Mark 12:36Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

He demonstrates, through the statements of David, that Christ is indeed God; and notably, He asserts with a sense of urgency, ‘until I make Thy enemies Thy footstool’ (Psalms 109:1). The scribes and Pharisees were the adversaries whom God the Father has placed as the footstool of Christ.

The Lord, in His desire to elevate their awareness of His divinity, which they regarded with disdain, posed a question: How is it that David, through divine inspiration, refers to Him as Lord when he states, ‘The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at My right hand, until I make Thy enemies Thy footstool’? If David calls Him Lord, what does that imply about His lineage as a descendant? (Matthew 22:43-45). This was not a denial but an inquiry. It should not be assumed that the Lord Jesus rejected His identity as the Son of David. If He had denied being the Son of David, He would not have responded with compassion to the two blind men who cried out to Him as such. One day, as He was passing by, these men sitting by the roadside shouted, ‘Have mercy on us, Son of David!’ (Matthew 20:31).

As a result, this scholar is close to the Kingdom of God, for he acknowledges the existence of a single God, whom he ought to love above all else. Yet, in doing so, he demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding the profound nature of the law, and he does not truly know Jesus Christ, the Son of God, despite his acknowledgment of one God. The scholar sees Him merely as born of Mary in the flesh, tracing His lineage back to David.

In the course of these discussions, the topic of the visage of the Messiah was brought up. The Lord inquired of the Pharisees surrounding Him, “How is it that David, inspired by the Spirit, refers to the Messiah as both the son of David and yet His Lord?” This question seemed to be posed by the Lord to underscore His doctrine regarding the ultimate, Divine essence of the Messiah, which was dismissed by those who clung to a rigid interpretation of the Scriptures—much like during the Feast of Tabernacles and the restoration of the temple. However, this inquiry went unanswered. Just as they refrained from speaking about John to avoid contradiction, they similarly chose not to respond regarding the Messiah Himself.

Through this inquiry, Jesus Christ clearly aims to affirm the prevalent belief among the Jewish people that the Messiah is to come from the lineage of David. However, His intention is to refine and elevate their understanding of His nature. The Pharisees, and indeed the entire nation, failed to recognize that the Messiah, as David himself acknowledged through divine inspiration, is also his Lord, meaning the Son of God. The context for this question posed to Christ likely stemmed from the Pharisees recalling the Lord's own declarations about His identity as the Son of God, prompting them to seek confirmation of this assertion in order to accuse Him of blasphemy.

Indeed, you perceive Christ merely as a descendant of David, viewing Him solely as a human. Yet, how does David himself refer to Him as his Lord? Have you not considered how in his Psalm he prophetically speaks of Christ: ‘The Lord, that is, God, said to my Lord, that is, to the Messiah: sit at my right hand (Psalm 109:1).’ If He is the Lord of David and was present when David penned these words, how can He be a descendant of David, who had not yet come into existence? The Pharisees, blinded by their adherence to the written word and having lost the key to its true understanding, failed to recognize that Christ the Messiah, in His divine essence, must be the Son of God, while in His human nature, He is a descendant of David. They anticipated the Messiah as one who would liberate the Jews from Roman oppression and conquer all nations. With such distorted beliefs, they were unable to respond to Jesus' inquiry.

They responded to Him by stating that He was 'the son of David.' However, this concept of sonship was limited to the physical lineage of Christ in relation to David. Yet it is clear from a psalm they were familiar with (Psalms 109:1) that David refers to Him as his Lord, who is seated at the right hand of God. Consequently, the reign of Christ is not of this earth, but rather of a heavenly nature. The learned scribes and lawyers failed to grasp this, showing a lack of understanding regarding the true exaltation of the Messiah. If they had comprehended this truth, they would have recognized that the qualities of the Messiah were fully embodied in Jesus of Nazareth, the very one they had sought to persecute. The crowd listened to this exchange with interest, while the Pharisees and scribes remained obstinately silent, filled with frustration over their defeat and their inability to act against the despised preacher.

The inquiry regarding Christ's lineage, which placed the scribes in a challenging position, is overlooked in the Gospel of Luke. This same question, concerning whose son Christ is, posed considerable trouble for the scribes, is recorded in Mark similarly to how it appears in Matthew. The sole distinction is that Mark, consistent with his style, transforms a monologic expression into a dialogical one (cf. Mk. 12:9). In Matthew, he poses the question to the scribes, asking whose son they believe Christ to be. Upon their reply that He is the son of David, He presents the query that had already confounded them. In Mark, He inquires more generally, as the scribes assert that Christ is the son of David, among other points.