MARK’S CONCEPTION OF OUR LORD
If, now, we review the series of designations applied to our Lord in the Gospel of Mark, as a whole, we shall, we think, be led by them into the heart of Mark’s representation of Jesus.
What Mark undertook in his Gospel was obviously to give an account of how that great religious move- A Divine ment originated which we call Chris-
Intervention tianity, but which he calls “ the Gospel in Christ q£ Jesus Christ ” — the glad tidings, that is, concerning Jesus Christ which were being proclaimed throughout the world. To put it in his own words, he undertook to set forth “the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ ” (i^). The account which he gives of the beginning of this great religious movey ment, by means of his ‘ Gospel,’ is briefly that it origi- ^ nated in a divine intervention; and that this divine intervention was manifested in the ministry of the divinely promised and divinely sent Messiah who was no other than the man Jesus. This man is represented as coming, endowed with ample authority for His task; and as prosecuting this task by the aid of supernatural powers by which He was at once marked out as God’s delegate on earth and enabled, in the face of all difficulties and oppositions, to accomplish to its end what He had set His hand to do.
It is idle to speak of Mark presenting us in his account of Jesus with the picture of a purely human Christ’s Life life. It belongs to the very essence of Thoroughly his undertaking to portray this life as Supernatural supernatural; and, from beginning to end, he sets it forth as thoroughly supernatural. The Gospel opens, therefore, by introducing Jesus to us as the divinely given Messiah, in whom God had from the ages past promised to visit His people; heralded as such by the promised messenger making ready the way of the Lord; and witnessed by this messenger as the “ mightiest ” of men, who bore in His hands the real potencies of a new life (i®); and by God Himself from heaven as His Son, His beloved, in whom He was well pleased Anointed and tested for His task, Jesus is then presented as entering upon and prosecuting His work as God’s representative, endowed with all authority and endued with all miraculous powers. His authority was manifested alike in His teaching (T^), in His control of demonic personalities (T”^), in the forgiveness of sins (2^^), ^ in His sovereignty over the religious ordinances of Israel (2^®), in His relations to nature and nature’s laws (4^^), in His dominion over death itself (5^^).
As each of these typical exercises of authority is signalized in turn and copiously illustrated by instances, the picture of a miraculous life becomes ever more striking, and indeed stupendous. Even the failure of His friends to comprehend Him and the malice of His enemies in assaulting Him, are made by the evangelist contributory to the impression of an utterly supernatural life which he wishes to make on his readers. So little was it a normal human life that Jesus lived that His uncomprehending friends were tempted to think Him beside Himself, and His enemies proclaimed Him obviously suffering from “ possession ” Whatever else this life was, it certainly was not, in view of any observer, a “ natural ” one. The “unnaturalness” of it is not denied: it is only pointed out that this “ unnaturalness ” was systematic, and that it was systematically in the interests of holiness. What is manifested in it, therefore, is neither the vagaries of lunacy nor the wickedness of demonism. What is exhibited is the binding of Satan and the destruction of satanic powers (cf. i"‘ et saepe). To ascribe these manifestations to Satan is therefore to blaspheme the Spirit of God. Nobody, it appears, dreamed of doubting in any interest the abnormality of this career: and we should not misrepresent Mark if we said that his whole Gospel is devoted to making the impression that Jesus’ life and manifestation were supernatural through and through.
This is, of course, however, not quite the same as saying that Mark has set himself to portray in Jesus Jesus the life of a supernatural person, the Whether the supernatural life he de-
Messiah picts is supernatural because it is the life on earth of a supernatural person, or because it is the life of a man with whom God dwelt and through whom God wrought, may yet remain a question. Certainly very much in Mark’s narrative would fall in readily with the latter hypothesis. To him Jesus is primarily the Messiah, and the Messiah is primarily the agent of God in bringing in the new order of things. Undoubtedly Mark’s fundamental thought of Jesus is that He is the man of God’s appointment, with whom
'Markus Conception of Our Lord 35
God is. Designating Him currently merely by His personal name of ‘ Jesus,’ and representing Him as currently spoken of by His contemporaries merely as ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ and addressed by the simple honorific titles of ‘ Rabbi,’ ‘ Teacher,’ ‘ Lord ’ — His fundamental manifestation is to him plainly that of a man among men. That this man was the Messiah need not in itself import more than that He was the subject of divine influences beyond all other men, and the vehicle Df divine operations surpassing all other human experience. It may fairly be asked, therefore, what requires us to go beyond the divine office to explain this supernaturally filled life? Will not the assumption of the Messiahship of Jesus fully account for the abounding supernaturalism of His activity as portrayed by Mark? Questions like these are in point of fact constantly raised around us and very variously answered. But it behooves us to be on our guard respecting them that we be not led into a false antithesis, IS if we must explain Mark’s presentation of the supernatural life of Jesus either on the basis of His office as Messiah or on the basis of His superhuman oersonality.
There is no necessary contradiction between these:wo hypotheses; and we must not introduce here a factitious “ either — or.” What it behooves us to do is simply to inquire how the matter lay in Mark’s mind; what the real significance of the Messiahship he attributed to Jesus, and represented Jesus as claiming for Himself, is; and whether he posits for Jesus and represents Him as asserting for Himself something more than a human personality.
We cannot have failed to note in reviewing the designations applied in the course of Mark’s narrative Jesus* Person to our Lord, a tendency of them all Enhances His when applied to Him to grow in rich- Designations content. The term ‘ Lord ’ is merely an honorific address, equivalent to our ‘ Sir ’: but when applied to Jesus it seems to expand in significance until it ends by implying supreme authority. The term ‘ Messiah ’ is a mere term of office and might be applied to anyone solemnly set apart for a service: but when applied to Jesus it takes on fuller and fuller significance until it ends by assimilating Him to the Divine Being Himself. He who simply reads over Mark’s narrative, noting the designations he applies to our Lord, accordingly, will not be able to doubt that Mark conceived of Jesus not merely as officially ■ the representative of God but as Himself a superhuman person, or that Mark means to present Jesus as Him- X self so conceiving of His nature and personality. The evidence of this is very copious, but also often rather subtle; and, in endeavoring to collect and appreciate it, we might as well commence with some of the plainest items, although this method involves a somewhat unordered presentation of it.
Let us look, then, first at that remarkable passage (13^^) in which Jesus acknowledges ignorance of the Jesus a time of His (second) coming.^ Here, Superangelic in the very act of admitting limitations Person pjjg knowledge, in themselves aston- ishing, He yet asserts for Himself not merely a super-
1 On account of this profession of ignorance, Prof. Schmiedel {Encyc. Biblica, 1881) gives this passage a place among those nine “absolutely credible passages ” which he calls “ the foundation pillars for a truly human but even a superangellc rank in the scale of being.
