Mark 12:35

Here, I. Christ shows the people how weak and defective the scribes were in their preaching, and how unable to solve the difficulties that occurred in the scriptures of the Old Testament, which they undertook to expound. Of this he gives an instance, which is not so fully related here as it was in Matthew. Christ was teaching in the temple: many things he said, which were not written; but notice is taken of this, because it will stir us up to enquire concerning Christ, and to enquire of him; for none can have the right knowledge of him but from himself; it is not to be had from the scribes, for they will soon be run aground.

1. They told the people that the Messiah was to be the Son of David (Mar 12:35), and they were in the right; he was not only to descend from his loins, but to fill his throne (Luk 1:32); The Lord shall give him the throne of his father David. The scripture said it often, but the people took it as what the scribes said; whereas the truths of God should rather be quoted from our Bibles than from our ministers, for there is the original of them. Dulcius ex ipso fonte bibuntur aquae - The waters are sweetest when drawn immediately from their source.

2. Yet they could not tell them how, notwithstanding that it was very proper for David, in spirit, the spirit of prophecy, to call him his Lord, as he doth, Psa 110:1. They had taught the people that concerning the Messiah, which would be for the honour of their nation - that he should be a branch of their royal family; but they had not taken care to teach them that which was for the honour of the Messiah himself - that he should be the Son of God, and, as such, and not otherwise, David's Lord. Thus they held the truth in unrighteousness, and were partial in the gospel, as well as in the law, of the Old Testament. They were able to say it, and prove it - that Christ was to be David's son; but if any should object, How then doth David himself call him Lord? they would not know how to avoid the force of the objection. Note, Those are unworthy to sit in Moses's seat, who, though they are able to preach the truth, are not in some measure able to defend it when they have preached it, and to convince gainsayers.

Now this galled the scribes, to have their ignorance thus exposed, and, no doubt, incensed them more against Christ; but the common people heard him gladly, Mar 12:37. What he preached was surprising and affecting; and though it reflected upon the scribes, it was instructive to them, and they had never heard such preaching. Probably there was something more than ordinarily commanding and charming in his voice and way of delivery, which recommended him to the affections of the common people; for we do not find that any were wrought upon to believe in him, and to follow him, but he was to them as a lovely song of one that could play well on an instrument; as Ezekiel was to his hearers, Eze 33:32. And perhaps some of these cried, Crucify him, as Herod heard John Baptist gladly, and yet cut off his head.

II. He cautions the people to take heed of suffering themselves to be imposed upon by the scribes, and of being infected with their pride and hypocrisy; He said unto them in his doctrine, "Beware of the scribes (Mar 12:38); stand upon your guard, that you neither imbibe their peculiar opinions, nor the opinions of the people concerning them." The charge is long as drawn up against them in the parallel place (Mt. 23); it is here contracted.

1. They affect to appear very great; for they go in long clothing, with vestures down to their feet, and in those they walk about the streets, as princes, or judges, or gentlemen of the long robe. Their going in such clothing was not sinful, but their loving to go in it, priding themselves in it, valuing themselves on it, commanding respect by it, saying to their long clothes, as Saul to Samuel, Honour me now before this people, this was a product of pride. Christ would have his disciples go with their loins girt.

2. They affect to appear very good; for they pray, they make long prayers, as if they were very intimate with heaven, and had a deal of business there. They took care it should be known that they prayed, that they prayed long, which, some think, intimates that they prayed not for themselves only, but for others, and therein were very particular and very large; this they did for a pretence, that they might seem to love prayer, not only for God's sake, whom hereby they pretended to glorify, but for their neighbour's sake, whom hereby they pretended to be serviceable to.

3. They here aimed to advance themselves: they coveted applause, and were fond of it; they loved salutations in the marketplaces, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts; these pleased a vain fancy; to have these given them, they thought, expressed the value they had for them, who did know them, and gained them respect for those who did not.

4. They herein aimed to enrich themselves. They devoured widows' houses, made themselves masters of their estates by some trick or other; it was to screen themselves from the suspicion of dishonesty, that they put on the mask of piety; and that they might not be thought as bad as the worst, they were studious to seem as good as the best. Let fraud and oppression be thought the worse of for their having profaned and disgraced long prayers; but let not prayers, no nor long prayers, be thought the worse of, if made in humility and sincerity, for their having been by some thus abused. But as iniquity, thus disguised with a show of piety, is double iniquity, so its doom will be doubly heavy; These shall receive great damnation; greater than those that live without prayer, greater than they would have received for the wrong done to the poor widows, if it had not been thus disguised. Note, The damnation of hypocrites will be of all others the greatest damnation.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mar 12:35-37. See the note on Mat 22:41-46, where this paragraph is explained. And the common people heard him gladly — They heard him with great attention and pleasure; for the clear and solid answers which he returned to the insnaring questions of his foes, gave them a high opinion of his wisdom, and showed them how far he was superior to their most renowned rabbis; whose arguments to prove their opinions, and answers to the objections that were raised against them, were, generally speaking, but mean and trifling in comparison of his. Besides, the common people were neither so much prejudiced in behalf of the commonly received opinions, nor so much interested, as the scribes or other teachers.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES

Mar_12:35. Jesus answered.—For the earlier part of the conversation see Mat_22:41-42.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mar_12:35-37

(PARALLELS: Mat_22:41-46; Luk_20:41-44.)

Our Lord’s question concerning the Messiah.—

I. The place where He propounded His question.—Why did He choose such a public place as the Temple to oppose the scribes’ opinion and doctrine? That by putting them to silence in such open manner He might bring the greater shame and disgrace upon them and their doctrine, they being malicious enemies of the truth; and withal that He might gain the more credit and authority with the people to His own person and doctrine.

1. In that Christ used so much to frequent the Temple, being a public place, whither all sorts of people much resorted, to the end He might there have occasion of doing the more good, both by His doctrine and miracles, as also by reforming abuses there, and by opposing and refuting errors: hence observe that we also ought to take the best opportunities of time, place, and persons, where and amongst whom we may do most good, and bring most glory to God, in our place and calling.

