CHAPTER 22
Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son.” Matthew 22:1-2
This parable is quite similar to the one in Luke 14:16-24, but while it is similar, there are many differences in details that make it impossible for the two to be identical.1 Several commentators have mentioned that since Jesus was a good teacher, he probably often repeated his teachings. It seems that similar parables were used on different occasions as Jesus fitted them to the applications he wished to make. Thus, we should not necessarily try to conform the parables to each other.
Luke’s version of the parable concerned only a man who gave a banquet, while here we note that it is a king who gave the banquet. When a king gave a wedding banquet for his son, it was no light or small matter. Ancient kings often held the authority of life and death over their subjects. “The honor of being invited by a king – and the terror of displeasing him – would have motivated intelligent invitees to attend.” 2 To spurn the offering of a king was a very foolish and dangerous thing. Rather, to have a wedding invitation from the king should have brought forth much joy, excitement and anticipation, for such an invitation was a great honor.
We cannot miss the fact that behind this parable was the idea of the great Messianic Banquet (cf. 8:11; Isa. 25:6-8 and Rev. 19:7-9) that would be given at the close of the age.3 God, the King of the Universe, will be the one giving this banquet and it will be given at the marriage of his Son as he takes his holy and beautiful bride, the church. What an honor it will be to have an invitation for this banquet! However, millions of people, by their doubt and procrastination, are even now rejecting the Lord’s invitation. We need not only to rejoice over the invitation, but we need to accept it and be ready to go to the banquet when the call is made.
There is the shocking story of a professional singer by the name of Ruthann Metzgar. She had sung at the wedding for the son of a very wealthy man. Now, it was time to enjoy the extremely lavish wedding banquet on the top two floors of the Columbia Tower, the highest skyscraper in Seattle.
She and her husband Roy waited anxiously as the bride and groom ascended the beautiful glass and brass staircase that led to the top floors, with all the guests following. Already, they were being offered luscious hors d’oeuvres and exotic beverages. At the top of the stairs, a maitre d’ with a bound book greeted the guests outside the doors. He said, “May I have your name please?” “I am Ruthann Metzgar and this is my husband, Roy.” He searched the M’s. “I’m not finding it. Would you spell it please?” Ruthann spelled her name slowly. After searching the book, the maitre d’ looked up and said, “I’m sorry, but your name isn’t here.”
Ruthann protested, saying there had to be some mistake, since she had just sung at the wedding. The maître d’ responded that it did not matter what she had done, she could not go to the banquet since her name was not listed with the guests. The Metzgars were immediately referred to the waiter who ushered them to the elevator.
They followed the waiter as they passed beautifully decorated tables loaded with shrimp, smoked salmon and magnificent carved ice sculptures. There were musicians in dazzling white tuxedos all preparing to perform. The Metzgars were bewildered and saddened as they made their exit. Later, on their way home, the wife confessed that she had failed to return the RSVP for the banquet, since she assumed that she would be included because she was part of the wedding.4 We think today of all the millions who will someday be terribly and eternally disappointed at not being included at the great wedding banquet of Christ. These have failed to officially accept and respond to God’s generous offer. They may have even sung in the church choir, taught Sunday School, or even preached the gospel, but they will not be included because they have not responded to the Lord’s generous offer of salvation.
“He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come” (22:3). In those days it was customary to send an initial invitation and then, when the banquet was ready, to send a second invitation.5 In other words, the invitees had already received and accepted the invitation and were now only being reminded that it was time to come. To refuse the king, as we have said, was an extremely dangerous action. We do not want to miss the fact that the people who were originally invited to this great banquet were the people of Israel.6 This was not only the rejection of the century but the rejection of all the ages.
“Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet’” (22:4). Here the king seeks to tantalize the invitees with a description of his luscious meal. It was to be a grand feast with fattened oxen and calves, food that only the wealthy could afford.7 It was not just a single meal but a lavish feast that would last for days.
“But they paid no attention and went off— one to his field, another to his business” (22:5). Calvin comments: “It is truly base and shameful, that men who were created for a heavenly life, should be under the influence of such brutish stupidity, as to be entirely carried away after transitory things.” 8 Blomberg says of these that, “…They compound their culpability by adding apathy to rejection…” 9 Keener adds, “Ignoring the king would be scandalously rude, would probably suggest treasonous feelings and would certainly invite a king’s wrath…” 10
This scenario reminds us so much of our day when millions are chasing after “things” and “stuff.” They are also chasing after the selfish mental illusions of this present age and there is no room in all their thoughts for God (Psa. 10:4). For many today, materialism is absolute, and they, “cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door,” as Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin says. 11 They are so busy making a living that they do not have time to make a life.12
“The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them” (22:6). There had been biblical examples of this kind mistreatment of messengers. Josephus tells how when Hezekiah issued invitations to the Israelites to come to the feast of the Passover, many of those who received them killed his messengers.13 On numerous occasions the people of Israel had mistreated the prophets who brought to them God’s gracious invitation (e.g. Jer. 20:2; 37:15).