In any possible,^ interpretation of the passage, He separates Himself from the “ angels in heaven ” (note the enhancing definition of locality, carrying with it the sense of the exaltation of these angels above all that is earthly) as belonging to a different class from them, and that a superior class. To Jesus as He Is reported, and presumably to Mark reporting Him, we see, Jesus “ the Son ” stands as definitely and as incomparably above the category of angels, the highest of God’s creatures, as to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, whose argument may be taken as a commentary upon this passage (Heb 2^). Nor is this passage singular in Mark in exalting Jesus in dignity and authority above the angels. Already in the account of the temptation at the opening of His ministry we find the angels signalized as ministering to Him (i^^), and elsewhere they appear as His subordinates swelling His train (8^®) or His servants obeying His behests (13^^ “He shall send the angels”). Clearly, therefore, to Mark Jesus is not merely a superhuman but a superangellc personality: and the question at once obtrudes itself whether a superangellc person is not by that very fact removed from the category of creatures.
icientific life of Jesus.” If so, a “ truly scientific life of Jesus ” must illow that He asserted for Himself a superangellc, that is, a more han creaturely dignity of person. Others, just for this reason, would leny the words to Jesus (e.g. Martineau, Seat of Authority in Religion,;9o; N. Schmidt, The Prophet of Nazareth, 147, 231 note), and even Kalman is not superior to the temptation arbitrarily to apportion them)artly to Jesus and partly to His followers {Words, p. 194). But all his is purely subjective criticism.
A similar implication, as has already been pointed out, is embedded in the title ‘ Son of Man,’ which Jesus Mark represents as our Lord’s stated of Heavenly self-designation. The appeal involved Origin Daniel is a definite assertion for the Messiah of a heavenly as distinguished from an earthly origin, with all the suggestions of preexistence, divine exaltation and authority, and endless sovereignty necessarily connected with a heavenly origin. It would be impossible to frame a Messianic conception on the basis of this vision of Daniel and to suppose the Messiah to be in His person a mere man deriving His origin from the earth.^ This is sufficiently illustrated indeed by the history of the Messianic ideal among the Jews. There is very little evidence among the Jews before or contemporary with our Lord, of resort to Daniel as a basis for Messianic hopes:
^fbut wherever this occurs it is the conception of a preexistent, heavenly monarch who is to judge the world in righteousness which is derived from this passage.^ No other conception, in fact, could be derived from Daniel, where the heavenly origin of the eternal King is thrown into the sharpest contrast with the lower dominion comes not from the earth, far less from the sea, but from heaven. He is a being standing in a near relation to God...”
3 The Similitudes of Enoch and the Second Book of Esdras (more commonly called 4 Esdras). Cf. Dalman, Words, pp. 242 and 131:
“ From the first Christian century there are only two writings known which deal with Dan 7^^, the Similitudes of the Book of Enoch, and the Second Book of Esdras”... “After the Similitudes of Enoch the only representatives of the idea [of the heavenly preexistence of the Messiah] independent of Enoch, are 2 Esdras in the first Christian century and the Appendix to Pesikta Rabbati in the seventh or eighth century.”
source of the preceding bestial rulers. Judaism may not have known how to reconcile this heavenly origin of the Messiah with His birth as a human being, and may have, therefore, when so conceiving the Messiah, sacrificed His human condition entirely to His heavenly nature and supposed Him to appear upon the ^arth as a developed personality.^ That our Lord does aot feel this difficulty or share this notion manifests, in the matter of His adoption of the title ‘ Son of Man ’ as His favorite Messianic self-designation. His independence of whatever Jewish tradition may be supposed to have formed itself. But His adoption of the title at all, with its obvious reference to the vision □f Daniel,® necessarily carried with it the assertion of heavenly origination and nature.
This in turn carried with it, we may add, the conception that He had “ come ” to earth upon a mission, Jesus* ^ conception which does not fail to find
Earthly Life independent expression in such passages, a Mission jss jq45^ Pqj.^ assertions in these passages that He “ came forth ” to preach, that He “ came ” not to save the righteous but sinners, that He “ came ” not to be ministered unto but to minister and to give His life as a ransom for many, refer to His divine mission (cf. also lies on their face. It is suggested by the pregnancy of the
4 Cf. Dalman, 131: “Judaism has never known anything of a preexistence peculiar to the Messiah, antecedent to His hirth as a human heingJ' “ He is to make His appearance on earth as a fully developed personality.” See p. 301: “ The celestial preexistence of Messiah, as stated in the Similitudes of Enoch and in 2 Esdr 13, 14, excluding — 50 at least it seems — an earthly origin, implies, apart from the incentive contributed by Dan 7^^, his miraculous superhuman appearance.” Cf. p. 257 et seq.
expressions themselves, and the connections In which they are employed; and It Is supported by the even more direct language of some of the parallels.® In themselves these expressions may not necessarily Involve the Idea of preexistence (cf. 9^^ and Jno of John the Baptist); but they fall readily In with It, and so far suggest It that when supported by other forms of statement Implying It, they cannot well be taken In any other sense.’
® Cf. Swete, on Mk “‘For to this end came I forth’ (Mark), is interpreted for us by Luke, ‘ Because to this end was I sent.’ ‘ Came I forth’ does not refer to His departure from Capernaum {v. 35), but to His mission from the Father (Jno 8^^ j22op’. ^nd on Mk 10^®: “ For ^X6ov in reference to our Lord’s entrance into the world, cf.
2^’^; it is used also of the Baptist (9I1 seq., j^q jT) regarded as a divine messenger ” — whence we observe that it does not of itself imply preexistence. Meyer, on notes that this view is held by Euthymius Zigabenus, Maldonatus, Grotius, Bengel, Lange and others, — conf. Baumgarten-Crusius; he himself does not hold it. Cf. Meyer, on Mt “His coming as such is always brought forward with great emphasis by Mark and Luke.” Holtzmann on thinks the reference is to the departure from Capernaum, while Luke’s phrase (4^^) is a transition to the Johannine form of expression (e.g. 8^^)^
Cf. G. S. Streatfeild, The Self -Interpretation of Jesus Christ, 1906, pp. 81-83. Mr. Streatfeild connects these sayings with those in which our Lord refers to His return in glory. “ Thus to describe Himself as coming into the world,” he remarks, “ suggests, if it does no more, a consciousness of personal vocation, a conviction, if not a consciousness, of preexistence.” “ The word ‘ come,’ ” he adds, “ is never, so far as the present writer recollects, used of or by the prophets in the sense in which our Lord applies it to Himself. Apparent exceptions are shown to be only apparent by the context. On the other hand, the term is constantly used in the O. T. of God and the Messianic theophany.” Perhaps Mr. Streatfeild slightly overstates the matter, but what he says is essentially true. His use of these phrases certainly testifies to our Lord’s deep consciousness of being intrusted with a great mission which He had come into the world to fulfil — as the use of them of John the Baptist testifies to his mission: and the pregnancy of the use He makes of them, and the connections in which He uses them, strongly suggest a
It is, however, above all in the picture which Jesus:mself draws for us of the ‘ Son of Man ’ that we Jesus’ see His superhuman nature portrayed.