2. In that Christ was now teaching in the Temple, and so used to be much and often at other times to teach the people there publicly: hence learn whither to resort if we would hear Christ and be partakers of His doctrine, viz. to the public place of God’s worship.

3. In that Christ did not only teach and deliver sound doctrine in the Temple at this time, but did also oppose erroneous doctrine: hence gather that ministers of the Word are not only in their public ministry to teach true and sound doctrine, but also to oppose and confute contrary errors, as occasion is offered (Tit_1:9; Tit_1:11).

II. The manner of Christ’s opposing and confuting the opinion of the scribes.—

1. He propounds their opinion and questions the truth of it.

(1) That He might by this means take occasion to confute and overthrow that common and gross error held not only by the scribes and Pharisees, but also by the greatest part of the other Jews, touching the person of the Messiah.

(2) That by this means He might have occasion to confirm the faith of His disciples in the truth and doctrine of His Godhead.

(3) Having lately commended one of the scribes for answering discreetly, therefore now He takes occasion to propound this question, thereby to stir up both that scribe and others also to a diligent search after the true knowledge of the Messiah.

2. He objects against them a place of Scripture.

(1) All errors, and erroneous opinions and doctrines of men, in matters of faith and religion, are to be opposed and confuted by Scripture, and by grounds and reasons taken from thence.

(2) The prophets of the Old Testament spoke of Christ the true Messiah, and of His kingdom and glory, and the manifestation of it, long before it was fulfilled.

(3) The writers of Holy Scripture were extraordinarily directed and assisted by the Holy Ghost.

3. He applies those words of David to His purpose.

(1) The Person who is said here to have called and advanced Christ to this high degree of glory and authority, viz. God the Father.

(2) The Person called and advanced to this glory—Christ the true Messiah. (a) There is a distinction of Persons in the Godhead, though but one God in nature and essence. (b) The truth of Christ’s Godhead, in that David calls Him his Lord. (c) The nature of true faith—to make particular application of Christ to the believer. “My Lord.” (d) How we ought to receive and embrace Christ—not only as Redeemer and Saviour, but also as Lord and Master.

(3) The ground or cause of Christ’s advancement to this glory, viz. the eternal purpose and decree of God the Father, ordaining and appointing Him unto it.

(4) The advancement itself. (a) To the highest degree of glory, honour, and dignity, next unto God the Father. (b) To the full possession and administration of His kingdom and government over the world, and especially over His true Church.—G. Petter.

OUTLINES AND COMMENTS ON THE VERSES

Mar_12:35-36. Faith can reconcile apparent opposites.—Faith alone, which knows what Christ is by His Divine nature, and what He is become by His mercy, knows how to reconcile the seeming contradictions which are in this Divine compound, God-man: Son of David, by His birth according to the flesh; and Lord of David, by His eternal birth in God His Father, as also by the rights of His third birth, namely, His resurrection, which placed Him at the right hand of His Father.—P. Quesnel.

A counter-question.—Thus the Saviour intimates it is not robbery to claim equality with God, and intimates that no merely human Saviour would meet the deep wants of man.

I. In all ages men have longed for a Divine and human Saviour,—one who, as man, would be near and sympathetic; as God, omnipotent and enduring. David’s psalm is a clear expression of what all religious men have dreamed of. An incarnation of a helpful God is the hope of the Hindoo peoples.

II. None less than God can be a spiritual and eternal Saviour.—We want a son of David, but one whose name is “Lord,” and whose natural seat is “at God’s right hand.”—R. Glover.

Mar_12:37. Christ’s popularity with the masses—All through the Gospels there are indications of Christ’s popularity with the masses as distinguished from the classes. Why? Where lay the charm? In the aspect, the matter, the spirit of the Man? Perhaps in all together. It is difficult to give a full account of popularity, to explain why one man can do what he wills with an audience, while another is utterly helpless. There may be subtle physical causes at work, as well as intellectual and moral ones. But the thing is not altogether a mystery; the teacher’s power can be explained in part. Looks count for something—the kindling eye, the play of thought and emotion in the face. A genial manner goes a long way to conciliate favour, revealing itself in a kindly smile and a warm, hearty tone of utterance. But the secret of power lies mainly in what a man says—in his thoughts as a revelation of himself, his convictions embodied in speech. Eloquence is not an affair of manner or of style or of gesture; it is the whole man—all that is within—speaking out: the mind, heart, soul, spirit, finding utterance for itself in words. It is this on which the Evangelists remark in reference to Christ’s power over His audience (see Luk_4:22; Mat_7:28-29).—A. B. Bruce, D.D.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

6. The decisive Counter-question put by the Lord to the Scribes. Mar_12:35-37

(Parallels: Mat_22:41-46; Luk_20:41-44.)

35     And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David? 36For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said20 to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. 37 David therefore21 himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

See Matthew, and the parallels in Luke.—The great counter-question which Jesus, after all the tempting questions of His enemies, addressed to the Pharisees, is brought forward by Matthew in all its historic importance as the decisive, concluding interrogation put to the Pharisees. In Matthew, accordingly, this question has the form of a discussion of rabbinical disputation; and without doubt this is the original, historical form of the matter. Much of this external form has been rubbed away by Mark; yet he points out by the words, “Jesus answered,” that the statement contained a reply to some question already put, with a view to try the Lord. Consequently the last is referred to. In this way, the preceding discussion also gains a new illustration; for which, consult the explanation of this last temptation. Mark, in allowing the form of the disputation to pass unnoticed, causes Christ’s spiritual triumph to stand out all the more strongly to the view; just as he presented the preceding narrative likewise from its bright side.

Mar_12:35. While He taught in the temple.—The last address Christ made to the Pharisees was a word intended for the whole people; and this is in Mark’s mind the most weighty point: and from this view we see that His triumph, and the humbling of His enemies in the presence of the multitude, are implied as matters decided from the very outset.

