The End of the Discussion

Jesus and the Jerusalem elites have been in an increasingly tense discussion during the week between Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem and today’s text. (Matthew 22:34-46). It ends with the elite’s question about the greatest commandment and Jesus question about Psalm 110, and David’s son.

Jesus statement about the greatest commandment is well known and much loved. We often forget that in Matthew’s gospel it is in response to a question that is a trap. After Jesus tells three parables criticizing the elites, they come back with a series of questions designed to trap Jesus and get him into trouble with someone- either the Roman authorities or Jesus’ own followers.

The lawyer who asks the question about the greatest commandment is not a lawyer in the modern sense. He is a teacher of the law (Torah). After the previous cleverly constructed questions, this one seems almost too easy. It’s as if they have run out of ideas. Asking a teacher to give a summary of the Law was a practice at that time. I’m not sure how the lawyer thought Jesus was going to be trapped by this softball question.

Jesus answer is consistent with all that he has said and done in Matthew’s gospel. Jesus is quoting Torah in his response. So in one sense this isn’t a novel teaching. “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” is quoting Moses from Deuteronomy 6:5. The three terms, heart, soul, mind are a way of saying to love God with one’s entire self. “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” is Moses, again, in Leviticus 19:18. Placed back in their Old Testament context, both quotes are concerning how Israel is to conduct itself, what sort of people they will be. These are not abstract doctrinal statements but instructions for how as a society they are to live.

Because this statement is so familiar to us, we may forget how important it is. Jesus says that these two commandments are the “greatest” and that absolutely everything else flows from and is connected to them.

The Pharisees’ response, if there was one, isn’t recorded. Before they can regroup, Jesus has a couple of questions of his own for them. “What do you think of the Messiah? Whose son is he?” The crowds know the answer. At Jesus entry into Jerusalem they hailed him as the Son of David. The gospel’s audience knows the answer because the author of Matthew has made this clear throughout the gospel, Jesus is the son of David and the Messiah. Jesus is giving the Pharisees another chance to recognize him as the Messiah. The Pharisees give the expected response, “The son of David.” Their answer is not wrong, but it is also insufficient.

Then Jesus quotes Psalm 110:1. To us this may seem an odd thing to do, an odd argument to make. But in those days, it was assumed that David wrote the Psalms and that he did so under the Spirit’s inspiration. Fathers didn’t call their sons or other descendants “Lord” so how can David call his descendant “Lord”? What is going on here?

The Pharisees can’t or won’t answer the question. They don’t recognize Jesus as Messiah. They are being shown, again, as inadequate interpreters of scripture.

Jesus doesn’t explain, but the gospel’s readers interpreted this psalm as a messianic psalm. David isn’t talking about a lord who is king but rather is talking about the lord who is the Messiah- Jesus. Who the Son of David is, who the Messiah is, has been reinterpreted, redefined by Jesus.

This ends the discussion. The elites have tried, but can’t trap Jesus. Instead Jesus has called them out in three parables, evaded three trick questions and has shown them to be inadequate interpreters of scripture. The whole series of parables and questions from 21:23 through 22:46 has been about authority and faithfulness.

The parables and questions and responses in these chapters are well known to Christians. They also are seldom presented or talked about in the context of conflict over authority and faithfulness. We don’t usually mention they take place during Holy Week.

I wonder why that is? I wonder what insights we lose by treating these as “timeless truths” or doctrinal teaching untethered from their location in the Temple and in disconnected from confrontation and controversy? What do you think?