Functions For the figure thus brought before us
Divine jg distinctly a superhuman one; one lich is not only in the future to be seen sitting at the;ht hand of power and coming with the clouds of aven (14^^) — in clouds with great power and glory 3“®), even in the glory of His Father with the holy gels (8^^) who do His bidding as the Judge of all
1 earth, gathering His elect for Him (13^®) while
2 punishes His enemies (8^®); but which in the prest world itself exercises functions which are truly dne, — for who is Lord of the Sabbath but the God 10 instituted it in commemoration of His own rest and who can forgive sins but God only cf. *se 7)? The assignment to the Son of Man the function of Judge of the world and the:ription to Him of the right to forgive sins in each case, but another way of saying that; is a divine person; for these are divine acts.® t^iction on His part of preexistence, though they do not in themselves jpportedly avail to prove it. The language might be employed iistently of a divine mission without preexistence; but it seems to;mployed here with deeper implications.
On the forgiveness of sins as a divine act, cf. Dalman, Words, 262 314, 315. As against J. Weiss, Dalman notes that it is a fact at Judaism never from O. T. times to the present day, has ventured lake any such assertion in regard to the Messiah ” as that the “ Lord i power to forgive sins.” Cf. Briggs, The Messiah of the Gospels, 84. On the judgment of the world as a divine act, cf. Bousset, Jesus, 205. Dr. Stanton, Je<wish and Christian Messiah, 291, says: “The ge in that last judgment is on Jewish ground nowhere the Messiah.
assignment of this office to Him is the most significant new feature:he Christian doctrine of the Messiah.” But this is because Dr. iton considers the Similitudes of Enoch post-Christian (cf. pp. 61,
We have already had occasion to point out the uniqueness and closeness of the relation to God which The Uniqueness is indicated by the designation ‘ Son of of God ’ as ascribed to Jesus. In the Jesus* Sonship parable of Mark 12 not only is it emphasized that God has but one such son (verse 6), but He is as such expressly contrasted with all God’s “servants” (verses 2 and 4) and expressly signalized as God’s “heir” (verse 7). As we read this parable
140). There, but apparently there only, in pre-Christian Jewish literature the Messiah appears as Judge of the world to whom all judgment has been committed (see Charles, The Book of Enoch, 128, 129). Hence Dr. Stanton in Hastings’ B. D. iii. 356 et seq. says more exactly: “In this document,... He is to be the Judge in the universal judgment,... a function never assigned to the Messiah, but always ascribed to the Most High in other Jewish writings.” Cf. Salmond (Hastings’ B. D., i, 751): “In the O. T. the final arbitrament of men’s lives is not committed to the Messiah... Only in the late section of the Book of Enoch does the Messiah appear in any certain or definite form as the Judge at the last day.” Perhaps, however, it is not perfectly accurate with respect to this particular point to sum up as Dr. Salmond does, thus: “Christ’s doctrine of a universal, individual judgment, at the end of things, in which judgment He Himself is arbiter of human destinies, carried the O. T. conception to its proper issue, while it gave a new certainty, consistency and spirituality to the developed Idea which had arisen in Judaism in the period following the last of the Jewish prophets.” Though Jesus had a forerunner in Enoch in conceiving the Messiah as the Judge of the world. He does not seem at all dependent on Enoch in this conception, any more than in others connected with it and growing out of the common reference of both to Dan Sal_ mond, Christian Doct. of Immortality, 4 ed., 282-284, treats the whole subject judiciously: cf. further Charles, Encyc. Biblica, 1362, §66, and Expositor, VI. v. 251, 258; also Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, 154, 487. What is to be noted is that In the Similitudes of Enoch, where alone in pre-Christian sources the judgment is attributed to the Messiah, the Messiah is conceived as a superhuman Being, the Revealer of all things, and the Messianic Lord of the earth, i.e. the attribution of judgment to Him is connected with the attribution of other divine prerogatives to Him also, so that the implication of divinity inherent in this attribution is not obscured.
the mind inevitably reverts again to the representation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which in its doctrine of the Son (cf. Heb 3® etc.), might almost appear a thetical exposition of it. And in the immediate recognition of Jesus as the ‘ Son of God ’ by the evil spirits — “ as soon as ever they caught sight of Him — we can scarcely fail to see a testimony from the spiritual world to a sonship in Jesus surpassing that of mere appointment to an earthly office and function and rooted in what lies beyond this temporal sphere. It is noteworthy also that when responding to the adjuration of the high priest to declare whether He were ‘ the Christ, the Son of the Blessed,’ Jesus points apparently to His exaltation at the right hand of power and His coming with the clouds of heaven, which they were to see, as the warranty for His acceptance of the designation: as much as to say that to be ‘ the Christ, the Son of the Blessed,’ involves session at the right hand of God and the eternal dominion promised in Daniel (Mk 14^"). And it is noticeable farther that immediately upon our Lord’s acceptance of the ascription the high priest accused Him of blasphemy (14®^), which appears to be an open indication that to claim to be ‘ the Son of the Blessed ’ was all one with claiming to be a divine person.^^ Even the heathen cen-
® Cf. Meyer and Swete on Mk 3^1.
claim to be the Messiah could not, according to Jewish conceptions, have been regarded as a blasphemous claim. But quite apart from the exact meaning of the relationship of the Messiah to God which is implied in such terms as ‘ Son of God,’ ‘ Son of the Blessed,’ the nature of the Messiah as depicted in the literature of the period as of earthly and heavenly origin (cf. Volz, Jiid. Eschat., pp. 214 f.) is such that claims to be the Messiah might quite well be regarded as blasphemous, if they were untrue.” This, however, seems scarcely well founded. Zahn
turlon’s enforced conviction, as he witnessed the circumstances of Jesus’ death, that this man certainly was ‘ a Son of God,’ appears to be recorded for no other reason (15^^) than to make plain that the supernaturalness of Jesus’ person was such as necessarily to Impress any observer. No doubt a heathen centurion Is but a poor witness to Jesus’ essential nature; and no doubt his designation of Him as “ a son of God ” must needs be taken In a sense consonant with his standpoint as a heathen. But It manifests how from his own standpoint Jesus’ death Impressed him — as the death, to wit, of one of superhuman dignity. And Its record seems to round out the total Impression which Mark appears to wish to make In his use of the phrase, viz., that the superhuman dignity of Jesus was perforce recognized and testified to by all classes and by every variety of witness. The spiritual denizens of another world 3^^ 5'^), the appointed guardians of the spiritual life of Israel (14®^), Jesus Himself (126 j^32 1462^^ QqJ Heaven 9"^), and even the heathen man who gazed upon Him as He hung on the cross, alike certify to His elevation, as the Son
(on Mt, pp. 694-5) is better: “The high priest demands an answer not to the simple question whether Jesus gave Himself out for the Messiah, but whether He was the Messiah, the Son of God.... The mere
affirmative of the question whether He were the Messiah, could not be understood by the whole Sanhedrin as an unambiguous blasphemy. It was only a liar or a fanatic that Jesus could have been called on that ground by those who did not believe in Him. Jesus affirmed, however, also the other question, whether He was the Son of God; and indeed on oath, since he was sworn by the Living God (I Kings
Wellhausen’s remark need not be disputed: “The centurion uses the expression ‘Son of God’ not, like the high priest (14®!), as an epithet of the Jewish Messiah, but in the heathen sense; he says also not ‘the Son’ but ‘a son’ of God” (on 15^^).