Mar_12:37. And whence is He then his son?—This question was intended to say to the Pharisees especially, that the Son of David, or the Messiah, as David’s Lord, must, according to the Scriptures, be of divine dignity; while to the people especially it was intended to say, that He was not to be David’s son in the sense that He had been appointed, as they expected, to found an external Messianic kingdom, after the nature of David’s kingdom. But the one conception cannot be severed from the other.—He who brings in a divine kingdom must introduce one of a different nature from an earthly one: he who introduces one of another, higher nature, must introduce a divine.—Heard Him gladly.—Not merely in the common sense, but with special reference to His divine dignity as the Messiah, was it that they listened to Him. The people were in the best mood for doing, and were on the point of doing, homage to Him.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. See Matthew and the foregoing remarks.

2. In their last question, the Pharisees gave the Lord to understand that if God be only One, He (Jesus) could not be God’s Son, and desired in this way to force Him either to offend against monotheism, or to deny His own dignity. Christ, by His counter-question, lays down this proposition: Christ as David’s son, and at the same time David’s Lord, could not be man simply, though He is a real man. For David calls Him, not in a general way, his Lord; but Lord, the Lord, directly, and positively. At the same time, Jesus reveals to them mediately, by means of Psalms 110, that His kingdom is not of tie same nature as David’s, of a worldly character; that He should triumph over all His foes, and sit down upon the right hand of Majesty on high,—a declaration which comes distinctly and triumphantly forward in His trial before Caiaphas, Mar_14:62. See Hamann’s Golgotha, and Scheblimini.

3. Matthew marks chiefly the conviction which the last counter-question of Christ produced, made apparent by the silence of His opponents: Mark brings into prominence this presage of His victory over the rulers of the people, and the perfect spiritual might by which Jesus subdued His enemies. Hence, Mark notes this was a moment when Christ needed but to move His finger, and the whole hierarchy was overthrown, the people lay at His feet. And this was indeed no mere Galilæan triumphal entry, in which a few individual friends from Bethany and Jerusalem were mingled; but it was the Jewish people, who were assembled for the Paschal feast. It was the intensified repetition of the scene in Galilee, of which John gives the account, Mark 6. But Jesus wished to rule over the spirit, and through this rule establish a kingdom. The Israelitish authorities denied Him homage, in suppressed rage, in demoniacal silence. He retired, accordingly, now, in His full, decisive spirit-conquest over them, in secrecy, after He had finished His spiritual judgment in denunciations of woe, and in His decision regarding the gifts cast into the temple-treasury.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The people heard Him gladly. One of the many beautiful, solemn moments which Israel lost, deceived principally on this matter by its priesthood. (Similarly upon the days of palms. The general repentance after the Feast of Pentecost, Acts 5 The great moment in the life of Paul, Act_22:22. A similar one in the life of James, according to Hegesippus, in Euseb. Mar_2:23.)—The mystery in the life of Jesus induces and allures unprejudiced minds to sink themselves into its depths.

Starke:—The Holy Scriptures contain very deep mysteries.—If a true Christian is to be formed out of a Pharisee, the knowledge of Christ in His humanity and divinity must spring up within that man.—Quesnel:—It is only faith which is able to unloose these knots (i. e., unite divinity and humanity).

Braune:—What think ye of Christ? This question is the sum of the law and the Gospel. He had been questioned, first, as to the tribute, from political motives; then regarding marriage and the resurrection, because of philosophical views; then concerning different commandments, on ethical grounds. He now asks the life-question of centuries (which springs from the centre of religion): Rom_9:5; 1Co_15:25; Act_2:34; Heb_1:13.—Had Moses been superior to Christ, then had the chief question been, What is the chief command of the law? Because this is not the case, the question regarding the Saviour remains the chief and life-question. According to Christ’s view of the case, however, that first query, conceived not according to the law, but according to the Gospel, belongs to this second.

Schleiermacher:—He does not say, If He is his son, how is He then his Lord? but reversed, If he himself names Him his Lord, how is He then his son? He consequently represents the first as the greater (and yet it is the latter which forms the concluding point, inasmuch as He wishes to call upon them to give up their conception of the Messiah for the Old Testament conception of Him, which His life had exemplified).

Brieger:—The Pharisees having interrogated Him as to His power, He interrogates them as to His person (for they knew, it is properly remarked, that the people considered Him the Messiah).—It was now recognition or rejection. By this question Jesus wishes to lead them to decide.—The throne of God, at the right hand of which the Anointed is to seat Himself, is the throne “high and lifted up,” spoken of by Isaiah, Mark 6,—the heavenly throne, Psa_9:7; Psa_68:18; Psa_29:10. It is the symbol of His rule over heaven and earth, Psa_103:19; Rev_3:12; 2Ti_2:12.

Footnotes:

[20][Mar_12:36.—Some MSS. read λέγει (“the Lord said”) instead of εἶπεν; Meyer asserts that εἶπεν comes from Matthew, Luke, and the cited passage in the Psalm.]

[21][Mar_12:37.—The οὖν is wanting in B., D., L., Δ., Syriac, Tischendorf; bracketed by Lachmann.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER 12:35-40 (Mar_12:35-40)

DAVID'S LORD

"And Jesus answered and said, as He taught in the temple, How say the scribes that the Christ is the Son of David? David himself said in the Holy Spirit,--

The Lord said unto my Lord,

Sit Thou on My right hand,

Till I make Thine enemies the footstool of Thy feet.

David himself calleth Him Lord; and whence is He his son? And the common people heard Him gladly. And in His teaching He said, Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and to have salutations in the marketplaces, and chief seats in the synagogues, and chief places at feasts: they which devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers; these shall receive greater condemnation." Mar_12:35-40 (R.V.)

JESUS, having silenced in turn His official interrogators and the Sadducees, and won the heart of His honest questioner, proceeded to submit a searching problem to His assailants. Whose son is the Messiah? And when they gave Him an obvious and shallow answer, He covered them with confusion publicly. The event is full of that dramatic interest which St. Mark is so well able to discern and reproduce. How is it then that he passes over all this aspect of it, leaves us ignorant of the defeat and even of the presence of the scribes, and free to suppose that Jesus stated the whole problem in one long question, possibly without an opponent at hand to feel its force?

