Post by Proselyte of Yah on Mar 18, 2024 22:11:56 GMT
This was a question posed by Yeshua (Jesus) on Earth to some of his listeners, when he refers to an old Psalm where God is speaking to a superior to David, who is to be seated on the throne:
This statement is one where Yeshua clearly confused and mystified his audience, as nobody had an answer for him. Yeshua makes it clear to the audience, that the lord spoken to by YHWH in the Psalm, is not David himself, but “David’s lord” who was to be placed at God’s right hand side in future (Acts 2:33-35, 1 Corinthians 15:25).
We must reason and ponder over why the nature of statement silenced his listeners, causing confusion. For, it is obvious, that all the Jews knew the Messiah was going to be of David’s line (Isaiah 11:1, 10, Isaiah 55:3-4), this was spoken by the prophets of old, and his audience there also knew it. So why is Yeshua asking “if he is David’s son, why is David calling him his lord?”, why would that be a hard question to answer for them?
We must remember, that a king’s son in the Old Testament, never was called the “lord” over his father. Kingly inheritance always placed the father above the son, because one became before the other, and the son only inherited the title of king when his father passed away, or was disposed. Hence, a king would never call his son his Lord, but only vice versa.
A Socinian or Adoptionist could only answer Yeshua’s question in that David calls Yeshua his Lord despite being his descendent, because in the resurrection, David will recognise him as his king. And indeed, that much is true, when David is resurrected, he will call Yeshua, his earthly descendent who was born from Mary, his Lord and king.
However, the Jews wouldn’t be surprised at this, that isn’t a mystery or puzzle to them. They always surely knew that king David in the resurrection would surely call the Messiah (which is a kingly title) his Lord (Daniel 7:13-14). And as such, if this was the meaning of Yeshua, it would not have been rocket science for someone in the audience to say “because the Messiah is king over David in the Kingdom!” But nobody responded with this, it’s obvious they were all stumped.
Furthermore, Yeshua asking specifically “whose son is he?” brings attention to the notion of who his true father is.
It would appear to be making the statement that, Yeshua, despite being David’s son, also is ‘not’ David’s son, or at the very least, not David’s son “only”. How can this be so if he only came into existence as a human being through Mary? Is Yeshua making a statement about his virgin birth or conception here perhaps? Is that the mystery he’s bringing attention to? That he was directly created by God in the womb, and therefore, God is also his direct father in that sense? Or perhaps it’s a reference to his baptism and adoption as the Son of God? – Those don’t make much sense of a satisfying answer to me either.
Many people knew the story of the Messiah’s virgin birth amongst his followers and listeners, and people also knew the Messiah would be considered and was considered as a righteous son of God, and again, nobody answers Yeshua’s question with such a statement in reference to those things either, and neither would any of these answers render any difficulty or mystery concerning Yeshua being called David’s son.
So, Yeshua’s mystifying of his audience here, isn’t so simply addressed by appealing to Yeshua’s kingly authority over the resurrected David, or his virgin birth, or his baptism and adoption. Those were not at all the topics or contexts of the conversation or debate in the account, and Yeshua being David’s lord, and God’s adopted virgin born son through Mary, would not make an impossible riddle of his sonship under David, nor bring into question of who his real fatherly ancestor is, for even king David the son of Jesse himself as mere man was called God’s son (Psalm 89:20, 27) – meaning it was common knowledge in Jewish culture and thought that David was both the son of Jesse and the son of God, and in turn, any king, could be said to have two fathers, a human father, and God.
Hence, it makes no sense that his audience would be confused at his statement if some form of adoptionism was the answer, and nor would it make sense for Yeshua to make such a statement with the intent of giving his listeners a paradox to work out.
However, it does make more sense, if we assert that when David called Yeshua his Lord in the ancient Psalm, his lord in “real time”, that he was writing about someone who was ‘already’ above him, and living in Heaven with God, who had been promised to inherit the Davidic throne. This makes perfect common sense, and also, it fits in with Jewish culture, that the older the person is, the more honoured they are, and have a sense of authority or lordship over their younger generations.
Thus, in asking “whose son is he”, we have to bear in mind here, Yeshua brings specific attention that he is not just David’s son, ‘because’ of the fact that David calls him his “Lord” in the ancient Proverb. That right there, I believe, is the kind of mysterious statement with a conclusion that would stump his audience, for the both answer and reaction of the audience, is more readily made sense of when one considers it to be a statement of pre-human existence.
In other words, I thus believe this is more readily understood to mean “The Messiah is not only David’s son, because David called him his lord in the ancient times, meaning he is also God’s son”.
- “What do you think about the Anointed One? Whose son is he?” ‘David’s‘, they answered. Yeshua said to them, ‘How then does David in the spirit call him ‘Lord’ when he says; ‘The Lord (YHWH) said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet’? …So if David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be David’s son?”. – Matthew 22:42-43, 45
- “[David writes]; YHWH said this to my lord: ‘Sit here at My right hand ’Til I set your enemies as a stool for your feet”. – Psalm 110:1
This statement is one where Yeshua clearly confused and mystified his audience, as nobody had an answer for him. Yeshua makes it clear to the audience, that the lord spoken to by YHWH in the Psalm, is not David himself, but “David’s lord” who was to be placed at God’s right hand side in future (Acts 2:33-35, 1 Corinthians 15:25).