^Mark^s Conception of Our Lord 45 d£ God, in the supernatural dignity of His person, above all that is earthly, all “ servants ” and “ minsters ” of God whatever, including the very angels. [Certainly this designation, ‘ Son of God,’ is colored so ieeply with supernatural implications that even apart From such a passage as 13^^ where the superangelic lature of the Son is openly expressed, we cannot avoid roncluding (cf. especially 12^ 14®^ 15^^) that a superlatural personality as well as a supernatural office is ntended to be understood by it. And if so, in view)f the nature of the term itself, it is difficult to doubt:hat this supernaturalness of personality is intended o be taken at the height of the Divine. What can he Son, the unique and “ beloved ” Son of God, who dso is God’s heir, in contradistinction from all His.ervants, even the angels, be — but God Himself?
It has already been suggested that something of this mplication is embedded in the employment of the Jesus designation ‘Bridegroom’ (2^^’“'^) of Assimilated to our Lord. For there is certainly in- Jehovah volved in it not merely the representa-:ion, afterwards copiously developed in the New Tesament, of our Lord as the Bridegroom of the people)f God, by virtue of which His Church is His bride [Mt 22^ 25^ Jno 3“^ Rom 7^ 2 Cor ii^, Eph 5^^ Rev 9'^ 2 1“’^), but also a reminiscence of those Old Tesament passages, of which Hos 2^^ may be taken as the ype (cf. Ex 20'^, Jer 2“^, Ezek which
[ehovah’s relation to His people is set forth under the igure of that of a loving husband to his wife. In)ther words, the use of ‘ the Bridegroom ’ as a designaion of our Lord assimilates His relation to the people)f God to that which in the Old Testament is exclusively, even jealously, occupied by Jehovah Himself, and raises the question whether Jesus is not thereby, in some sense, at any rate, identified with Jehovahd* This question once clearly raised, other phenomena y obtrude themselves at once upon our attention. We are impelled, for example, to ask afresh what sense our Lord put upon the words of the noth Psalm, “ The Lord said unto my Lord, ‘ Sit Thou on my right hand till I make Thine enemies the footstool of Thy feet,’” when (Mk He adduced them to rebuke the Jews for conceiving the Christ as only the son of David, whereas David himself in this passage, and that speaking in the Spirit, expressly calls Him his Lord? It is not merely the term ‘Lord’ wLich comes into consideration here; but the exaltation which the application of the term in this connection to Him assipns to the Messiah. The scribes would have had no difficulty in understanding that the Messiah should be David’s “ greater son,” who should — nay, must — because Messiah, occupy a higher place in the Kingdom of God than even His great father.^^ The point of the argument turns on the supreme exaltation of the Lordship ascribed to Him, Implying something superhuman in the Messiah’s personality and therefore in His origin. Who is this ‘ Lord ’ who is to sit at
“What that term meant to the mind of the Jew may be gathered from a study of the prophetic writings, which frequently portray God as the Husband of His people, and denounce the disobedience and idolatry of Israel as spiritual adultery. For any one to speak of Himself as the Bridegroom of the Kingdom was little short of a claim to Deity: the title was an impossible one for man.”
13 Dalman, p. 285: “There would indeed be nothing remarkable In the fact that a son should attain a higher rank than his father, and for the scribes It would not in the least be strange that the Messiah should be greater than David.”
:he right hand of the ‘ Lord ’ who is Jehovah, and:o whom David himself therefore does reverence? It s hard to believe that our Lord intended — or was understood by Mark to intend — by such a designation)f the Messiah, who He Himself was, to attribute to ^im less than a superhuman — or shall we not even ay a divine — dignity, by virtue of which He should)e recognized as rightfully occupying the throne of jodd^ To sit at the right hand of God is to partici-)ate in the divine dominion,^® which, as it is a greater han human dignity, would seem to require a greater ban human nature. To be in this sense David’s Lord alls little if anything short of being David’s God.^® In estimating the significance of such a passage, we nust not permit to fall out of sight the constant use Jesus of the term ‘ Lord ’ in the Lxx version Identified with of the Old Testament for God.^’’^ There Jehovah jg << practically equivalent to God
[6^6^) and is the rendering of the solemn name of [ehovah.”^® The writers of the New Testament, and
So Dalman {Words, 214) says shortly: “He whom David called Lord’ was no mere man” (cf. pp. 385-7). Dalman thinks there is o hint of “the two natures” in the passage: this may be doubted (cf. deyer on Mt 22^®, and Alexander in loc., also Delitzsch on Ps no, p. 85); but this need not be pressed here.
Cf. Delitzsch, Psalms, iii. p, 189. Stanton, Jewish and Christian lessiah, ioi-2, points out that there is no difficulty in supposing that >avid himself may have anticipated a greater son: “Knowing how far e had himself fallen below the standard of the true covenant king, nd how the glory and prosperity of his reign had been marred through le consequences of his own sins, he might thus in spirit pay homage) a greater descendant.”