This is a remarkable proof that his concern was not really for the pictorial element in the story, but for the manifestation of the power of his Master, the "authority" which resounds through his opening chapter, the royalty which he exhibits at the close. To him the vital point is that Jesus, upon openly claiming to be the Christ, and repelling the vehement attacks which were made upon Him as such, proceeded to unfold the astonishing greatness which this implied; and that after asserting the unity of God and His claim upon all hearts, He demonstrated that the Christ was sharer of His throne.

The Christ, they said, was the Son of David, and this was not false: Jesus had wrought many miracles for suppliants who addressed Him by that title. But was it all the truth? How then did David call Him Lord? A greater than David might spring from among his descendants, and hold rule by an original and not merely an ancestral claim: He might not reign as a son of David. Yet this would not explain the fact that David, who died ages before His coming, was inspired to call Him my Lord. Still less would it satisfy the assertion that God had bidden Him sit beside Him on His throne. For the scribes there was a serious warning in the promise that His enemies should be made His footstool, and for all the people a startling revelation in the words which follow, and which the Epistle to the Hebrews has unfolded, making this Son of David a priest forever, after another order than that of Aaron.

No wonder that the multitude heard with gladness teaching at one so original, so profound, and so clearly justified by Scripture.

But it must be observed how remarkable this question of Jesus follows up His conversation with the scribe. Then He had based the supreme doctrine of the Divine Unity. He now proceeds to show that the throne of Deity is not a lonely throne, and to demand, Whose Son is He Who shares it, and Whom David in Spirit accosts by the same title as his God?

St. Mark is now content to give the merest indication of the final denunciation with which the Lord turned His back upon the scribes of Jerusalem, as He previously broke with those of Galilee. But it is enough to show how utterly beyond compromise was the rupture. The people were to beware of them: their selfish objects were betrayed in their very dress, and their desire for respectful salutations and seats of honor. Their prayers were a pretense, and they devoured widows' houses, acquiring under the cloak of religion what should have maintained the friendless. But their affected piety would only bring upon them a darker doom.

It is a tremendous impeachment. None is entitled to speak as Jesus did, who is unable to read hearts as He did. And yet we may learn from it that mere softness is not the meekness He demands, and that, when sinister motives are beyond doubt, the spirit of Jesus is the spirit of burning.

There is an indulgence for the wrongdoer which is mere feebleness and half compliance, and which shares in the guilt of Eli. And there is a dreadful anger which sins not, the wrath of the Lamb.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

12:35-37 After having answered various questions, mostly from opponents, Jesus now asked a question (see 8:27; Matt 17:25; 21:31; Luke 10:36). The Messiah was considered the son of David because of such passages as Isa 9:2-7; 11:1-5; Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-28. With his question, Jesus did not deny that the Messiah was a descendant of David (Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; see Rom 1:3-4), but he demonstrated that this description, while correct, is inadequate. The Messiah is far more!

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

Mar_12:35-37. See on Mat_22:41-46. Comp. Luk_20:41-44.

Mark is distinguished from Matthew in this respect, that the latter represents Jesus as laying the theological problem before the assembled Pharisees, and then relates that they were thereby brought to silence, so that they put no further questions to Him; whereas Mark relates that the conversation as to the most important commandment had had this result, and thereafter Jesus had thrown out before the people, while He was teaching (Mar_12:37; Mar_12:35), the question respecting the Son of David.

ἀποκριθείς] The following question to the people is a replypublicly exposing the theological helplessness of the scribesto the silence, to which they had just seen themselves reduced by the very fact that one of their number had even given his entire approval to Jesus. The scribes are still present. But it is not to themselves that Jesus puts His question; He utters it before the people, but in express reference to the γραμματεῖς. They may therefore give information also before the people, if they can. If they cannot, they stand there the more completely vanquished and put to shame. And they cannot, because to them the divine lineage of the Messiah, in virtue of which as Davids descendant He is yet Davids Lord, remained veiled and unperceived;we may conceive after πόθεν υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἐστιν the pause of this silence and this confusion. So peculiar is this whole position of the matter in Mark, that it appears to be (in opposition to Hilgenfeld and Baur) original.

πῶς] how then? Quomodo consistere potest, quod dicunt, Grotius.

The twofold emphatic αὐτὸς Δαυ. places the declaration of David himself in contrast to the point held by the scribes.

καὶ πόθεν] breaking in with surprise. Comp. Luk_1:43. πόθεν is the causal unde: whence comes it that.[152] Comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 269 D.; Dem. 241, 17; Wolf, ad Lept. p. 238.

ὁ πολὺς ὄχλ.] the multitude of people, which was present.

ἢκουεν αὐτοῦ ἡδέως] a triumph over those put to silence.

[152] In opposition to the whole N. T., the question is, according to Schenkel (comp. Strauss), intended to exhibit the Davidic descent of the Messiah as a phantom. This descent in fact forms of necessity the presupposition of the words καὶ πόθεν κ.τ.λ., the concessum on the part of Jesus Himself. And it is the postulate of the whole of the N. T. Christology, from Mat_1:1 to Rev_22:16. Comp., moreover, the appropriate remarks of Beyschlag, Christol. d. N. T. p. 61 f. But the pre-existence of Jesus, which certainly must have been in His consciousness when He asked the question, is not expressed (in some such way as in Joh_8:58), nor is the recognition of it claimed for the Psalmist by ἐν πνεύματι. The latter merely asserts that David, as a prophet, designated his Son as his Lord.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mar 12:35-37 . David’s Son and David’s Lord (Mat 22:41-46 , Luk 20:41-44 ). On the aim and import of this counter-question vide notes on Mt.