“The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city” (22:7). As we have mentioned, this parable is a picture of how the people of Israel had rejected the Lord’s prophets. Many commentators see in this verse a prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman general Titus in AD 70.14 At this event the holy temple itself would be burned to the ground. In the Bible this was a normal way of totally defeating an adversary (Deut.13:16; Jer. 21:10).
THE WEDDING BANQUET PROCEEDS
Then he said to his servants, “The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.” Matthew 22:8-9
The king was determined to have a wedding banquet for his son so he would stop at nothing. If those invited would not come he would turn to the uninvited and the unworthy.
We note here that the servants were sent to the road intersections that they might gather anyone they found to the banquet. Commentators see in this action the coming evangelization of the Gentiles (cf. Lk. 14:23-24).15 Paul will later spell out this mystery in Romans 11:11. Because the Jews, the invited guests, refused to come the door would be flung wide open for the Gentiles in the coming centuries. But according to God’s great mercy the Jews would at last be made envious and they too would come.
“So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad as well as the good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests” (22:10). In other places we see that the kingdom is much like a dragnet. It brings in all kind of people, the good and the bad (cf. 13:47, 48).16 Many who are swept into the kingdom will not continue or last there. The church is thus always a mixture of wheat and tares or wheat and chaff (cf. 3:12). In the end only the wheat will survive and the rest will be swept away by God’s judgment.
“But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. He asked, ‘How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend?’ The man was speechless” (22:11-12 ). This story used to anger me when I would read it. Let’s stop and try to get the picture here. Perhaps this man was a ragged bum who had not eaten in a couple of days. Now he is ushered into the king’s great banquet hall. We can imagine him holding his fork and spoon and drooling at the wonderful smells of roast beef. Then the king comes in, takes one look at him, and screams out “Get that man out of here!” So they take the poor guy, maybe with his fork and spoon still in his hand, and throw him out of the banquet hall and into the gutter. Now is that fair?
It is absolutely fair. You see, the bum had neglected to do one important thing. He had neglected to put on the nice white wedding garment that the king had provided for each of his guests. Commentators have had long discussions about whether or not such wedding garments were provided by rulers in ancient times. In those times there were some examples of this.17 The story makes plain that people were gathered from the streets in whatever condition they were in and hustled off to the banquet. Theologically speaking it is imperative that the wedding garment was provided by the Lord. Each one was to put on Christ (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27). Each guest was to be clothed with the robes of righteousness (Psa. 132:16; Zech. 3:3-5; Rev. 3:4-5; 19:7-8).18 We cannot clothe ourselves with these garments for all our righteousness is like filthy rags (Isa. 64:6). Our clothing must be provided by God.
We see here that the man was speechless. On that last day there will be no excuses for those who have failed to put on the wedding garment. As Christians, we have a wonderful opportunity to clothe ourselves with Christ and with the robes of righteousness. Instead, many Christians prefer to clothe themselves with the comfortable rags of the old life. All this falls under the great doctrine of sanctification. While we are cleansed and robed instantly when we come to Jesus (1 Cor. 6:11), there is a progressive form of sanctification which involves our continual cleansing and our continual putting on of Christ in our daily lives (Phil. 2:12). This part is often neglected in our day.
“Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ ‘For many are invited, but few are chosen’” (22:13-14). This is a scary parable. Coffman says, “Sitting down at the marriage feast was not alone sufficient to insure the favor of the king. Membership in the church, and acceptance of its privileges, are not enough to assure eternal life.” 19 This picture emphasizes, “For many are invited, but few are chosen.” Blomberg says, “Divine sovereignty and human responsibility are again finely balanced.” 20 We each have a responsibility to put on Christ and live holy lives each day. To fail at this is to face future and eternal consequences. Pfeiffer and Harrison even feel that the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” speaks of Gehenna.21
PAYING TAXES TO CAESAR
Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. Matthew 22:15
It is so amazing that the Pharisees, the learned Bible scholars of Jesus’ day, literally had no interest in Jesus the Messiah or in his teaching. They only wished to trap him in his words and bring about his destruction. They had studied the word most of their lives but now they were missing the Living Word who was sent down from heaven for their salvation.