Cf. D. Somerville, St. Paul’s Conception of Christ, pp. 295 et seq, Somerville, p. 143. The supplanting of Jehovah by ‘ Lord ’ in the XX of course rests upon the K^ri perpetuum by which Adhonai was iibstituted for the “ ineffable name ” in the reading of the Hebrew
Mark among them, must be understood to have been thoroughly familiar with this use of the term, and could scarcely fail to see in its appellative application to Christ a suggestion of His deity, when the implications of the context were, as we have seen them repeatedly to be, of His superhuman dignity and nature. Particularly when they apply to Him Old Testament passages in which the term ‘ Lord ’ refers to God, we can scarcely suppose they do so without a consciousness of the implications involved, and without a distinct intention to convey them.^® When, for example, in the opening verses of Mark, we read: “ Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet. Behold I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way; The voice of one crying in the wilderness, make ye ready the way of the Lord, make His paths straight, — [so] John came,” etc., we cannot easily rid ourselves of the impression that the term ‘ Lord ’ is applied to Jesus. The former of the two prophetic citations here brought text. This in turn, however, rests upon the connection of the idea of ‘Lord’ with ‘Jehovah.’ “Jehovah,” says Oehler {Theology of the O. T., E. T., ed. Day, 1883, p. loi), “ is the Lord... That the idea of is immediately connected with the idea of Jehovah is clear from the fact that the two names are frequently associated, and that ''JTX would in later times be substituted in reading for niH'...”
When our Lord is called ‘ Lord,’ therefore, in the divine sense, it is to Jehovah specifically that the suggestion points.
Cf. Stanton, Jewish and Christian Messiah, 197, 198 and Note on the latter page. Speaking of passages like these he says: “ Deut 33^
appears to be alluded to in various places in the Synoptists. It is a passage which speaks in the clearest terms of Jehovah coming to judgment, and the attribution of the language in the Synoptists to the second coming of the Christ is an indication of the existence, even in the body of tradition which they record, of a belief in the oneness of Christ with God.” Mutatis mutandis, this remark applies to the passage
immediately to be adduced.
together is distinctly made to refer to Christ, by a change in the pronouns from the form they bear in the original — though the reference in the original is to Jehovah: and this by an inevitable consequence carries with it the reference of the latter also to Christ.®® But in the original of Isaiah 40^ again the reference of the term ‘ Lord ’ is to Jehovah. Here we see Jesus then identified by means of the common term ‘ Lord ’ with Jehovah.®^ Of course it may be said that it is not Jesus who is identified with Jehovah, but the coming of Jesus which is identified with the “ advent of Jehovah ” to redeem His people predicted so frequently in the Old Testament.®® And this explanation might
splendid passage, Is which speaks of Jehovah coming in
strength, that is, in His fulness, and feeding His flock like a shepherd, s interpreted in the Gospels of the Son. It was in the Son, or as the Son, that Jehovah so manifested Himself. By the Old Testament prophet a distinction in the Godhead was not thought of; but subseijuent revelation casts light on the preceding. The Lord, the Redeemer and Judge, is God in the Son.”
22 According to Dr. A. B. Davidson’s representation this Is as far IS the Old Testament writers themselves go with regard to the Messiah. They came to look upon the coming of the Messianic King as he coming of Jehovah; but not as if the Messiah were Jehovah, but Dnly as if in the Messiah Jehovah came to His people. Cf. e.g. The
Theology of the O. T., p. 385: “It may be doubtful if the O. T. went so far as to identify the Messiah with Jehovah or to represent the Messiah as divine. It went the length of saying, however, that Jehovah would be present in His fulness in the Messiah, so that the Messiah night fitly be named ‘God with us’ and ‘Mighty God.’” He adds: ‘ It was not a difficult step to take, to infer that the Messiah was Himself God, and that because He was God He was Saviour; and then:o apply even those passages which speak of Jehovah’s coming in person to His coming as Messiah.” It was this step that (if it remained
to be taken) was taken by our Lord and the evangelists.
more credible that Mark claimed for Him an even more supernatural descent as an adult from heaven? Mark, in a word, leaves the exposition of these things to others. It is Matthew and Luke who complete the story by the record of the supernatural birth. It is. John who develops all the implications of Jesus’ pre- V, existence. But all that these bring to expression in their fuller accounts is implied in Mark’s narrative, in which he incidentally tells us of the dignity of that person’s nature whose wonderful career he has undertaken to describe. And there is no reason why we should suppose him ignorant of the implications of his own facts, especially when his purpose in writing did not call for the explication of these implications. In a word, it seems clear enough that there lies behind the narrative of Mark not an undeveloped christology, Vbut only an unexpressed one. To give expression to his christology did not lie within the limits of the task he had undertaken.^®
23 Cf. a careful precis of Mark’s Conception of the Verson and Office of Christ in a section of Dr. Swete’s Introduction to his commentary on Mark: pp. xc-xcv. If we should put together, simply, the elements of Mark’s christology, perhaps it might be expressed as follows: Jesus was a man, appointed by God Messiah, and endowed for His Messianic ^ tasks; but not a mere man, but a superhuman being, in rank and dignity above angels (13^^), who “came” to earth for a mission. This mission was not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and accordingly involved humiliation and suffering: but a humiliation and suffering not for Himself but vicarious (lo^®, cf. 2^'^). He prosecuted this min- Cistry by a career of preaching (1^®), and in the end died and rose again that He might give His life a ransom for many (10^^). Meantime, being God’s beloved Son, the heavenly King of God’s own Kingdom predicted in Daniel, the Lord of the House (13^®, cf. ii^) and no servant (12®, cf. 9'^), not merely David’s son but David’s Lord (i235) who is Jehovah Himself (i^). He had in His hands all author- ■’ ity (i22 1 27 210 228 ^^41 ^43^ (,f. 1^1 2^ 9~^) y and exercised all divine prerogatives — controlling evil spirits, the laws of nature, death itself, —
'Markus Conception of Our Lord 53
We must guard ourselves especially from imagining lat the recognition found in Mark of the deity of Mark’s Jesus is in any way clouded by the em- Conception of phasis he places on the Messiahship of le Messiahship ^g fundamental fact of His lission. We have already had occasion to point out lat the Messiahship and the deity of Jesus are not lutually exclusive conceptions. Even on the purely ewish plane it was possible to conceive the Messiah supernatural person: and He is so conceived, for sample, in the Similitudes of Enoch and the Visions f 4 Esdras. The recognition of the deity of Jesus y Mark — and by Jesus as reported by Mark — in no ^ay interferes with the central place taken in Mark’s arrative — and in Jesus’ thought of Himself as reorted by Mark, — by our Lord’s Messianic claims. It nly deepens the conception of the Messiahship which; presented as the conception which Jesus fulfilled, "he result is merely that the Christian movement beomes, from the point of view of the history of the dessianic ideal, an attempt to work a change in the urrent conception of the Messianic office — a change Eich involved its broadening to cover a wider area f Old Testament prophecy and its deepening to emody spiritual rather than prevailingly external aspira-!ons.^^ We have already noted that our Lord’s ading the heart and the future (9^^ and forgiving sin on irth, and after His dying rose again and in His own proper time will turn in the clouds of heaven with the angels to establish the King-)m and judge the world.
