No One Dared Question Him Anymore

Minister Monardo said:

AS IN
Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Click to expand...

love it ,.. even what's measured to us is His doing ...

Minister Monardo said:

AS IN
Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Click to expand...

the only measurement to Gods word/son is the measure we bring to it ... measurement/judgement being the language of our soul we are commanded to keep in submission to our spirit ... the chosen fast is not to eat of our own tree/soul seeded by our five husbands (serpent) which affords us a sixth as a husband/perception not of our own ...

our true husband (as the seventh in order ( as perception of self)( sits (resting) on top a well offering the water of life ...

Minister Monardo said:

Matthew 22:
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.

Are there any scriptures (besides Psalm 110 quoted), that would explain what
the Pharisees lacked in understanding the point being made in this discourse?

Click to expand...

From David Guzik commentary:

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?”

a. What do you think about the Christ? Jesus still asks this question today. When asked, “Who is the Messiah?” the answer determines our eternal destiny

2. (Mat 22:42 b) The Pharisees identify the lineage of the Messiah.

They said to Him, “The Son of David.”

3. (Mat 22:43-45) Jesus is not only David’s Son; He is David’s Lord!

He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”‘? If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?”

a. How then does David in the Spirit call Him “Lord”: The Pharisees were partially right in saying that the Messiah is the Son of David. But they didn’t have a complete understanding of who the Messiah is. He is not only David’s Son (a reference to His humanity), but He is also David’s Lord (a reference to the deity of Jesus, the Messiah).

b. This is the idea communicated in Rev 22:16: I am the root and the offspring of David, and Rom 1:4, which shows Jesus as both the Son of David and the Son of God. We must not neglect either facet of Jesus’ person. He is truly man and truly God, and can only be our Savior if He is both.

c. If David then calls Him “Lord,” how is He his Son? Jesus’ brilliantly simple explanation of the Scriptures puts the Pharisees on the defensive. They did not want to admit that the Messiah was also the Lord God, but Jesus shows this is true from the Scriptures.

4. (Mat 22:46) Jesus’ enemies in retreat.

And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore.

a. No one was able to answer Him a word: Logic and rhetoric have proved to be of no help in destroying Jesus. Now His enemies will resort to treachery and violence.

Minister Monardo said:

Matthew 22:
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.

Are there any scriptures (besides Psalm 110 quoted), that would explain what
the Pharisees lacked in understanding the point being made in this discourse?

Click to expand...

I am not certain if there are Scriptures, but we know the point was that Jesus was calling Himself Lord, the Messiah, the promised one. The Pharisees saw him as a threat to their own power governing the people and many including the disciples did not fully understand what Kingdom Jesus would establish...they believed Jesus would restore the Kingdom of Israel on earth.

Minister Monardo said:

The Pharisees, among whom was Paul, believed in the Resurrection of the dead.
Acts 23:
6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees,
he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee:
of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the
Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.
8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but
the Pharisees confess both.
9 And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose,
and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken
to him, let us not fight against God.

Paul attained the deeper Truth
1 Corinthians 15:
20 But now Messiah has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have
fallen asleep.
21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also has come
through a Man.
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Messiah will all be made alive.
23 But each in its own order: Messiah the firstfruits; then, at His coming, those
who belong to Messiah;
24 then the end, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has
destroyed all rule and all authority and power.
25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
27 For God has “put all things in subjection underneath His feet.” But when the psalmist
says that “all” has been put in subjection, it is clear that this does not include God Himself,
who put all things under Messiah.
28 Now when all things become subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also become
subject to the One who put all things under Him, so that God may be all, in all.

Click to expand...

Yet Jesus made the world, then was made flesh and walked among us, in the world that He made.

Per John 1:1 in the beginning was the word, who was WITH God, and WAS GOD.

There are two beings there - it takes two to be WITH each other - and individual can only be by himself, not WITH Himself.

The word made all things. John 1:3

The word made the world that He was born into John 1:10

So the word (who was with God and was God) was manifest in the flesh in the very world He co-created with the Father in the beginning.

By His nature, Jesus is God the word, who left Gods form, and emptied Himself to take the form of a man and a humble servant.

Things true of Jesus as a humble servant, do not negate the fact that He is the second member of the triune Godhead.

In Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead, bodily. Colossians 2:9.

Shalom.

Well, the Pharisees kind of missed the boat there, huh?
They could of just accused him of cherry picking verses, taking scriptures out of context, or my personal favourite... showed him him how the word they don't like, actually has two or three meanings, and just picked the one they think supports their own doctrines.

They simply were not accepting Jesus as the Messiah and He, by His question and answer was proving He was but they still would not accept Him because He was not doing what they expected Him to do.

What He did not say was that His "Lord" was greater than His "LORD".

Minister Monardo said:

Matthew 22:
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.