We must reason and ponder over why the nature of statement silenced his listeners, causing confusion. For, it is obvious, that all the Jews knew the Messiah was going to be of David’s line (Isaiah 11:1, 10, Isaiah 55:3-4), this was spoken by the prophets of old, and his audience there also knew it. So why is Yeshua asking “if he is David’s son, why is David calling him his lord?”, why would that be a hard question to answer for them?
We must remember, that a king’s son in the Old Testament, never was called the “lord” over his father. Kingly inheritance always placed the father above the son, because one became before the other, and the son only inherited the title of king when his father passed away, or was disposed. Hence, a king would never call his son his Lord, but only vice versa.
A Socinian or Adoptionist could only answer Yeshua’s question in that David calls Yeshua his Lord despite being his descendent, because in the resurrection, David will recognise him as his king. And indeed, that much is true, when David is resurrected, he will call Yeshua, his earthly descendent who was born from Mary, his Lord and king.
However, the Jews wouldn’t be surprised at this, that isn’t a mystery or puzzle to them. They always surely knew that king David in the resurrection would surely call the Messiah (which is a kingly title) his Lord (Daniel 7:13-14). And as such, if this was the meaning of Yeshua, it would not have been rocket science for someone in the audience to say “because the Messiah is king over David in the Kingdom!” But nobody responded with this, it’s obvious they were all stumped.
Furthermore, Yeshua asking specifically “whose son is he?” brings attention to the notion of who his true father is.
It would appear to be making the statement that, Yeshua, despite being David’s son, also is ‘not’ David’s son, or at the very least, not David’s son “only”. How can this be so if he only came into existence as a human being through Mary? Is Yeshua making a statement about his virgin birth or conception here perhaps? Is that the mystery he’s bringing attention to? That he was directly created by God in the womb, and therefore, God is also his direct father in that sense? Or perhaps it’s a reference to his baptism and adoption as the Son of God? – Those don’t make much sense of a satisfying answer to me either.
Many people knew the story of the Messiah’s virgin birth amongst his followers and listeners, and people also knew the Messiah would be considered and was considered as a righteous son of God, and again, nobody answers Yeshua’s question with such a statement in reference to those things either, and neither would any of these answers render any difficulty or mystery concerning Yeshua being called David’s son.
So, Yeshua’s mystifying of his audience here, isn’t so simply addressed by appealing to Yeshua’s kingly authority over the resurrected David, or his virgin birth, or his baptism and adoption. Those were not at all the topics or contexts of the conversation or debate in the account, and Yeshua being David’s lord, and God’s adopted virgin born son through Mary, would not make an impossible riddle of his sonship under David, nor bring into question of who his real fatherly ancestor is, for even king David the son of Jesse himself as mere man was called God’s son (Psalm 89:20, 27) – meaning it was common knowledge in Jewish culture and thought that David was both the son of Jesse and the son of God, and in turn, any king, could be said to have two fathers, a human father, and God.
Hence, it makes no sense that his audience would be confused at his statement if some form of adoptionism was the answer, and nor would it make sense for Yeshua to make such a statement with the intent of giving his listeners a paradox to work out.
However, it does make more sense, if we assert that when David called Yeshua his Lord in the ancient Psalm, his lord in “real time”, that he was writing about someone who was ‘already’ above him, and living in Heaven with God, who had been promised to inherit the Davidic throne. This makes perfect common sense, and also, it fits in with Jewish culture, that the older the person is, the more honoured they are, and have a sense of authority or lordship over their younger generations.
Thus, in asking “whose son is he”, we have to bear in mind here, Yeshua brings specific attention that he is not just David’s son, ‘because’ of the fact that David calls him his “Lord” in the ancient Proverb. That right there, I believe, is the kind of mysterious statement with a conclusion that would stump his audience, for the both answer and reaction of the audience, is more readily made sense of when one considers it to be a statement of pre-human existence.
In other words, I thus believe this is more readily understood to mean “The Messiah is not only David’s son, because David called him his lord in the ancient times, meaning he is also God’s son”.
This sonship he speaks of, being ‘literal’, not merely one of adoption or status, for adoptionism or status as a son of God and lord of Israel was a well established concept (Psalm 89:27), and so is not something so mysterious that would silence his audience, nor would mere status or adoption as God’s son make it difficult to understand or impossible for the Messiah to be David’s future lord, or genetic descendent.
The phrasing of Yeshua asserts that he bewildered his audience, and presented to them some kind of contradiction that they couldn’t get their heads around, as ‘opposed’ to deferring to the common cultural understanding they had back in their day concerning kingly sonship under God as the answer to his question.