24 Cf. Wellhausen, Mark, p. 71: “I can find this at least not incredle, that Jesus was pleased with the name of the Jewish ideal, and;t changed its contents, and that not merely with respect to the Mesah, but analogously also with respect to the Kingdom of God.” How preference for His self-designation of the title ‘ Son of Man ’ over other more current titles is indicatory of His enlarged and enriched conception of the Messiahship: and we have already hinted that even the title ‘ Son of Man ’ only partly suggests the contents of His conception, elements of which found their adumbration in yet other portions of Old Testament prediction. Among these further elements of Old Testament prophecy taken up into and given validity in His conception, there are especially notable those that portray the Righteous Servant of Jehovah, culminating in the 53d chapter of Isaiah, and those that set forth what has appropriately been called the “ Advent of Jehovah,” — the promises, in a word, of the intervention of Jehovah Himself to redeem His people.
Wellhausen would have such a remark understood, however, may be dcommodiously ^learned from his section on “ the Jewish and the Christian Messiah ” in the closing pages of his Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (1905). The Christian conception of the Messiah, such as lies on the pages of Mark, for example — that paradoxical contradiction of the gallows-Messiah, formed on the basis of the actual crucifixion of Jesus — is of course the product of the time subsequent to the death of Jesus; but its existence would be inexplicable without the assumption that Jesus was supposed by His followers to be the Messiah, although of course in His life-time it was not this Christian conception but the ordinary Jewish conception of the Messiah which they attributed to Him. The attitude of Jesus Himself to this ascription of Messiahship to Him Wellhausen finds it somewhat difficult to determine (p. 92). He is certain that Jesus did not follow the method of the Pseudochrists and openly proclaim Himself Messiah; but he thinks that there are indications that He did not repel the notion when applied to Him — though, of course, this involved an “ accommodation,” as He was by no means prepared to meet the expectations connected with the title. It was no doubt, then, as a religious regenerator, not as a political restorer, that He accepted the title; but this remained at least so far within Jewish limits as not to involve that complete renunciation of Judaism which “ lies in the conception of the gallows-Messiah, of the Messiah rejected by the Jews,” of the writers of the New Testament.
It may be very easy to do less than justice to the Messianic Ideal current among the Jewish people at the time of our Lord, centering as It did In the hope of the establishment of an external kingdom endowed with the irresistible might of God. Of course this Kingdom of God was conceived as a kingdom of righteousness; and it may be possible to show that most of the Items that enter into the Old Testament predictions, including that of redemption from sin, were not wholly neglected In one or another form of Its expression. The difference between It and the Messianic conception developed by Jesus and His followers may thus almost be represented as merely a difference of emphasis.*® But a difference of emphasis may be far from a small difference; and the effect of the difference in this case certainly amounted to a difference in kind. This new Messianic Ideal Is unmistakably apparent In Mark’s conception and In the conception of Jesus as represented by Mark’s record of His sayings. We can trace In Mark’s record the Influence of factors recalling the Righteous Servant (lo^® 9^* 14*^ and the Divine Redeemer (i^) as well as the Danielle Son of Man.*® But these fac-
On this general subject see two or three very strong pages in Dalman, Words, pp. 295-299: cf. Stanton, 134.
26 Speaking of the conception embodied in the title ‘ Son of Man ’ by Dur Lord as reported in the Gospels, Charles {The Book of Enoch, pp. 312-317) argues that it included in it all the ideas suggested by the Servant of Jehovah of Isaiah, and therefore so far commends Bartlet’s:onstruction {Expositor, Dec. 1892). Says Charles (p. 316): “This:ransformed conception of the Son of Man is thus permeated through-)ut by the Isaian conception of the Servant of Jehovah; but though:he Enochic conception is fundamentally transformed, the transcendent daims underlying it are not for a moment forgotten.” If we may be permitted to find the preadumbration of the “ transcendent ” element of tors attain fuller expression in the records of the other evangelists. So that here too we find them bringing out into clearness what already lies in Mark rather than adding anything really new to his presentation.
this conception, not in Enoch but in the O. T. representation of the Advent of Jehovah, Charles’ conception of the Messianic ideal of our Lord, for the expression of which He chose the term ‘ Son of Man,^ seems to us generally just. It is — for whatever reason — essentially a synthesis of the three lines of prediction embodied in the Isaianic “ Servant of Jehovah,” the Danielic “ Son of Man,” and the general T. “ Advent of Jehovah,” along with which the other lines of prophecy — such as those embodied in the “ Davidic King ” — also find their place.
When we turn to Matthew’s Gospel, and observe the designations applied in it to our Lord, what chiefly strikes us is that it runs in this matter on precisely the same lines with Mark, with only this difference, that what is more or less latent in Mark becomes fully ^patent in Matthew.
The narrative name of our Lord is in Matthew (as in Mark) the simple ‘ Jesus’; which (as in Mark) The Narrative never occurs as other than the narra- Name, and tive name, with the single exception Exceptions (which is no exception) that in announcing His birth the Angel of the Lord is reported as commanding, “ Thou shalt call His name Jesus ” (i^^). And not only does Matthew, like Mark, reserve the simple ‘ Jesus ’ for his narrative name, but, also like Mark, he practically confines himself to it. The only outstanding exceptions to this are that Matthew sets (like Mark) the solemn Messianic designation ‘Jesus Christ’ in the heading of his Gospel (i^), and follows this up (unlike Mark) by repeating it both at the opening of his formal narrative (i^®), and at an important new starting point in his narrative ( i62i V. r.^.1 employs a certain fulness of des-
1 In all tliese three places ’’lyjffoo? Xpifft6<; seems to be used as a proper name. Meyer (i^, p. 51) says: “In the Gospels Xpiard^ stands as a proper name only in Mt Mk Jno... here also ignation throughout the formal genealogy with which the Gospel begins, by which he places the ‘ Jesus ’ of whom he is to speak clearly before the readers and clearly as the Messiah. “ The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham ” (i^) is the phraseology with which he opens this genealogy: he closes it with the words, “Mary of whom was born Jesus surnamed Christ” and in the summary which he adjoins he calculates the generations “ unto Christ ” (i^^) — a designation which meets us again at ii^. Thus Matthew in beginning his Gospel leaves no room for doubting that he purposes to present the story of Jesus’ life as the life of the Messiah; but as soon as he has given that formal emphatic enunciation, he takes up the narrative with the simple ‘ Jesus ’ and with only the two breaks at ii^ and carries it on with the simple ‘Jesus’
to the end.^ The simple ‘Jesus’ occurs thus in his
(cf. Mk 1^), in the superscription, the whole of the great name’/Ty^roo? Xpc(Tr6? is highly appropriate, nay, necessary.”