Mar 12:35 . ἀποκριθεὶς , διδάσκων ἐ . τ . ἱ .: these two participles describe the circumstances under which the question was asked addressed to silenced and disheartened opponents, and forming a part of the public instruction Jesus had been giving in the temple; a large body of people present.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Christ proveth his Godhead even out of David himself, of whom he came according to the flesh.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 35. How say the scribes] See Mt 22:41, &c.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(35) While he taught in the temple.—The locality is named by St. Mark only, but it is all but implied in the other two Gospels.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

35–37. Our Lord’s Counter-Question

35. And Jesus answered and said] He seemed to have turned to a number of the Pharisees (Mat_22:41) who had collected together, to converse probably over the day’s discomfiture. The great counter-question is brought forward by St Matthew in all its historic importance as the decisive concluding interrogation addressed to the Pharisees. St Mark points out by the words “Jesus answered” that the statement contained a reply to some question already put.

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.

David therefore himself calleth him Lord,.... David, whose son you say the Messiah is, speaks of him as one superior to himself; as Lord, and as his Lord:

whence is he then his son? from what passage of Scripture does it appear, that he is his son? and how can these two different characters of him, be made to agree in him? Our Lord meant by this, to observe to them, that the Messiah was God, as well as man; that he was not merely the son of David, as was commonly received, or a mere man, but that he had a superior nature, in which he was David's Lord, and even Lord of all. This is a Talmudic way of speaking, frequently used when a proof from Scripture, or reason, is demanded to support any opinion or article of faith; as, , "from whence is this opinion" (z)? what proof is there of it? And again it is said (a), , "from whence" is the proof of the resurrection of the dead out of the law? It is said, Exo 6:4, "and I have also established", &c. Sometimes it is expressed thus (b), , "from whence do we know that it is so?" And sometimes the word is doubled (c); says, R. Simeon ben Lekish, there is an intimation out of the law, concerning that which is torn, , "from whence? from whence?" Exo 22:31, "Neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn", &c. But the Scribes produced neither Scripture nor reason to support their assertion, though it was true; because they could not reconcile it with the passage cited by Christ.

And the common people; or the "whole multitude", as the Syriac and Persic versions render it; or a "great multitude", as the Vulgate Latin, and Arabic versions; or "all the people", as the Ethiopic; all but the Scribes and Pharisees, the populace in general,

heard him gladly; with great pleasure and satisfaction, observing that his doctrine was superior to that of any of the sects among them; particularly his reasoning about the Messiah, was listened to with great attention, and who, no doubt, could gladly have heard how these things could be reconciled; but we read not that any answer was returned to our Lord's queries, either by himself or any other.

(z) T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 54. 2. (a) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 90. 2. (b) T. Bab. Nazir, fol. 5. 1. (c) T. Bab. Cholin, fol. 42. 1.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

35 And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David?

Ver. 35. How say the Scribes] They were great genealogists; how was it then that they were no better versed in the genealogy of Christ? that they could give no better an account of his twofold nature? of other things one may be ignorant, and yet be saved: not so here.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

See the notes at Mat 22:41-46.

Mar 12:37

The common people heard him gladly - The success of the Saviour in his preaching was chiefly among the common or the poorer class of people. The rich and the mighty were too proud to listen to his instructions. So it is still. The main success of the gospel is there, and there it pours down its chief blessings. This is not the fault of “the gospel.” It would bless the rich and the mighty as well as the poor, if they came with like humble hearts. God knows no distinctions of men in conferring his favors; and wherever there is a poor, contrite, and humble spirit - be it clothed in rags or in purple - be it on a throne or on a dunghill - there he confers the blessings of salvation.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

According to St. Matthew it was principally to the Pharisees that Christ proposed this question. See Matthew 22, 41.

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).

See Poole on "Mat 22:41", and following verses to Mat 22:46. Matthew saith that Christ spake this to the Pharisees, who were very far from acknowledging Christ God man, or indeed expecting a Messiah that should be so. Had they owned Christ, and the hypostatical union of the two natures in him, the answer had been easy.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Our Lord was now in the temple, and he took the opportunity for instructing the scribes and Pharisees concerning his person and his dignity. Thus, as ever, he returned good for evil. He here taught them that the Messiah was not a mere man, as they supposed, but that he was i both God and man, and that therefore they ought not to wonder or to be offended because he called himself the Son of God. St. Matthew (Mat_22:42) more fully gives their answer first, namely, that "Christ is the Son of David." They should have said that, as God, he was the Son of God, according to those words, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee;" but that, as man, he was the Son of David. Their answer was very different from that of Peter: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." But they wanted the Divine knowledge which the disciples had gained.

Vers. 35-40. The scribes.

The profession of scribes, which had existed among the Jews ever since the Captivity, was in itself an honorable and useful profession. And there were members of this learned body who came into contact with the Lord Jesus who showed a candid disposition, a love of the truth, and who evinced respect and admiration for the great Rabbi. Yet some of the most bitter and virulent of our Lord"s enemies were of this class. Their superiority to the people was a snare as well as an advantage. Many of them hid beneath the cloak of learning an evil heart, selfishness, arrogance, and unspirituality. In the discourse of Jesus here recorded, we find a protest against the general teaching, and a protest against the too common character, of these adversaries of his ministry and doctrine.

I CHRIST"S CORRECTION OF THE SCRIBES" TEACHING REGARDING THE MESSIAH.

1. What was this teaching? It was the simple statement, that the Messiah should be a descendant of David. This was Scriptural truth, and the Gospels exhibit its application to Jesus. But it was only part of the truth.

2. In what respects did Jesus add to this conception of the Messiah? He quoted from the Scriptures, and he attributed their declarations to the inspiration of the Holy! Spirit. And thus he transmuted the bald doctrine of the scribes into a doctrine full of spiritual significance and dignity. These points especially are brought out:

(1) Preeminence is assigned to the Messiah over even his illustrious ancestor, David.

(2) The Messiah is represented as the Assessor of the Most High himself.

(3) The Messiah is depicted as the Conqueror of his foes. In all these respects the truly Scriptural representation of the Christ is an immense advance upon the customary teaching of the Jewish scribes. Thus Christ teaches concerning himself.

