Church Fathers Commentary Luke 20:41-44

"And he said unto them, How say they that the Christ is David`s son? For David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. David therefore calleth him Lord, and how is he his son?" — Luke 20:41-44 (ASV)

Theophylact of Ohrid: Although our Lord was about to enter into His Passion, He proclaims His own Godhead, and does so not carelessly or boastfully, but with humility. For He puts a question to them and, having left them perplexed, allows them to reason out the conclusion, as it follows: And he said to them, How do they say that Christ is David’s son?

St. Ambrose of Milan: They are not blamed here because they acknowledge Him to be David’s Son, for in doing so the blind man was considered worthy to be healed. And the children, by saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” offered God the highest glory and praise. Rather, they are blamed because they do not believe Him to be the Son of God.

For this reason, it is written what David himself says in the book of Psalms: The Lord said to my Lord. Both the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, yet there are not two Lords, but one Lord, for the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. He sits at the right hand of the Father because He is coequal with the Father and inferior to none, as it follows: Sit at my right hand. He is not honored by sitting at the right hand, nor is He degraded by being sent. Where the fullness of divinity is present, degrees of dignity are not a consideration.

St. Augustine of Hippo: By this “sitting,” we must not imagine a physical posture of the limbs, as if the Father sat on the left and the Son on the right. Instead, we must interpret “the right hand” itself to be the power that was received by the Man who was assumed into God, so that He who first came to be judged would then come to judge.

St. Cyril of Alexandria: Alternatively, the fact that He sits at the Father’s right hand proves His heavenly glory. For if their thrones are equal, their majesty is equal. When the word “sitting” is used in reference to God, it signifies a universal kingdom and power. Therefore, He sits at the right hand of the Father because the Word—who proceeds from the substance of the Father—did not set aside His divine glory when He was made flesh.

Theophylact of Ohrid: He shows, then, that He is not opposed to the Father but is in agreement with Him, since the Father opposes the Son’s enemies, as it is written: Until I make your enemies your footstool.

St. Ambrose of Milan: We must, therefore, believe that Christ is both God and man, and that His enemies are made subject to Him by the Father—not because of any weakness in His own power, but because of the unity of their nature, since the one works in the other. For the Son also subjects enemies to the Father, as He glorifies the Father on earth.

Theophylact of Ohrid: Therefore, He asks the question and, after raising their doubts, leaves them to deduce the conclusion, as it follows: David therefore calls him Lord; how then is he his son?

St. John Chrysostom: Truly, David was both the ancestor and the servant of Christ: the first according to the flesh, and the second in the Spirit.

St. Cyril of Alexandria: In the same way, in response to the new Pharisees—who neither confess that the Son of the holy Virgin is the true Son of God nor that He is God, but instead divide the one Son into two—we pose the same objection: How then is the Son of David also David’s Lord, and by a divine rather than a human lordship?