2 The name ‘Jesus’ occurs in Matthew about 149 times. Of these, on nine occasions it is used in combination with additional designations (‘Jesus Christ,’ i6~^; ‘Jesus surnamed Christ,’ 27'^’^
‘Jesus the Nazarene,’ 26^1; ‘Jesus the Galilean,’ 2669; ‘the prophet Jesus who is from Nazareth of Galilee,’ 21II; ‘Jesus the King of the Jews,’ 2767). The simple ‘Jesus’ occurs therefore about 140 times; and always is Matthew’s own except i2i. It is according to Moulton and Geden anarthrous in the following passages: (i^) 1i6.21.25 (l621) 178 2017.30 2i1.12 2661.69,71,75 2717,22,37 286. 9 (l8[2o] in all). Two of these instances (178 and aoU) may, however, be eliminated as probably false readings. ‘Jesus Christ,’ iS is properly without the article, both because that is the regular usage with proper names in headings, and because that is the regular usage with the first mention of a proper name; 1621 is to be looked upon in accordance with this as a new beginning; while at the article is present because it takes up the ‘Jesus Christ’ of ii again, further explained at as the “Jesus surnamed Christ,” and hence is almost equivalent to ‘"this Jesus Christ.” In ii® 2717.22 2669.71 2731, the article is properly absent on narrative about 139 times, and is replaced only by the compound ‘ Jesus Christ ’ ( 16^^ cf., and by the simple ‘Christ’ ii^ cf. i^®), each, at most three times.
In this sparing use of ‘ Jesus Christ ’ and ‘ Christ ’ by Matthew himself, the term ‘ Christ ’ appears to be ‘Christ* employed not as an appellative but as a Proper as a proper name. In 2^, no doubt, Name Christ ” is used in the general sense of “the Messiah”: Herod did not inquire of “ the chief priests and scribes of the people ” where Jesus was born, but where, according to prophecy, “ the; Messiah should be born”: but just on that account there is no direct reference to Jesus at all here. The commentators are very generally inclined to look upon the use of “ the Christ ” in 1 as a similar instance, as if what John had heard in the prison was that “ the works of the Messiah ” — such works, that is, as were expected of the Messiah, — were occurring abroad; and accordingly sent and asked Jesus whether He was indeed “ the Coming One.”® Attractive as this explana- the general rule that it is always omitted as superfluous in the presence of a defining appositional phrase with the article (Blass, p. 152; Moulton-Winer, 140-1). Perhaps even 28® may be classed here. Blass (152) supposes the omission of the article at 28^ regular, on the ground that no anaphora is conceivable there. In 20^® the article seems wanting because (present, * passeth') the clause is a quotation from the popular mouth, and the use of ‘ Jesus ’ does not range anaphorically with preceding instances; possibly 28® may be so explained. In 121,26 certainly an article would be out of place. There remain 14I 2i^'^2 2651,75, 3Q explanation of which does not readily present itself. The use of the article with personal names seems to have been capricious in the Greek of all ages (cf. J. H. Moulton, Grammar, p. 83; Moulton’s Winer, 140; Schmiedel-Winer, 153; Blass, 152).
2 “John the Baptist,” says Holtzmann {Hand-Corn., 133), “was almost persuaded that Jesus could fulfil the Messianic purpose, that His works were therefore of the Messianic variety roo Xpi(iTou)t* tion is, however, it scarcely seems to fit in with the connection. Jesus’ exhibition of His works to the messengers would hardly in these circumstances have been an answer to John’s inquiry, so much as rather a refusal to give an answer. And the connection of the pronoun “ Him ” in verse 3 with its antecedent “ Christ ” of verse 2 appears to require us to take that term not as a general but as a particular one: John surely is not said to have sent to “ the Messiah ” and inquired of “ Him ” whether He was the Messiah. In other words if “the Christ” (o XpiaroQ) can be taken as a proper name, designating Jesus, surely it must be so taken here. And that it can be so taken and is so taken by Matthew, its use in appears to show.
“ The Christ ” in also has sometimes, to be
“The works which Jesus does,” says Wellhausen in loc., “rouse doubts in John whether He is really the Christ; for he had expected from the Christ something wholly different. Just on this account Matthew calls them the works of the Christ;... the Baptist turns, however, with his doubts to Jesus Himself and leaves the decision to Him.” “ The nvorks/’ comments J. A. Alexander, “ i.e. the miracles (Lk 7^®) of Christ, not of Jesus as a private person, but of the Messiah, which He claimed to be,... The meaning then is that John heard in prison of miraculous performances appearing and purporting to be wrought by the Messiah.” These commentators seem to suppose that
Mt is to be rendered somewhat like this: “But John, because he heard in his prison through the medium of his disciples of [talk about] the works of the Messiah, sent through the medium of his disciples to * ask Him, Art thou the Coming One, or are we to look for another?” The query arises, however, to whom John sent this inquiry? To “the Messiah”? Or to Jesus? What, then, is the antecedent of the abrih} As the abrm is Jesus, so its antecedent rob Xpurrob is Jesus: and the concrete rather than the abstract seems more natural. Why not then translate: “Having heard of the works of Christ he sent and asked Him”? The solution seems to depend on whether J XpuTr6<;\s used always as a pure appellative in Mat., or sometimes as a nomen pro^ prium, or at least as a quasi nomen proprium. But the answer to that is scarcely doubtful (e.g.
sure, been understood as the general term, “ the Messiah.”^ But this throws it out of range not only with the other names in this simple summary, wherein the corresponding terms in the accounting are most simply given — Abraham, David, the Babylonian deportation; but also with the precedent phrase, ‘ Jesus, surnamed Christ,’ of verse i6 to which it refers back and which it takes up and repeats. For that the ‘ Christ ’ in this phrase is a simple proper name is not only suggested by the absence of the article with it, but is indicated by the currency of a similar mode of speech in the case of like instances of double names.® It appears then that the addition, “ surnamed Christ,” is intended in this passage as a formal identification of the par-
*So, for example, Weiss, in his reworking of Meyer. He supposes that the summary here is not merely a mnemonic device, but rests on a deeply-laid symbolism. There were fourteen generations from Abraham to the establishment of the kingdom; and fourteen more from its establishment to its loss: should there not be just fourteen more from its destruction to its re-establishment in the Messiah? “ It is accordingly,” he says, “ also beyond dispute that we should translate — ‘ up to the Messiah.’” Similarly (he says) Kubel and Nosgen. This carries with it the appellative sense in and 27^’^.
5Cf. Dalman {Words, 303): “In Mt 27i7>22 pilate uses the expression "Ifjffou? 6 Xsyofxsvoq Xpi(Tr6<;. That is not intended to mean ‘ Jesus, who is supposed to be the Messiah,’ but with the usual sense of this idiom, ‘ Jesus surnamed Christ.’ ” The same form is seen in Mt ii®, and in 6 Xeyofievot^ IUrpoi; 4^® lo^. Cf. Meyer’s note on ticular Jesus in question;® and the employment of “ Christ ” instead of “ Jesus ” in the subsequent summary (verse 17) is perhaps best explained in the interests of this clearness of designation, the article accompanying it having the force of “ the aforesaid Christ.”
