Luke 20:44

20:44 Jesus asked why David addressed his son (i.e., his descendant) as his Lord. The implied answer was that the Messiah was more than just a human king descended from David. He is Lord of all (see 2:11; Acts 10:36). Psalm 110:1 became an important text for the apostles, confirming Jesus’ identity as the Son of God (see Mark 14:62; Acts 2:34; 7:56; Rom 8:34; 1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12-13; 1 Pet 3:22; Rev 3:21).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

44. how is he then his son?] To a Jew it was inconceivable that a father, or ancestor, should call his son “Lord.” The only possible solution—that the Messiah was only “made of the seed of David after the flesh” (Rom_1:3) was one which they had never chosen to accept. They, like the Ebionites, expected for their Messiah a mere ‘beloved man.’ And thus, for the second time on this day, they had drawn on their own heads, by their hypocritic craft, the humiliating necessity of publicly confessing their ignorance respecting matters of primary importance before the people, whose absolute reverence they claimed. They ‘did not know’ whether the Baptist was an Impostor or a Prophet; they ‘could not answer a word’ to a most obvious question as to the

Messianic hope which they put forward as the very centre of their religion ! Comp. Luk_14:6.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Christ indeed is both the Lord and Servant of David. He is Servant, according to the flesh, being a descendant of David; and he is Lord, according to the spirit, being Lord of all. (St. John Chrysostom) --- We hear in our times of a new sect of Pharisees, who neither believed that Christ is the true Son of God, nor that he is God born of a pure virgin. To such we object this question: How is he the Son of David, and his Lord? Not by human, but by divine dominion. (St. Cyril) --- He has two natures: the nature of man, according to which, David was his father; and the nature of God, according to which, he was Son of God, and Lord of David. Thus is the difficulty solved.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his Son? That Jesus was the acknowledged descendant of David during his earthly ministry, is indisputable; we need but refer to the cries of the populace on Palm Sunday, the words of the woman of Canaan, of blind Bartimaeus, and others. History bears its witness to the same fact. The Emperor Domitian, it is well known, summoned the kinsmen of Jesus, the sons of Jude, his so-called brother, to Rome as "the sons of David."

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

44. πῶς αὐτοῦ υἱός ἐστιν; To a Jew it was inconceivable that a father, or ancestor, should call his son “Lord.” The only possible solution—that the Messiah was only “made of the seed of David after the flesh” (Rom 1:3) was one which they had never chosen to accept. They, like the Ebionites, expected for their Messiah a mere ‘beloved man.’ And thus, for the second time on this day, they had drawn on their own heads the humiliating necessity of publicly confessing their ignorance. They ‘did not know’ whether the Baptist was an Impostor or a Prophet; they ‘could not answer a word’ to a most obvious question as to the Messianic hope which they put forward as the very centre of their religion! Comp. Luk 14:6.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

44. καὶ πῶς αὐτοῦ υἱός ἐστιν; De Wette and Strauss both point out that this question must imply either (1) that the Messiah is not the Son of David, or (2) that the inspired Psalmist teaches that the Messiah is no mere political deliverer. Strauss, with Schenkel and Volkmar, prefers the former altenative.2 But it is incredible that, even if Jesus were a mere human teacher, He would thus gratuitously have contradicted the express utterances of Scripture (2Sa 7:8-29; Isa 9:5-7, 11:Isa 9:1-10; Jer 23:5-8; Mic 5:2) and the popular belief which was built upon them; especially as this belief was a valuable help to His own work (18:38; Mat 15:22, Mat 12:23, Mat 21:9). Whereas, those who believe in His Divinity need have no difficulty in admitting, that, on a point which was no part of His teaching, Jesus might go all His human life without even raising the question as to the truth of what was authoritatively taught about the authorship of this or that portion of Scripture.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.