All three of the
synoptic evangelists present that which follows from the question about the
commandments (though this is omitted by Luke). Though this study has
spent most of its time with Matthew, Mark’s rendering will form the basis of a
treatment of this section, primarily because it begins with “While Jesus was
teaching in the Temple courts” (12:35a). Though Mark feels the need to
reiterate the fact that Jesus is still in the Temple, Matthew, offering a
reminder that this section flows directly from the question and answer about
the greatest commandment, begins with “While the Pharisees were assembled”
(22:41a). Luke moves from the Sadducees’ question about marriage and the
resurrection to this next exchange, with a smooth “But He said to them”
(20:41a).
Staying with Mark,
Jesus says “How is it that the experts in the law say that the Christ is
David’s son? David himself, by the Holy Spirit, said, ‘The Lord said to
my lord, “Sit at My right hand, until I put your enemies under your
feet.”’ If David himself calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”
(12:35b-37a) Luke’s record is essentially identical to Mark’s, whereas
prior to Jesus’ longer statement from Jesus, Matthew reports that “Jesus asked
them a question: ‘What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is
he?’ They said, ‘The son of David” (22:42). Following Jesus’ words,
Mark reports that “the large crowd was listening to Him with delight” (12:37b),
and Matthew says that “No one was able to answer Him a word, and from that day
on no one dared to question Him any longer” (22:46), while Luke offers no
editorial comment.
As has been seen
before and made abundantly clear, and though Jesus is obviously offering a
question that, according to the Gospel records, goes unanswered (thus, in the
mold of rabbinic challenges in an honor and shame culture, asserting His final
and unchallenged authority as a teacher), there is more than meets the eye (or
ear). This quotation by Jesus, lifted from the one hundred tenth Psalm,
is designed to call to mind the entirety of the Psalm (as should be well understood). Jesus, standing on the Temple mount, which is
generally and idealistically referred to as Mount Zion (though the Zion mount
may not have been the actual site of the Temple), quotes from a Psalm that
says, “here is the Lord’s proclamation to my lord: ‘Sit down at My right hand
until I make your enemies your footstool!’ The Lord extends your dominion
from Zion. Rule in the midst of your enemies! Your people willingly
follow you when you go into battle. On the holy hills at sunrise the dew
of your youth belongs to you. The Lord makes this promise on oath and
will not revoke it: ‘You are an eternal priest after the pattern of Melchizedek.’
O sovereign Lord, at your right hand he strikes down kings in the day he
unleashes His anger. He executes judgment against the nations; He fills
the valley with corpses; He shatters their heads over the vast
battlefield. From the stream along the road he drinks; then he lifts up
his head” (110:1-7).
Though Jesus frames
the desired response with His follow-up question, He and the Gospel authors are
undoubtedly communicating a great deal of information. In this Psalm, not
only is there talk of Zion, which is quickly translated into Temple-talk,
especially with Jesus standing in the Temple while speaking, but there is also
talk of an eternal priesthood occurring in the place where there were constant
priestly functions occurring. With the quotation from the Psalms
potentially calling to mind a mention of Melchizedek and an eternal priesthood,
it also calls to mind a replacement priesthood---a bold move, considering
Jesus’ location.
Is it reasonable to
make such a suggestion? It seems to be so, especially when Mark and Luke
do not follow-up with a theological and philosophical elaboration on what Jesus
meant by His questions, but rather report Him as saying “Watch out for the
experts in the law. They like walking around in long robes and elaborate
greetings in the marketplaces, and the best seats in the synagogues and the
places of honor at banquets. They devour widows’ property, and as a show
make long prayers. These men will receive a more severe punishment” (Mark
12:38b-40). Luke’s record is nearly identical. Are the enemies the
experts in the law, as stand-ins for the Temple authorities? When Jesus
mentions a more severe punishment, is He speaking in generalities, or does He
have something in mind? If it is something in mind, one might ask “A more
severe punishment than what?” Well, the striking down of kings, judgment
against the nations, valleys filled with corpses, and heads shattered on
battlefield seems to be fairly severe punishment. Those that defile the
Creator God’s Temple, and doing so through pretended service to His people
(echoes of Jeremiah’s plaintive cry of judgment ringing through) will receive
punishments of greater severity.
No comments:
Post a Comment