Here's the scene: it is Holy Week. Jesus has already entered Jerusalem triumphantly. Supporters are watching and waiting to see if He will announce His identity as Messiah and thus begin the revolution. Enemies are trying to trap Him and catch Him in a mistake.
Luke 20 begins as Jesus is at the temple, teaching and preaching. Representatives of the religious establishment show up, all hot and bothered. Who gave Jesus the authority to be here speaking? Jesus deftly turns the question back on them, asking who gave John the Baptist authority for his ministry. This the religious leaders refuse to answer, sensing it is a no-win proposition. Jesus, likewise, refuses to answer their demands for His credentials.
Sensing their hostility, Jesus tells a dramatic parable of rejection. It is the story of a vineyard whose owner is disrespected and rejected by the tenants. Considering that the nation of Israel is sometimes depicted in the Old Testament as a vineyard, this parable is especially poignant. It indicates a coming judgment on the people for their rejection of God's ambassadors and, ultimately, His Son.
The discourse continues with another trap set for Jesus. He is asked (maliciously) if the people should pay taxes to Rome or not. To say "no" is to be branded as a treasonous threat to the government; to say "yes" is to capitulate and lose the support of the common folk who despised the presence of Rome in their country. Jesus artfully threads the needle, replying that our duty is to give Caesar what is due Caesar, and to give God what is due God.
Having just evaded one snare, another is posed by the Sadduccees. They have a conundrum - how does marriage work in the resurrection? Not believing in life after death, they basically ask a brain-teaser about which of seven brothers who all marry a woman in sequence will have her as a wife in the next world. Without going into specifics, Jesus indicates that we cannot bring a worldly understanding of marriage into a heavenly context - we will be more like angels than human beings. Then He comes down squarely on the side of a belief in the resurrection of the dead, citing as evidence God's relationship to His people.
Having passed through the fiery trials of these questions, Jesus has one of His own. What is the relationship between David and the Messiah? Is David greater than the Messiah, as is often implied by calling the Messiah a "Son" of David? But if so, why would David call Him his "Lord?" That is a title reserved for someone greater than David. Leave it to Jesus to describe how the Messiah can be both a Son of David (a descendant) and David's Lord (the divine presence of God)!
I feel like I am left hanging here in vv. 41-43. Jesus asks a question about why is it said that the Messiah is the son of David? And then "David calls him, Lord. How then can he be his son?" What's the answer?
ReplyDeleteJesus likes to answer questions with questions. I love the "whose authority " conversation. They don 't want to trap themselves. They want to trap Jesus. I love how he tells them that if they don 't know who (obviously) gave John authority, he 's not answering their question about His! It 's the same with the David 's Lord /Son statement. "Duh, I have always been."
DeleteThis answer may be a little late (almost three years!) but I think I am just seeing your question for the first time. I believe the answer lies in the fact that Jesus is pointing out the conundrum that David gives the title "Lord" to the Messiah, who is also a descendant of David. In that culture, one would never give their descendant such an accolade. I think the Christian answer that Jesus is fully God and fully human (a descendant of David) explains how Jesus is both "Lord" to David and his "son."
Delete