The Pharisees and others of the day’s intelligentsia only wanted to examine Jesus to see if they could find a fault in him. What an incredible parallel this made to the public examination of the Passover lamb spoken of in Exodus 12:3-6.22 In olden days, they had to take their lambs and keep them separate from the tenth to the fourteenth day of the month of Nisan. If there was no fault in them they could then be sacrificed as the Passover lambs. How closely this compared with Jesus being carefully inspected by the leaders of Israel during that very same period, and how they found no fault in him.
“They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. ‘Teacher,’ they said, ‘we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are’” (22:16). We notice here that the Herodians were a party to this trickery. The Herodians appear only here in Matthew (cf. Mk. 3:6). Apparently, they were clients of the Herod family, particularly of Herod Antipas.23 From what we know, they were strong enemies of the Pharisees, yet their hatred of Jesus brought them together. Keener says that while the Pharisees were nationalistic, the Herodians were clients of Herod, who was a Roman vassal. The Herodians hoped for the restoration of Herodian rule in Judea. They were disturbed by messianic figures that might cause Rome to tighten up on its control.24
Both the Herodians and the Pharisees began their interview with Jesus by shameless flattery. They were saying things to him that they would never believe about him. As the Bible says, “…they flatter with their lips but harbor deception in their hearts” (Ps. 12:2).
“Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?” (22:17). It would help us to understand a little about Roman taxation. There were three regular taxes that had to be paid to the Roman government. First there was the ground tax, or one tenth of the grain produced and one fifth of the oil and wine. Second, there was the income tax which amounted to one percent of a person’s income. Then there was the poll tax that had to be paid by every male between ages of fourteen to sixty-five and every female from twelve to sixty-five. This poll tax amounted to a denarius.25 It is likely that the poll tax is the one under consideration here. Of course, a denarius was a normal day’s pay for a working man.
This tax money went directly to the Emperor and was used to maintain the luxurious lifestyles of the elite in Rome. The money also went to maintain the pagan temples of the empire.26 This fact must have certainly galled the Jewish people who felt that there was only one True God.
No doubt, the Pharisees and Herodians thought they had the perfect trap set for Jesus. If Jesus said that it was right to pay the imperial tax, he would alienate most of his following, who despised the tax. If he said it was not right to pay the tax, the Herodians were standing ready to turn him in to the government so that he could be charged with treason.27 Undoubtedly, Matthew had a keen interest in this discussion since he was a former tax gatherer.28
“But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, ‘You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?’” (22:18). On several occasions Jesus had already called these people hypocrites. In the Greek language this word meant “stage-players” (cf. 6:2). In the next chapter (23:13ff.) Jesus will give the Pharisees a total broadside by publicly labeling them as hypocrites in several areas of their lives.
“‘Show me the coin used for paying the tax.’ They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, ‘Whose image is this? And whose inscription?’” (22:19-20). The silver denarius that was probably minted in Lyon, was the coin required to pay taxes throughout the empire.29 On the front of this coin there was a picture of Tiberius Caesar. The inscription on the coin read, “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the Divine Augustus.” On the back of the coin there was another picture of Tiberius seated on his throne, with the inscription of “Highest Priest.” 30 We can immediately understand how this coin was offensive to the Jewish people.
“‘Caesar’s,’ they replied. Then he said to them, ‘So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (22:21). Jesus gave them a masterful reply. The coin was made in Caesar’s image and they were to give it back to him. However, humans were made in God’s image (Gen. 1:26) and he alone must receive their service and devotion. In other words, “Caesar had the right to claim their tax money, but he had no claim on their souls.” 31 As Osborne says, “The Pharisees and Herodians thought they could trap Jesus by forcing him to choose between two responsibilities. He stunned them by choosing both.” 32
The implications of this great teaching would echo through the early church. Paul would write about our duties to the government in Romans 13:1-7, and Peter would do the same in 1 Peter 2:13-17 (cf. Jer. 27:5-22; 38:17-20). As Christians we have an enduring responsibility to support our governing authorities and to pay taxes so that we can live in some measure of peace with them. We also have a responsibility to pray for our political leaders (1 Tim. 2:1-2).
“When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away” (22:22). They were ashamed to be caught in their own trap. Like egg-sucking dogs, discovered in the act, they slinked away in utter disgrace.
