The Jewish authorities had come with their questions, not looking for information, but to test Jesus, vis-à-vis they were seeking to find fault with him. They sought to acquire evidence that they might use to arrest him in public, evidence acceptable enough for the people that would permit the authorities to lay hold of Jesus without exciting the people into a riot. Originally, they sought to take Jesus prior to the Passover season (John 11:53, 56-57). However, time drew on, so they sought to do so after the eight-day feast had passed (Matthew 26:3-5; Mark 14:1-2). This decision, however, was made prior to Judas’ meeting with them, so his proposal to turn Jesus over to them secretly, in the absence of the multitude (Matthew 26:14-16; Mark 14:10-11; Luke 22:3-6), took precedence.
Therefore, in the context of the Jewish authorities’ failure to find fault with him, to allow an arrest in public and avoid an uproar (Matthew 22:15-33), Jesus took this opportunity, while the Pharisees were still gathered together, to put a question to them (Matthew 22:41). This is how a legitimate debate is conducted. It begins with the parties of the first part putting forth their questions, and afterward they conclude with their observations. However, while their questions were, indeed, put to Jesus, Jesus’ replies silenced them, and they were unable to effectually bring their efforts to success. In fact, according to Mark, one of their number even complimented Jesus on his replies (Mark 12:28, 32-33).
Now, it was Jesus’ turn to question the Jewish authorities, vis-à-vis put a question to them and conclude with his observation. While both the Jewish authorities and Jesus were able to ask their questions, the Jewish authorities were unable to present a legitimate reply that would support the reason for their questions. On the other hand, after Jesus silenced his opponents with his own question, he presented his observation in Matthew 23. There, he brought the true character of the Pharisees to light, and, there, he pronounced his Messianic judgment upon their evil deeds, while they sought to oppose both him and, later, his disciples, their doctrine of the unconquerable militant and heroic Messiah (John 12:34) notwithstanding.
So, Jesus presented his question to his opponents, asking the Pharisees about Christ, vis-à-vis the Messiah, “Whose Son is he?” And, of course, the Pharisees replied that the Messiah is the son of David (Matthew 22:42).
The idea behind Jesus’ question is that the son is never greater than the father. Abraham was the greatest of the patriarchs, and David was the greatest of Israel’s kings. All later kings were compared to David, his deeds and loyalty to God. However, if it is so, that the beginner or father of the line is the greatest, how is it that this is not so between David and the Messiah? If David is the father of the Messiah, how could David be referring to his son, when he prayed in the spirit “The LORD said unto **my** Lord (the Messiah), ‘Sit on my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool” (Psalm 110:1)? If David claimed the Messiah was his Lord, how could the Messiah be David’s son (Matthew 22:43-45)? The authorities sought to silence and embarrass Jesus with their questions, but in the end, Jesus silenced them, both with his replies to their questions, and in his own question, which he put to them. Thus, silenced, the authorities didn’t dare confront him with another question, from that time to Jesus’ crucifixion and death (Matthew 22:46). Thus silenced, Jesus had the right to express his conclusion on the debate conducted between himself and the Jewish authorities, and that conclusion is expressed in Matthew 23.
Leave a Reply