II CHRIST"S DENUNCIATION OF THE CHARACTER AND CONDUCT OF THE SCRIBES.

1. Their loud professions of sanctity, and their ostentatious devotions, are censured. Long prayers may sometimes be the outcome of deep feeling and many needs; they may, as in the case of these scribes, be a cloak for sin. Long robes, like long prayers, may be a profession with which nothing spiritual corresponds. Hypocrisy was a crying evil of the times. There is no vice that is more hateful to God; and it may be questioned whether it often imposes upon men.

2. Their love of pre-eminence is blamed. Both in "Church and State" they loved to be supreme, and in all social relations they sought the honor which cometh from man. In the synagogues, in the market, places, and at festive gatherings the scribes would fain be first.

3. Their cruel rapacity is held up to obloquy. The bereaved and the defenceless were their victims. On some pretext or other they gained possession or management of the property of widows, and were not satisfied until they appropriated the whole. There are those in our own days, and in Christian lands, who grow rich by similar practices, and who incur by such infamous cruelty "the wrath of the Lamb.

4. Christ predicts the condemnation of such sinners, and at the same time puts the people on their guard against them. His threat of condemnation was authoritative; and his warning was one which was needed and timely. Against the wrongs and cruelties, the assumptions and the errors of such pretenders, the Good Shepherd would fain protect his feeble and defenceless sheep.

Vers. 35-37. Great David"s greater Son,

I UNSPIRITUAL INTERPRETERS OF SCRIPTURE ARE INVOLVED IN INCONSISTENCY AND SELF-CONTRADICTION,

1. In the present instance they proved to be so with respect to the most important truths. It is only the spiritual mind that can harmonize the apparent discrepancies of revelation (1Co_2:14; cf. Heb_5:12, seq.).

2. This results in their cure loss and injury. (1Pe_3:16) They failed to recognize the Messiah when he did come, because of their false conceptions of what he was.

II THE GLORY OF THE MESSIAH IS SEEK FROM PROPHETIC SCRIPTURE TO BE MORE THAN ROYAL TO BE, IN FACT, DIVINE. The hundred and tenth psalm is rightly called "a psalm of David." Merely to apply it to David is to destroy its Messianic character. "The psalm is not only quoted by our Lord as Messianic in the passages already referred to; (viz. this and Mat_22:41-46) it is more frequently cited by the New Testament writers than any other single portion of the ancient Scriptures. (Comp., besides these passages in the Gospels, Act_2:34, 35 1Co_15:25 Heb_1:13 Heb_5:6 Heb_7:17, 21 10:13) In later Jewish writings, in the Talmud and the rabbis, nearly every verse of the psalm is quoted as referring to the Messiah" (Perowne). The majority of ancient Jewish interpreters apply the psalm to the Messiah (Strauss, "Leben Jesu," 2:6, 79). If, then, it is David"s own composition, and is Messianic, the language used with respect to the Royal One who is to come is only to be explained as involving divinity: "Jehovah said to my Lord.

III IN APPLYING THE PSALM TO HIMSELF, CHRIST SUGGESTED THE TRUE SOLUTION OF THE APPARENT CONTRADICTION. The psalm is deliberately and by implication adopted by Christ. He testifies to the Divine inspiration of its author. His own person and work are the key to its meaning. As he was Son of David on the human side, so was he David"s Lord by virtue of his Divine Sonship. M.

Vers. 35-37. David"s Son.

I David"s prophetic spirit. "He was moved by the spirit of truth when he foretold that his son would rule over all, and when he owned him as Lord." The psalm had originally another bearing. But as all true poesy "smacks of something greater than it seems," and has deeper meanings than meet the eye, so did the words of the psalmist reach forth into remoter times and higher relations.

II Christ"s identification. "He declared that he was the Son of David, and that his priesthood and kingdom were universal and everlasting. J.

Vers. 35-37. Parallel passages: Mat_22:41-46 Luk_20:41-44. The counter-question of our Lord.

I QUESTION OF OUR LORD IN TURN. Our Lord had by this time been asked, and had triumphantly answered, the most perplexing, difficult, and delicate questions that the ingenuity of man could devise. His adversaries had been signally confuted, and covered with shame. These questions were five in all One concerned his authority; another was political, about the tribute money; the third was doctrinal, about the resurrection; the fourth speculative, about the greatest commandment; and the fifth disciplinary, about the adulteress. By his more than masterly reply to the first, he defeated the Sanhedrim: by his reply to the second, he surprised and silenced the Pharisees and Herodians; by his answer to the third, he confuted, if he did not convince, the sceptical Sadducees; by his reply to the fourth, he satisfied the Pharisaic scribe, learned in the Law; by his answer to the fifth, he settled, if not to the satisfaction of scribes and Pharisees, at least to their shame, the question of discipline. It is now time that, having passed this ordeal, he should retaliate.

II OBJECT OF HIS COUNTER-QUESTION. Our Lord"s design was not so much to show them their ignorance, and overwhelm them with confusion, as to instruct them with respect to the true character and person of the Christ. Their low views were to be elevated, their carnal notions were to be spiritualized, their blind eyes were to be enlightened. Their idea of the person of Messiah was that he would be just a man like themselves; of his position, that he would be a powerful temporal king; and of his reign, that it would extend over a great earthly kingdom. By his question he let light in upon their dark minds in reference to all these subjects. With the Scriptures in their hands, and all their trifling about the minute things concerning the letter, they had no right spiritual apprehension of their long-desired and much-respected Messiah. His question proves to them that Messiah was not only human, but Divine; not only David"s Son, but David"s Lord; that before his exaltation he must suffer humiliation. They expected a triumphant Messiah, but were not prepared for his lowly condition as a sufferer; they overleaped the cross, expecting all at once and from the first the crown. Crucifixion before glorification was what they could not understand; a spiritual kingdom of righteousness and peace and joy they would not understand, "their wish being fat to their thoughts.