JESUS ON MARRIAGE AND THE RESURRECTION
That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. Matthew 22:23
We have previously discussed the Sadducees in 3:7 and 16:1-12. We are reminded that they were the wealthy, aristocratic priestly class. Unfortunately, they did not believe in spiritual things like angels, the life to come or the resurrection (Acts 23:8). They only accepted the five books of Moses and paid no attention to the vast Oral Law that the Pharisees and scribes had devised. 33 Guzik says, “The Sadducees were the ancient version of the modern liberal theologians. They were anti-supernaturalistic.” 34
“‘Teacher,’ they said, ‘Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him’” (22:24). The Sadducees were referring here to the quaint and early practice of levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5-10; Ruth 3:1— 4:12). The word levirate originated from the Latin levir, which meant a husband’s brother.35 As we have noted earlier in the chronologies, a good number of people could trace their lineage through levirate marriages. Even the Lord Jesus could trace his natural lineage through Boaz and Ruth, a famous example of the levirate marriage (Ruth 4:1ff.).
Having children was extremely important to the people of the Old Covenant. They all had hopes that they might participate in bringing forth the Messiah of Israel. To be childless was therefore a disgrace. It was also a disgrace for a surviving brother to refuse to marry his brother’s widow. The widow could spit in his face before the town elders (Deut. 25:9).
“Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother” (22:25). The Sadducees may have sat up all night coming up with this conundrum. Also, it might have been the standard stock defense they used against those who believed in the resurrection.36 Since “seven” is the Bible’s perfect number, it leads us to believe that the whole story was fabricated.
“The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” (22:26-28). I think that most men would have been very hesitant to marry the widow after her third husband had died. “Some second-century rabbis proposed that a two-or-three widow should not marry again, lest she bring harm on her next husband too.” 37 The Sadducees, who knew nothing but this earthly life, were picturing heaven in terms of this world. Unfortunately, many people do the same thing today.
“Jesus replied, ‘You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God’” (22:29). Jesus made the same charge to the Sadducees as he had to the Pharisees. They did not know their scripture. The Sadducees had cut the Old Testament down to the Pentateuch only, the five books of Moses, and they were not even familiar with these, as Jesus would reveal. If the Sadducees had opened themselves up to the rest of the Bible they would have had plenty of proof of the Resurrection (Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2; Job 19:25-27). They also did not know the power of God. With God all things are possible (19:26).
“At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (22:30). Some have thought that the angels in heaven are sexless. However, when angels appear in the scriptures they are usually male figures (Gen. 18:2, 16; 19:1-11; Mk. 16:5). Others have assumed that angels could not procreate. We might make that claim about the angels in Heaven, but not about fallen angels. We read of fallen angels procreating in Genesis 6:1-4. These angels chose to leave Heaven and come to earth, uniting themselves with certain women. Apparently these rebellious angels were later placed in chains awaiting their judgment (2 Pet. 2:4ff.).38
Godly marriage is a wonderful and fulfilling thing on earth but it will not be necessary in Heaven. There will be no death there and no need for procreation. Guzik says, “The glory of heaven will be a relationship and connection with God that surpasses anything else, including present family relationships (Rev. 21:22-23)… If it seems that life in the resurrection that Jesus spoke of here does not include some of the pleasures of life we know on earth, it is only because the enjoyments and satisfactions of Heaven far surpass what we know on earth.” 39 In Heaven we will be like the Lord (1 Jn. 3:2). We will certainly recognize former wives, husbands, family member and friends (Lk. 16:23-24). The Apostle Paul says: “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Cor. 13:12). In this section the Lord gave some fresh, new teaching that was not revealed before.
“But about the resurrection of the dead— have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living” (22:31-32). Again, the Sadducees, like the Pharisees, had not paid enough attention to their own scriptures. It is interesting that here Jesus quotes Exodus 3:6, which was found in the Pentateuch, that part of scripture that the Sadducees accepted.40 In Hebrew the “am” is implied. For instance, if I introduced myself in Hebrew I might say, “Ani Gim” (meaning “I Jim”). Or I could say “Ani holek le ir.” (“I going to town”). Thus the English “am” is always implied and thus supplied, just as it is in this scripture.
God did not say, “I was the God of Abraham before he died.” Rather he says, “I am the God of Abraham.” This simply means that Abraham, who lived some four thousand years ago, is still alive. What devastating information for the Sadducees! This evidence would have been fully acceptable in any Rabbnic debate.41 Obviously, it blew the Sadducees away and astounded everyone else.
“When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching” (22:33). Osborne says: “These discussions with the Pharisees, Herodians and Sadducees were public, with crowds standing around as important but silent participants…They saw Jesus as much wiser than their religious leaders.” 42
JESUS GIVES THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT
Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. Matthew 22:34
The Pharisees may have had a little delight as Jesus so easily defeated their enemies, the Sadducees. Actually, the Greek word was that he had “muzzled” them.43 Still, they had probably been licking their own wounds from their earlier bout with Jesus. They just could not accept defeat. So, they came back for another round. It was agreed that one of their great experts would come forward and test the Lord. That would prove to be another big mistake.
