Luke
20:41-44
Culmination of Messiah's mission, 19:45-24:53
1. The Messiah and the Temple, 19:45-21:38
iv] David's greater son
SynopsisJesus' debate with the authorities in the Temple courts has silenced further debate such that "no one dared to ask him any more questions." So, Jesus takes the lead and poses his own tricky question, and in so doing, reinforces his philosophical superiority. The question raises a theological problem concerning David and his successor, and turns out to be an exegetical coup d'etat.
Teaching
Messianic authority resides with Jesus; he is well able to handle interpretive matters such as the relationship between David and his messianic successor, the Lord.
Issues
i] Context: See 19:45-20:18. Jesus' rhetorical engagement with the religious authorities on the subject of David and his greater son is the fourth episode of Jesus' temple ministry in Jerusalem, 19:45-21:38. This series of episodes recounts Jesus' debates with the religious authorities, all of which serve to enhance Jesus' philosophical qualifications as Israel's messiah, while exposing the blind state of religious Israel. The unwillingness of the authorities to give due recognition to Jesus' superior authority, confirms the inevitability of their divine judgment. Having revealed Jesus' authority and his wisdom with respect to legal and theological matters, Jesus goes on to address an interpretive problem concerning David and his greater son.
ii] Structure: David's greater son:
The question, v41;
Text, v42-43;
"the Lord said to my Lord ......"
The riddle, v44.
iii] Interpretation:
Again, in the context of a philosophical debate, Jesus reveals his authority. The Sadducees have posed a tricky question, and so Jesus poses his own in reply - a rather difficult problem of interpretation. The exegetical problem concerns the use of "lord" in Psalm 110, with reference to the Messiah. If David calls him "lord", how can he be David's son?
Jesus knows well that the theologians of his time believed that the Messiah was David's son, and at the same time, from Psalm 110, that David referred to his son as "lord". In the patriarchal order of a family, an elder would never honour a younger family member with the title "lord"; it should be the other way round. So, Jesus leaves his audience with a conundrum.
Jesus may not give a direct answer to the conundrum, but it is implied. Just as one's obligation is not either to Caesar or to God, but rather both to Caesar and to God, so the messiah is not either David's son or Lord, but is both David's son and Lord. The messiah sits at the right hand of David, and the right hand of the Ancient of Days. The early church, resting on apostolic testimony, confessed Jesus as Lord, and the synoptists would be well aware of this confession. So, it seems likely that the lordship of Christ is implied in this passage, that he is not just co-regent with David, but also co-regent with God the Father.
So, the question takes on the shape of a riddle about the coming kingdom of God, and only those with eyes to see have any hope of unlocking it.
iv] Synoptics:
See 3:1-20.. Parallels to this pronouncement story are found in Mark 12:35-37, and Matthew 22:41-46. Luke's context is still in line with Mark, although Luke does not record the question on the greatest commandment, Mark 12:28-34. Luke has already used an edited version of this question to introduce the parable of the Good Samaritan, cf., 10:25-28. Mark's notes on the setting are not found in Luke, given that Luke has already outlined the setting in his treatment of the question concerning the resurrection, eg., v40 is used by Matthew and Mark to conclude this episode. Given Luke's interest in the Holy Spirit, it is interesting how Luke has "David himself says in the Book of Psalms", whereas Mark has "David himself said in the Holy Spirit." This possibly indicates that Luke is using his own source tradition, although most commentators hold that he is using Mark.
Text - 20:41
David's greater son, v41-44. i] The question, v41. Given the context, Jesus is addressing the scribes (Matthew has Pharisees, although most scribes were Pharisees), and as for "they say", presumably again the scribes are in mind, or possibly Israel's religious teachers in general (Mark has "How say the scribes that ...."). It is likely that an impersonal sense is intended; "How can it be said that Messiah is David's son?", Barclay. From scripture, Biblical scholars had determined that the Messiah would be a descendant of David, but given the following text from Psalm 110, how can this be?
de "then" - but/and. Transitional, indicating a step in the narrative.
proV + acc. "to them" - [he said] to them. This preposition + acc. is used here instead of a dative to introduce an indirect object; see proV, 1:61.
pwV "why" - how, why [do they say]. Introducing a direct question. Here probably rhetorically seeking an explanation, as with Barclay's translation above, rather than "how" messiah's Davidic link should be interpreted - more a "Why?" than a "How?"
ei\nai (eimi) pres. inf. "that [the Messiah] is" - [the christ] to be [david son]? The infinitive introduces an object clause / dependent statement of indirect speech expressing what they say, namely, that the Messiah is David's son. The accusative subject of the infinitive is "the Christ, Messiah."
v42
ii] The text, v42-43. Obviously, Psalm 110 was held to be a Davidic psalm at the time, so the exegetical problem presents itself in the first line of the Psalm with "The Lord (YHWH) says to my (ie., David's) Lord (ie., the messiah)." The text seems to imply that the messiah is someone other than David's son, given that a son is not honoured above his father, thus the question posed in v41.
gar "-" - for, because. Introducing a causal clause explaining why the posed question in v41 is a conundrum; "Because David, writing in Psalm 110:1 says ....."
yalmwn (oV) gen. "of Psalms" - [david he = himself says in book] of psalms. The genitive is adjectival, descriptive, idiomatic / identification; "in the book known as Psalms."
tw/ kuriw/ (oV) "to [my] Lord" - [the lord said] to the lord [of me]. Dative of indirect object. The genitive "of me" is adjectival, possessive, or idiomatic / subordination, "over me." The force of the conundrum is lost somewhat in the Hebrew because "Lord .... Lord" is "YHWH .... Adonai", but Jesus is likely speaking in Aramaic where it is "Mar .......Mar."
ek + gen. "at" - [sit down] from [the right of me]. Technically expressing separation, but when used with dexiwn, "right", the sense is local, "at".
v43
eJwV a]n + subj. "until" - until [i put the enemies of you]. This construction introduces an indefinite temporal clause, future time in relation to the main verb "to sit"; "sit ....... until I put = make ...."
uJpopodion (on) "a footstool" - a footstool. Accusative complement of the direct object "the enemies", standing in a double accusative construction and stating a fact about the object.
twn podwn (oV ewV) gen. "for [your] feet" - of the feet [of you]. The genitive is adjectival, idiomatic / local; "a footstool where your feet can rest." The footstool image is used of the suppression of one's enemies. The translation provided by TH in Lengua makes the point, "I beat down to the ground your enemies and put them underneath your feet like grass."
v44
iii] The riddle, v44. If David calls the messiah "Lord", how can he be David's son? Answer, he is both David's son / heir and Lord ......, ie., calling the messiah the son of David doesn't even come close to identifying who he actually is.
oun "-" - therefore. Inferential, drawing a logical conclusion from the text; "As scripture shows us, David calls him Lord."
pwV "how" - how [is he son of him]? Introducing a direct question; "How is it possible for him to be his son?" Marshall argues that the first part of the verse virtually functions as the first part / protasis of a conditional clause, so, "If David then calls him 'Lord', (then) how can he be his son?", NET.
![[Pumpkin Cottage]](images/cottage1s.gif){kind=small}
lectionarystudies.com