of Solomon Matthew 17:23-27.) Now, however, the moment has come to clear the air of these faulty notions however widely held they might be.

4.

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. David's Son or David's 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 Christ's Kingdom and of His work!

5.

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

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

Matthew 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!

1.

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 God's 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?

2.

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

3.

in the book of Psalms (Luke 20:42). This is not Luke's 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 criticism's 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 Christ's argument by attempting three possible explanations of what might have happened here:

1.

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.

2.

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!

3.

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 David's personally having spoken these words (autòs Dauìd, Mark and Luke). Jesus-' argument against popular misuse of the son of David prophecies urges that David's 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 (Mark 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 David's personally having said this (Acts 2:30). His case is weakened, if David is not the writer. Because David did not personally ascend to God's 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 Peter's argument depends for its force on its being the same David who did not go into heaven as the one who spoke Psalms 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 (Matthew 11:27). We know what Spirit inspired Him to say this (Acts 10:38).

Matthew 22:44 The Lord said unto my Lord. (Psalms 110:1; also cited in Acts 2:34 f.; Hebrews 1:13; alluded to in 1 Corinthians 15:25; Hebrews 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: Jahvè 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 = kùrios) is used for God in Psalms 110:5.

Sit at my right hand pictures the glorious, heavenly reign of the Messiah sharing God's throne. (Cf. Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 8:1; Hebrews 10:12; Hebrews 12:2; Acts 5:31; Acts 7:55 f.; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1; 1 Peter 3:22; Revelation 3:21.) This also harmonizes with the Son of man prophecy of Daniel 7:9-14. At the right hand is the highest place of honor (cf. Matthew 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 God's 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 Messiah's 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: David's throne is now occupied by its rightful Claimant. That throne is heavenly, at God's 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 (Psalms 110:2). His Church began at Jerusalem (Luke 24:47-49; Acts 1:4; Acts 1:8) and continues to extend His mighty scepter in the midst of His enemies. The day of His wrath (Psalms 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 God's right involves a ruling on earth among His enemies (Psalms 110:2) by means of His volunteer troops (Psalms 110:3; cf. David's own method, 2 Samuel 11:1), while He exercises the office of priest-king, like Melchizedek (Psalms 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. Matthew 11:27; Matthew 28:18.)

Till I put your enemies under your feet. God intends to defeat all Christ's enemies, subjecting them to His control (Hebrews 10:13; 1 Corinthians 15:24 ff.; Ephesians 1:21 f.; but remember 2 Corinthians 10:3-5!) This too harmonizes with Psalms 2. Under your feet pictures His opponents-' public, humiliating subjection (cf. Joshua 10:24; 1 Kings 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 God's rule shall begin. (Cf. Acts 3:21; 1 Corinthians 15:24 ff.) Who are the enemies ofthis heavenly King? The Psalmist's 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. 1 Corinthians 15:26; Hebrews 2:14 f.; 1 John 3:8.) Unquestionably, however, among them are all those who oppose or even refuse to love the Lord (1 Corinthians 16:22; Psalms 2:12)!

III. A CRUCIAL QUESTION (22:45)

Matthew 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 Messiah's 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 Messiah's 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 David's Son, so how is it possible for Him also to be David's Lord? Instead, His question, expanded, is, We all admit the obvious implication of David's own confession that the Messiah is indisputably to be David's divine, exalted Lord. In what sense, then, must we understand that the Messiah is also David's SON? This is by far the great question and more crucial for the Pharisees: how could a divine Being become also David's descendant?! What is the Lord implying? (See notes on Matthew 21:15 f. where He dealt with the Son of David issue for the Sadducees too!)

1.

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 David's 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 earth's 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?

2.

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 Judaism's 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 author's Vol. III, p. 377 on prophetic credentials.)

3.

For Matthew's 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.

a.

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

b.

The annunciation to Joseph unquestionably pointed to Baby Jesus-' true Father, God, and His human mother, the virgin Mary (Matthew 1:18-25). The Messiah's birth, then, is to be an incarnation, the process whereby David's Lord became David's 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 (John 3:1 f; John 12:42 f.).

c.

God's voice from heaven pointedly proclaimed Him God's Son (Matthew 3:17).

d.

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

So, Matthew's 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 everyone's 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 (Luke 1:31-35; John 1:1-18; Romans 1:3 f.; 2 Timothy 2:8; Revelation 22:16).

IV. ALL QUESTIONING CANCELLED (22:46)

Matthew 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. Matthew 22:34; Mark 12:34; Luke 14:6; Luke 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:

1.

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.

2.

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 Matthew 21:1 ff.) and openly claimed to be Son of God (cf. John 10:36; John 11:27; John 5:18; John 1:49; Matthew 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 Matthew's 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 day's debate, verse 46 is Matthew's conclusion of his major section that began in Matthew 21:23 with the rulers-' challenge to Jesus-' authority. This section's 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.):

1.

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 nation's 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 (Matthew 7:15-23). His godliness and wisdom and their lack of it give us reasonable ground for believing Him and not them.

2.

The evidence of His supernatural nature and prophetic office:

a.

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.

b.

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.

c.

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

1.

At what point in the day's activities did Jesus ask the question about the Son of David?

2.

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

3.

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

4.

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?

5.

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

6.

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?

7.

What does it mean for someone to sit at God's right hand? What does making one's enemies a footstool mean?

8.

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

9.

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?