“One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: ‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’” (22:35-36). The Bible scholars of that day were big on classifying scriptures and grading them as to whether they were “light” or “heavy” in their commands.44 They had come up with 613 commandments in all. It was their practice to try and find one command which summarized other commands.45
“Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment” (22:37-38). It is interesting that in Mark 12:29, Jesus cites here the beginning of what is known as the Shema (this word means “hear” in Hebrew): “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” In Hebrew, it would read: “Sh’ma yisrael, Adonai eloheinu, Adonai echad.” This prayer is the centerpiece of Jewish morning and evening devotions and might be considered as the most important prayer in Judaism.46 It is taken from Deuteronomy 6:4-9.
After its opening found in Mark, the Shema continues to stress love of God as primary. We must love God with all our heart, soul and mind. It is of note that in Luke 10:27, the Lord adds that we must love God with all our strength. It pretty well sums up that we must love God with our whole being and our essential nature. Once we have such an all-encompassing love for God, it will be no trouble for us to perform every expected moral duty.47 Osborne says, “To love God in this way is to fulfill completely all the commandments regarding one’s ‘vertical’ relationship.’” 48
“And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’” (22:39). This scripture is found in Leviticus 19:18. Commentators are divided as to whether or not these two verses were ever joined together in Judaism. Guthrie says they were joined,49 and Blomberg says they were not, and that Jesus was the first to fuse them together.50 We can safely say that the binding of the two verses was not a familiar thing with the Jews.
So we have two dimensions and relationships of love. We have the vertical, between us and God, and we have the horizontal, between us and other people. It is impossible to love God without loving our neighbor. John says, “…For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen” (1 Jn. 4:20). If we love God we cannot do harm to our neighbor who is made in God’s image.
If we love our neighbors as we love ourselves we can do them no harm. We cannot lie to them, cheat them, or steal from them if we love them as we love ourselves. We are to love them even if they turn out to be our enemies (5:43-44). Of course, we need to remember that “neighbor” has wide implications. It really includes anyone in need, even if that person happens to be a total stranger (cf. Lk. 10:30ff.). Romans 13:8, tells us that we have a continuing debt to love each other.
“All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (22:40). Meyer says, “Here is all scripture in a nutshell; the whole range of human duty in a portable pocket form.” 51 As Barnes says, “Love to God and man comprehends the whole of religion.” 52 Mark 12 gives us an interesting section describing the conversation between Jesus and this expert on the Law:
“Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions (Mk. 12:32-34).
Not only were the Pharisees soundly defeated in their stratagem but it appears that their expert lawyer was strangely won over with the words of Christ.
SON OF DAVID OR SON OF GOD?
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. Matthew 22:41-42
It seems that before the Jews could collect themselves and think of another question to ask, Jesus he asked them a question. It was a real zinger.
Jesus realized that the most common title by which he was addressed needed a radical change. Quite often in Matthew, Jesus was addressed as “Son of David” (e.g. 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30; 21:9, 15). This title of course was taken from the Old Testament (cf. 2 Sam. 7:12-13; Psa. 78:68-72; Isa. 11:1, 10; Jer. 23:5; Mic. 5:2). We have noted how the people thought of the Messiah most commonly as some sort of nationalistic, military or political hero who would crush the Romans. Even this title could lend itself to such ends. Jesus was determined to alter their mistaken conceptions of him. Quite simply, the Messiah could not be thought of simply in terms of Davidic conquests.53
“He said to them, ‘How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him “Lord”? For he says, “The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet”’” (22:43-44). Jesus loved the word and he was a very careful student of the word. He pointed them to Psalm 110:1, where David clearly called the Messiah his Lord. This Psalm stressed the deity of the Messiah. It is interesting that this Psalm became the most repeated passage of Old Testament scripture found in the New Testament.54 Jesus was both the root and the offspring of David (Rev. 22:16). He was both deity and humanity in a marvelous combination. Unfortunately, Jewish interpreters had not generally applied Psalm 110 to their Messiah.55 That should not surprise us since they also never applied the Servant Songs of Isaiah to their Messiah either.
“If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” (22:45). Jesus gave them a real brain twisting question. While Jesus was the natural son of David according to the flesh, he was the Lord of David according to the Spirit. This information would in time totally transform the understanding of who Jesus was. He was no less than God incarnate. He was and is deity.
“No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions” (22:46). With this question Jesus muzzled all of Israel’s leaders. He left them in shock and in stony silence. His many debates with the authorities were now ended.