Mark records that no one had the courage to publicly ask Jesus any questions after this series of inquiries (Mark 12:34), but while Matthew essentially says the same thing, he places the remark after Jesus questioned his opponents (cp. Matthew 22:46). What occurred was the reigning authorities, the Sadducees and the Pharisees, had sought to either discredit Jesus in the eyes of the people or to so trap him in his words that would cause the governor to arrest him for provoking the people to rebel against Rome. Not only did their efforts fail, but Jesus emerged from the contest even more powerful with the public than before his enemies approached him (cp. Matthew 22:33).
It is characteristic in rabbinic Judaism that the question-and-answer method of discussion was used in debates. The Pharisees and Sadducees had their turn with interrogating Jesus, and he was expected to answer them, and not only did he answer well (Mark 12:28; Luke 20:39), but he did so in an astonishing manner (Mark 12:17; Matthew 22:33; Luke 20:26). Now, it was Jesus’ turn to ask, and the Pharisees and Sadducees were expected to reply to him!
Nevertheless, Jesus didn’t reply in kind. In other words, he didn’t seek to trap them in their words; they had already done that to themselves. They looked foolish, because Jesus had replied to their inquiries so well. Rather, Jesus simply appealed to the scriptures, asking them to offer their opinion on what was written. So, Mark tells us, while he was teaching his disciples and the public who were so intent on listening to him (Mark 12:35, 37), Jesus asked the Pharisees what they thought of the Messiah (Christ), whose son was he? To which, they replied: the son of David (Matthew 22:41-42). Then, the text says Jesus turned to his disciples and the people and asked them, how do the scribes say the Messiah is the son of David (Mark 12:35)? Therefore, Jesus’ approach was theological, not a trick question to get them in trouble with Rome, nor a foolish myth to discredit them in the eyes of the people.
Of course, Jesus’ intent wasn’t to deny that the Messiah came out of David’s lineage, so he explained the point he wanted to make. If David is the Messiah’s father, David must be greater than the Messiah, because David was first, and the Messiah came after him. This is always how things worked. Abraham was the greatest father, greater than Isaac and Jacob, and all who came later. Aaron was the greatest priest, greater than all who came after him in his lineage. Moses was Israel’s greatest savior, saving a nation out of slavery and bringing them into their inheritance. He was greater than all the saviors who would come later. David was Israel’s greatest king, greater than Solomon, his son, and greater than all his later descendants, all of whom who would reign over but a portion of the nation.
Nevertheless, while speaking in the Spirit, David calls the Messiah his Lord. That is, the Messiah is greater than David, Israel’s greatest king! How can this be, if the Messiah is David’s son? What makes the Messiah greater than his father David? This was the problem with the then current doctrine of the Messiah, namely, that he was only a descendant of David, and, therefore, was expected to act like his father—be his father’s image. The Messiah was expected to walk in David’s steps—conquering their enemies, which, in a context of Jesus, the son of David, would have been Rome during the first century AD).
Jesus’ point and actual charge against the scribe’s doctrine of the Messiah was David’s own words, for while speaking in the Spirit, David claimed the LORD, or God Almighty, spoke to the Messiah, telling him to sit at his right hand, until his (i.e., the Messiah’s) enemies were made his footstool (Mark 12:35-36; Psalm 110:1), or until they became his subjects. In telling the Messiah to sit at his right hand, i.e., upon the throne of God, the LORD was saying Messiah was not a mere man, because the LORD God refused to share his glory with any man (Isaiah 42:8; 48:11). Only God sits on the throne of God, and only God receives the glory of God.
Who did David ever call his Lord? If David called the Messiah his Lord, what did that make the Messiah (Mark 12:37; Matthew 22:46)? This was Jesus’ question, which he put to his enemies, and it was a question they were expected to answer, but they were unable, either through ignorance or through fear of what such an understanding would mean (cp. Mark 3:4). Therefore, no one dared make any other inquiries of him in public concerning his authority, because this fresh understanding of the Messiah was too explosive an issue to tamper with. Silence was more prudent, if they were ever to be successful in getting rid of this man, who seemed to be the darling of the public, for they heard him gladly (Mark 12:37). Rather, shrewd politics and the exploitation of the current but false teaching of the Messiah’s inability to die (cp. John 12:37), would be needed to sway the people to do their bidding (Mark 15:13-15; cp. Matthew 27:20).
Smoodock's Blog 
2 responses to “Who Is the Son of David?”
Wow! That is really an interesting point. I’ve often wondered while reading the gospels what exactly the Jews of that era thought about the Messiah vs what they believe now or vs what Christians 2000 years later believe. I knew from the passage that as the people believed Messiah was the Son of David that they thought he was less than David. But it never occurred to me that the sons were supposed to be in the image of the father, that they were always to follow in the footsteps of the first one – first father, first priest, first savior, etc. We know and believe Jesus as God is the first and all the leaders in the Bible are just man’s poor effort to be the image bearer of God as our true Father, Priest, Savior and King. Still it was eye opening to me to see that Christ’s argument wasn’t merely that the Messiah was greater than David his “father”, but that he isn’t in the image of David either and therefore isn’t sent to fight the enemies of Israel as a military/political savior/king. Instead, He sits in authority at the right hand of God until the LORD makes his enemies a footstool underneath his feet. How interesting that modern Christian followers feel comfortable with the Messiah who is a priest in the order of Melchizedek (with no earthly sacrifices) rather than in the image of Aaron, yet we still struggle with desiring a Messiah who is in the image of a human King. Yet God saw Israel’s desire for a king as a rejection of their first and one true King, God Himself. So the Messiah’s kingship wasn’t to be a reflection of David, but God. Thanks for sharing!
Thank you Shari for you comment. It is a very good analysis of the study. Lord bless you.