III PRACTICAL USE OF THE QUESTION. "What think ye of Christ?" was his ques as recorded by St. Matthew. We repeat to ourselves and others the same que: What think we think ye of Christ?" What think ye of his life that less life, that surprising life, that life which believer and unbeliever alike so admire, and even rival each other in lauding and extolling? What think ye of events of that life its purity and yet its suffering, its power and yet its sorrows? What think ye of his death so wonderful in many ways, so singular in all its asp and so efficacious in all respects? What think ye of his resurrection? Are ye risen with him, to seek the things above? Do ye look to him as the firstfruits of a glorious harvest? and are ye seeking a part in the resurrection of the just? What think ye of his ascension? Are ye satisfied that he has ascended up on high, leading captl captive, and having received gifts, even for rebellious men? And have ye shared in t gifts? What think ye of his intercession? Do ye feel that he is interceding for and are ye glad right glad of having an Advocate with the Father, even Jesus Christ the righteous? By your answers to such questions ye may judge your state, entertain, we trust, "good hope through grace. J.J.G.

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

Matt. xxii, 41; Luke xx, 41.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

son of

i.e. David’s Son only. Cf. Rom 1:3; Rom 1:4

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

David’s Son and Lord.

v. 35. And Jesus answered and said, while He taught in the Temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David?

v. 36. For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.

v. 37. David therefore himself calleth Him Lord; and whence is He, then, his Son? And the common people heard Him gladly.

All the sects and organizations among the Jews had now had their tilt with the Lord, and in every case His word had prevailed. So thoroughly had He vanquished His enemies that no one dared to ask Him any more questions. But now His turn had come. He had a question to propose which is of prime importance, not only for the Jews, but for every person in the wide World to this day and hour: What think ye of Christ? Whose Son is He? The answer to this question has become so important that it may well be called the touchstone to determine a man’s theology and faith. Jesus asks: How is it that the scribes call Christ the Son of David? With what right do they do that? The appellation "Son of David" for the expected Messiah was so common in that day that the two names were used as synonyms, Mat 1:1; Mat 15:22; Mat 20:30; Mat 22:42; Mat 9:27; Mat 12:23; Mat 21:9. And the scribes were right in calling the Messiah thus, for He was a true descendant of David, 2Sa 7:12-16. Incidentally, however, it was also true what David said in Psa 110:1-7, calling the Messiah his Lord. The Lord, the eternal God and Father, had, in that great everlasting today, said to David’s Lord, to the only-begotten Son of His glory, Sit Thou on My right hand till I put Thine enemies below the footstool of Thy feet, till they are vanquished completely. Evidently the Messiah was here placed on an equality with God the Father. Now the question was how to reconcile the two statements, how to harmonize the apparent contradiction: David’s Lord, yet David’s Son. Note: Jesus expressly states that it was the Holy Ghost that inspired David to write these words as he did. Every believer has the answer ready and is firmly convinced of the truth of both statements: David’s Son, true man, a descendant of David according to the flesh, through His mother Mary possessing the true human nature, is, at the same time, true God, the Lord over all, indued with the power of the deity from eternity, and now sitting at the right hand of the power of God, also according to His human nature. In Him, according to both natures, is our trust; through Him, and through Him alone, we hope to be saved, we have salvation. While therefore the Jewish chiefs, the religious leaders, silently withdrew from the scene, the great multitude, among whom were also many pilgrims, heard Him gladly. And many a soul, weary with the stones of the doctrine of works, may, in these last days, have learned to believe in the Savior.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Pharisees had often put forth sevveral questions maliciously unto Christ, and now Christ puts forth one question innocently unto them; namely, What they thought of the Messiah whom they expected?

They reply, that he was to be the Soul of David: that is, a secular prince descending from David, who 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 mere man, the son of David according to the flesh, and nothing more.

Our Saviour replies, Whence is it then that David calls the Messiah Lord? The Lord said to my Lord, Sit though on my right hand Psa 110:1. How could he be both David’s Lord, and David’s son; no son being 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, 1. That although Christ was truly and really man, yet he was more than a bare man; he was Lord unto, and 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 man, was to come forth out of David’s loins; but as 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.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CIX. D. Jesus' Question].

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]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

35–37. How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David? See notes on Matt. 22:41–46. Mark adds to Matthew's account, The common people heard him gladly. Not the Pharisees, scribes, Sadducees or rulers, but the common people, of whom the Pharisees were wont to say, “This people who know not the law and are cursed” (John 7:49). We have many hints of the favor with which Christ was regarded by the people.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he said

Some time has passed and Jesus is now in the temple. This is not part of the previous conversation. AT: "Later, while Jesus was teaching in the temple area, he said to the people" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

How is it that the scribes say the Christ is the son of David?

Jesus uses this question to get the people to think deeply about the Psalm he is about to quote. This can be written as a statement. AT: "Consider why the scribes say the Christ is the son of David." (See: Rhetorical Question)

the son of David

"a descendant of David"

David himself

This word "himself" refers to David and is used to place emphasis on him and what he said. AT: "It was David who" (See: Reflexive Pronouns)

in the Holy Spirit

This means that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is, the Holy Spirit directed David in what he said. AT: "inspired by the Holy Spirit" (See: Idiom)

said, 'The Lord said to my Lord

Here David calls God "The Lord" and calls the Christ "my Lord." This can be written more clearly. AT: "said about the Christ, 'The Lord God said to my Lord" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

Sit at my right hand

Jesus is quoting a psalm. Here God is speaking to the Christ. To sit at the "right hand of God" is a symbolic action of receiving great honor and authority from God. AT: "Sit in the place of honor beside me" (See: Symbolic Action)

until I make your enemies your footstool

In this quote, God speaks of defeating enemies as making them into a footstool. AT: "until I completely defeat your enemies" (See: Metaphor)

calls him 'Lord,'

Here the word "him" refers to the Christ.

so how can the Christ be David's son?

