Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 22:43 - 22:43
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_22:43 f. Πῶς ] how is it possible, that, etc.
In His question Jesus starts with what was a universal assumption in His day, viz. that David was the author of Psalms 110, which, however, is impossible, the fact being that it was only composed in the time of this monarch, and addressed to him (see Ewald on this psalm). The fact that Jesus shared the opinion referred to, and entertained no doubt as to the accuracy of the title of the psalm, is not to be questioned, though it should not be made use of, with Delitzsch and many others, for the purpose of proving the Davidic authorship of the composition; for a historico-critical question of this sort could only belong to the sphere of Christ’s ordinary national development, which, as a rule, would necessarily bear the impress of His time. With ἐν πνεύμ . before us, the idea of accommodation or of a play upon logic is not to be thought of, although Delitzsch himself maintains that something of the kind is possible. Among the unwarrantable and evasive interpretations of certain expositors is that of Paulus, who thinks that the object of the question of Jesus from beginning to end was the historico-critical one of persuading His opponents that the psalm was not composed by David, and that it contains no reference to the Messiah.[8]
ἐν πνεύματι ] meaning, perhaps, that He did not do so on His own authority, but impulsu Spiritus Sancti (2Pe_1:21); Luk_2:27; 1Co_12:3; Rom_8:15; Rom_9:2. David was regarded as a prophet, Act_2:30; Act_1:16.
αὐτόν ] the Messiah; for the personage in the psalm is a prophetic type of the Messiah; as also the Rabbinical teachers recognised in him one of the foremost of the Messianic predictions (Wetstein, Schoettgen), and only at a later period would they hear of any other reference (Delitzsch on Heb_1:13, and on Psalms 110.).
ἕως ἂν θῶ , κ . τ . λ .] see on 1Co_15:25.
[8] For the correct view of this matter, see Diestel in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1863, p. 541 f.; see also the pointed elucidation, as well as refutation of the other interpretations, in Keim, III. p. 154 ff.; comp. Gess, I. p. 128 f. Then there is the explanation, frequently offered since Strauss suggested it, and which is to the effect that Jesus wished to cast discredit upon the currently received view regarding Messiah’s descent from David, and that He Himself was not descended from David,—a circumstance which is supposed to have undoubtedly stood in the way of His being recognised as the Messiah (Schenkel, Weisse, Colani, Holtzmann); all which is decidedly at variance with the whole of the New Testament, where the idea of a non-Davidic Messiah would be a contradictio in adjecto.