A Conversation Between God Series

Luke 20: 41-44

A Conversation Between God

41 And He said to them, “How can they say that the Christ is the Son of David? 42 Now David himself said in the Book of Psalms: ‘The LORD said to my Lord,

“Sit at My right hand, 43 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”’ 44 Therefore David calls Him ‘Lord’; how is He then his Son?”

If you look at the other Gospels you find that both Matthew and Mark also record the same incident of our Lord with the religious rulers. So, let’s take a look at them also to see if there is anything different or can shed more light on the passage.

Matthew 22:41-46 41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?” They said to Him, “The Son of David.” 43 He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying: 44 ‘The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool”’? 45 If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?” 46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore.”

Mark 12:35-37 35 Then Jesus answered and said, while He taught in the temple, “How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David? 36 For David himself said by the Holy Spirit: ‘The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”’ 37 Therefore David himself calls Him ‘Lord’; how is He then his Son?” And the common people heard Him gladly.

I mentioned last week that n Israel there were three religious groups during the time of our Lord Jesus Christ on earth, they were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes.

The most important of the three were the Pharisees because they are the spiritual fathers of modern Judaism. Their main distinguishing characteristic was a belief in an Oral Law that God gave to Moses at Mount Sinai along with the Torah. The Torah or Written Law was akin to the U.S. Constitution in the sense that it set down a series of laws that were open to interpretation. The Pharisees believed that God also gave Moses the knowledge of what these laws meant and how they should be applied. This oral tradition was codified and written down roughly three centuries later in what is known as the Talmud.

The Pharisees also maintained that an afterlife existed and that God punished the wicked and rewarded the righteous in the world to come. They also believed in a Messiah Who would herald an era of world peace.

The Pharisees were in a sense blue-collar Jews who adhered to the tenets developed after the destruction of the Temple; that is, such things as individual prayer and assembly in synagogues.

In our last study we dealt with the group called the Sadducees. They were concerned about His teaching about the resurrection. And they came to Him with what had been their standard beliefs leveled at all who taught and believed in the resurrection from the dead. Our Lord did a great mental fencing with them and won the debate.

In the wings, so to speak, were the Pharisees. So, having made two attempts to trick our Holy Master, The Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, into saying something that they could take to the Roman Authorities, the Pharisees withdrew to give the Sadducees a chance to argue with our Holy Lord. for the time being in order to nurse their wounds. They were deeply confused and troubled, but unable to do anything about it. Our Holy Adoni Yeshua had thwarted their every move, and shown them up in the process. Now, it was our Lord’s turn to ask them a question.

41 And He said to them, “How can they say that the Christ is the Son of David? 42 Now David himself said in the Book of Psalms: ‘The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, 43 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”’ 44 Therefore David calls Him ‘Lord’; how is He then his Son?”

Mark has “How do the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?” We must assume that some Rabbis, especially perhaps even with our Lord Jesus in mind, were downgrading ‘the Messiah to come’ into a lesser David, a mere ‘son of David’, in contrast with the glorious figure usually presented. Their idea may well have been someone who was subservient to the Pharisees.

The question of our Holy Master and King Jesus here would seem to be directed at a Rabbinic idea that the Christ was merely the son of David and therefore not superior to David, thus making him purely merely political and secondary. But Jesus wanted to bring out that the Messiah was not only superior to David, but was of a totally higher status. He Was and Is Lord over all. For even David addressed Him as ‘my Lord’, thus exalting the Messiah high above David. He leaves men to recognize how this applies to Himself.