This can be written as a statement. AT: "so consider how the Christ can be a descendant of David" (See: Rhetorical Question)

translationWords

temple

scribe

Christ

David

Holy Spirit

lord

hand

adversary

footstool

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

35–37. THE LORD’S QUESTION ABOUT THE SON OF DAVID

Mat 22:41-45. Luk 20:41-44

35. ἀποκριθείς. Syr-Sin. omits. As in Mar 9:5, Mar 11:14, Mar 15:12, we have ἀποκριθείς of responding to circumstances which elicit utterance. No words are recorded as calling for a reply; but His critics have been testing Him with questions, and now He closes the debate with a question of His own. Here the question is addressed to the people in His public teaching; Mt. says that the Pharisees gathered together and that He put the question to them. Lk. is indefinite.

Πῶς λέγουσιν. “In what sense can they make the statement?” Or “How can they maintain the statement?” This, however, may be making too much of πῶς. Perhaps “How can they say?” is all that is meant. The statement has obvious difficulty. As in the case of the Levirate law, Christ does not declare whether the statement is right or wrong; but He intimates that those who make it ought to be able to explain the difficulty. He is not asking a question for the mere purpose of baffling them (see on Mar 11:29); the answer to it would help them to understand who He was. The people had illustrated the teaching of the Scribes by hailing Him as the Messianic Son of David, and He had accepted that homage, so that His own position was clear. But how did those who resented that homage explain the Psalm?

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.

35-37.] The Pharisees baffled by a question concerning Christ and David. Mat 22:41-46. Luk 20:41-44. The reports are apparently independent of any common original, and hardly agree verbally in the citation from the LXX. See notes on Matt.

35.] The whole controversy in the temple is regarded as one: hence the new point raised by our Lord is introduced as a rejoinder, with ἀποκριθείς.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

35-37. Jesus now raises a question himself. Their questions have been really a challenge of his Messianic claim. His question is a criticism of their Messianic idea. They call the Messiah Son of David, and Jesus asks how the exalted language of the Psalm in which David calls him Lord can be applied to one who is only David’s son.

35. ἀποκριθεὶς—Answering their questions now by propounding one in his turn. πῶς λέγουσιν οἱ γραμματεῖς;—How do the Scribes say …? According to the statement of Mt., he asked the Scribes, What do you think about the Messiah? whose son is he? And when they answered David’s, then he raises his difficulty. This simply emphasizes what is stated also in our account, that this title is treated by him as Rabbinical rather than Scriptural.

This is not a conundrum, a Scriptural puzzle, but a criticism of the Messianic teaching of the Rabbis. By emphasizing his descent from David as the essential thing about him, they were in danger of passing over the really important matter, which made him not so much David’s son, but his Lord. He felt that the title, Son of David, into which the Scribes compressed their conception of the Messianic position, misrepresented by its narrowness the prophetic statement of the Messianic kingdom, and involved in itself all the errors of current Jewish Messianism. And he was conscious himself of a greatness that could not be ascribed to his descent from David, but was the result only of his unique relation to God. Hence his question, which does not intend to match their riddles with another, but is intended to expose the insufficiency of the Messianic idea taught by the Rabbis. For this purpose he selects a passage from Psa 110, which was currently ascribed to David and was classed as Messianic. In this Psalm, so interpreted, David is made to address the Messianic king as his Lord. And the argument is made to hinge on this address—How can David call him Lord, when he is David’s son? Right here, then, we have the gravest difficulty to be encountered anywhere in regard to the N.T. acceptance of the traditional view of the O.T. For criticism rejects the Davidic authorship of this Psalm. It does not allege plain anachronisms, as in many Psalms, e.g. the mention of the temple, or of the destruction of Jerusalem, in Psalms ascribed to David. But there are other signs which point plainly to the great improbability of Davidic authorship. In the first place, it belongs to a group of Psalms, Books IV. and V., of the Psalter, which is evidently of late date; and the reasons would have to be special and obvious which would lead us to detach it from the rest. Whereas, it bears all the marks common to the class. Moreover, if it was written by David, then we have to suppose that there was some person occupying his own position of theocratic king, but so much more exalted than he that he calls him Lord. And this could only be the Messiah, the final flower of the Davidic line, whom David sees in vision. But the Psalm in that case would stand entirely by itself as being simply a vision of an indefinite future, having no roots in the circumstances of the times, whereas all O.T. prophecy is of an immediate future growing directly out of the present. This leads immediately to the conclusion that the Psalm is addressed by the Psalmist to some reigning king, who is also somehow a priest, and that the writer cannot himself be a king. And, finally, the Messianic conception in the time of David had reached no further than this, that his royal line was not to fail, even if his sons and successors proved sometimes unworthy. But the idea of a Messianic king, who was to be the ideal and climax of the Davidic line, and whom David himself could call Lord, was the fruit only of a long period of national disaster, creating the feeling that only such a unique person could restore the national hopes. The idea of a personal Messiah belongs to the period succeeding the close of the canon. This is the essential reason for rejecting the Davidic authorship. How, then, if David did not write the Psalm, can we account for our Lord’s ascription of it to him? The explanation that will account for all the other cases of this kind, viz., that the authorship is of no account, leaving him free to accept the current view as a mere matter of nomenclature and identification, without committing him to an endorsement of it, will not do here, since the argument turns on the authorship. But the real explanation of all the cases is, that inspiration, which accounts for whatever extraordinary knowledge belonged to Jesus in his earthly life, does not extend to such matters of critical research as authorship. Inspiration belongs to the sphere of the moral and religious intuitions, and did not keep even Jesus from ignorance of matters outside of its sphere. And here, in its proper sphere, it gave him a view of the deeper meaning of Scripture, that led to his declaration that Son of David would come very far from adequately stating their view of the Messianic king. That would include the universalism of the prophets, and the suffering servant of Jehovah of Isaiah. Moreover, it would include a unique relation to God, and to universal manhood, that would place him in a different class from David, and an exalted position, which would be indicated by the titles chosen by himself, Son of Man and Son of God, rather than Son of David.

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