Are there any scriptures (besides Psalm 110 quoted), that would explain what
the Pharisees lacked in understanding the point being made in this discourse?

Click to expand...

They lacked nothing. They denied Him. Many were able to see the prophesies in scripture be revealed in Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Rather than believe , and some did, they charged Him for claiming to be the Son of God. Blessings.

In Israelite culture, the father is the lord of the son. But with the Messiah, he was the lord of his father, David.

he was asking, how is this so? The father never calls the son his lord, yet David calls his own descendant his lord.

Minister Monardo said:

Matthew 22:
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.

Are there any scriptures (besides Psalm 110 quoted), that would explain what
the Pharisees lacked in understanding the point being made in this discourse?

Click to expand...

The Ps text in Hebrew says "YHWH says to my Adonai..." (Where the Greek just uses the word Lord for both). The text clearly shows that Christ is more than flesh as David would not call his son Lord and sitting at the right hand of God is an indication of authority reserved for a son so the text can show that Christ is the Son of God yet still flesh. The Pharisees probably had an answer but didn't want to answer it for fear of blaspheme. Since any suggestion the son of David is God didn't fit their box, but at the same time they didn't want to suggest he was more than human. However they do eventually get to it and use it against while he stood accused before the Sanhedrin. Jesus was asked "Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God." to which Jesus replies "You have said it yourself, but I say to all of you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven" and this what incriminated him.

So the Pharisees use Christ's logic against him which shows they understood the reference Jesus was making and that it pointed to Christ being the son of God.

Minister Monardo said:

Matthew 22:
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.

Are there any scriptures (besides Psalm 110 quoted), that would explain what
the Pharisees lacked in understanding the point being made in this discourse?

Click to expand...

Some of the Jewish literature from the time suggests that many understood Psalm 110 as (1) being authored by or spoken by David and (2) being about the [then] future coming of the messiah. So, given their understanding about Psalm 110, Jesus' comments suggest that the coming messiah will be greater than David. Additionally, I would suggest there were [at least] bi-nitarian speculations among some Jews at the time and so Jesus' comments could suggest a stance in these speculations where he viewed himself as the "second power" in heaven. Either of these approaches - the coming messiah being greater than David or suggesting the coming messiah was a "second" power in heaven - could possibly have stopped discussion as Matthew reports. These issues would likely have been considered highly controversial and speculative on their own merits, much more so if Jesus was suggesting they applied to himself.

Modern scholarship will not take this approach. In historical-grammatical methodology, Psalm 110 is an enthronement Psalm about the enthronement of the king in general (and possibly sang liturgically at the king's coronation), and not necessarily authored or spoken by David himself. On this view, the Psalm is not claiming anything at all about a coming messiah, much less being "greater" than David and even less about a "second power" in heaven. So its worth noting that modern scholarship methodology, while important, will not necessarily be the method employed in 2nd Temple Judaism.

Michael Collum said:

The funny thing about this particular part of the gospel, each of the first three gospels have a different question after which no one dared to ask him another question.

Click to expand...

That is interesting to note. I'm not sure why this is the case. Also interesting is that in Mark and Luke the comment about Psalm 110 is spoken immediately after they stopped asking him questions and is his last verbal sparring with his opponents in all 3 of the synoptics.

Minister Monardo said:

Matthew 22:
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.

Are there any scriptures (besides Psalm 110 quoted), that would explain what
the Pharisees lacked in understanding the point being made in this discourse?

Click to expand...

This is probably late but the Pharisees would not have know who “my Lord’s Lord” was. I don’t think that the disciples knew that Scripture prior to Christ’s illumination.

Minister Monardo said:

Matthew 22:
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.

Are there any scriptures (besides Psalm 110 quoted), that would explain what
the Pharisees lacked in understanding the point being made in this discourse?

Click to expand...

I don't know on that. The Pharisees were operating with a limited degree of insight at that time. And this I think Jesus realized besides having revelation knowledge of the meaning of the text as well.


But I really like the passage and have cited it a few times because

1) I have heard some people who hate theology, claim that it is unChristian, "not in the Bible" etc. but here Jesus actually throws them something that would be a theological paradox, or conundrum.

It kind of reminds me of the saying about lawyers, in the courtroom a lawyer is not suppose to ask you a question that he does not know the answer to. So after getting quizzed, Jesus happily returns the favor.


2) Jesus turns the tables on the Pharisees. After getting hit with gotcha questions. Jesus turns the tables. I like to point this out because many times people think that Christians have to be doormats etc. and I don't think that is something that Jesus intends (even with passages like turn the other cheek etc.). Jesus actually mirrors the demeanor of those that deal with him, and I think this is instructive because different types of people often need radically different approaches in how you relate to them. But you can learn this by first seeing how they approach (are they shy, judgmental, curious, kind etc.)