Matthew thus notifies us at the beginning of his narrative that the ‘ Jesus ’ with whom he is to deal has another name, to wit, ‘ Christ ’
Why so and so prepares the way for an occasional employment or this other name ii^). Our only surprise is that he employs it so seldom. The account to be given of this is probably that, after all, in the circles for which Matthew wrote, this ‘ Jesus ’ had become so unapproachably the only ‘ Jesus ’ who would come to mind on the mention of the name, that the more distinctive surname ‘ Christ ’ was not needed in speaking of Him to secure His identification; it is employed, therefore, only when some suggestion of His Messiahship was intruding itself upon the mind, as is the case certainly at ii^’^ and no doubt also at and we may add equally so
® So also Fritzsche, in loc., who translates: “Jesus, whose cognomen is Christ.” “ Thus,” he continues, “ Jesus is by these words discriminated from other men of the same name, and Xpi(Tr6<; does not declare Him Messiah, but as in verse is His name.” According to this interpretation, he would have passages of similar character explained, e.g. Mt 271^ 22] Jesus quern Christi nomine ornant*’ — and so
Cf. Zahn, in loc.: “That Matthew, who elsewhere in the narrative statedly speaks of Jesus by His proper name, writes rou Xpcffzou here instead, is explained just as in from his purpose to give brief and emphatic expression to the fact that the deeds which are spoken of indicate Him as the Messiah.”
in (cf. “the Son of David”), and 16“^ (cf. v. 20), where the compound ‘ Jesus Christ ’ occurs. This is to recognize, of course, that the surname ‘Christ’ was the name of dignity as distinguished from the simple name of designation, and preserved, even when employed as a proper name, its implications of Messiahship; but this is in any event a matter of course and should not be confounded with the question of its appellative use. The employment of the term ‘ Christ ’ as a proper name of Jesus so far from losing sight of His claim to Messiahship, accordingly, bears witness to so complete an acquiescence in that claim on the part of the community in which this usage of the term was current, that the very official designation was conceived as His peculiar property and His proper designation (cf. 2^17-22).8 sparingness of Matthew’s employment of it, on the other hand, manifests how little our Lord’s dignity as Messiah needed to be insisted on in the circles for which Matthew wrote, and how fully the simple name ‘ Jesus ’ could convey to the readers all that was wrapped up in His personality.
Besides this sparing use of ‘ Jesus Christ * and ‘ Christ,’ then, Matthew makes use in his own person
Jesus* of no other designation in speaking of
Popular our Lord than the simple ‘ Jesus,’ al-
Name though on three occasions he adduces with reference to Him designations which he finds in the prophets: ‘Immanuel’ ‘Lord’ (3^), ‘the
Nazarene ’ (2^^). The implications of the first two
® The climax of this development was reached, of course, when the followers of Jesus were called simply “ Christians ” — which occurred first, we are told, at Antioch (Acts Cf. art. “Christian” in of these we may leave for later reference. The last bears witness to the fact that Jesus was currently known by His contemporaries as “ a Nazarene,” that is to say, that His ordinary distinctive designation among the people in the midst of whom His ministry was passed would be, ‘ Jesus the Nazarene,’ as the maid, indeed, is recorded to have spoken of Him in the court of the high priest (26^^). This exact designation, however, does not elsewhere occur in Matthew’s narrative, although its broader equivalent, from the (Standpoint of a Jerusalemite, ‘ Jesus the Galilean,’ is represented as employed by the companion maid (26®^), and the multitude seeking to do Him honor is represented as describing Him with great fulness as “ the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee ” (21^^). The simple ‘ Jesus,’ as has been already pointed out. He is not represented as called, except by the angel announcing His birth (i“^), but Pilate is quoted as designating Him by His full name, “ Jesus, surnamed Christ” (27^'^’^^), and we are told that there was set over His head on the cross the legend, “ This is Jesus, the King of the Jews” (27^^). In both instances the adjunct is, no doubt, scornful, though it is less obviously so on Pilate’s lips than in the inscription on the cross.
The employment by Pilate of the full name, ‘ Jesus, surnamed Christ,’ seems to bear witness that already Early Use of before Jesus’ death He had been so pre- ‘ Christ ’ as a vailingly Spoken of as the Messiah that Proper Name official designation might seem to have become part of His proper name. The alternatives are to suppose that Matthew does not report the exact words of Pilate, who may be thought rather to have used the phrase appearing in the parallel passage in Mark — “ the King of the Jews or else that the term Christ is employed here in its full official sense as an appellative, — “ Jesus who is commonly called the Christ.”^® The former, however, is a purely gratuitous suggestion; (Mark and Matthew do not contra- ^(^dict but supplement one another. And the latter seems '"^(not quite consonant with the language used. There seems, moreover, really no reason why we may not suppose Pilate to have caught the term “ Christ ” as applied to Jesus, and to have understood it as a proper name, especially when we are expressly told by Luke (23^) that the accusation which was lodged against Him took the form that He had proclaimed Himself to be “ Christ, a King.” Nor, indeed, does there seem any compelling reason why it may not already have been employed of Jesus by His followers sufficiently constantly to have begun to be attached to Him as at least a quasi-proper name (cf. ii^). On heathen ears, as we know, the term “ Christ ” was apt to strike as a proper name and, in any event, the title ‘ Christ ’ began very early, at least in Christian circles, to be ^ appropriated to Jesus in much the connotation of a '.-proper name, because men did not wait for His death "^before they began to hope it would be He who should deliver Israel.^^ If we may suppose, as in any event we must, that even as a proper name, or as a quasiproper name, there clung to the term ‘ Christ ’ a sense of its honorific character, it would appear quite possible
10 So e.g. Alexander and Weiss.
Suetonius, Chresto impulsore,” and note Acts that Pilate, “ knowing that it was from envy that they had delivered Him up,” meant by giving Jesus His full and evidently honorific name, to play upon the multitude, that they should demand “ Jesus, surnamed Christ,” rather than Barabbasd®
Like Mark, Matthew represents Jesus as customarily addressed by the simple current honorific titles. The Simple actual Aramaic form, ‘ Rabbi,’ how- Honorific ever, oddly enough, is retained only in Addresses repeating the only two remarks recorded in Matthew’s narrative as made to the Lord by Judas Iscariot (26^^’^®).^* Its usual Greek rendering,
‘Teacher’ {dcddaxale) ^ also takes a relatively inferior place in Matthew, being largely supplanted by the more Greek ‘ Lord ’ ( ^'\oce), perhaps as the representative of the Aramaic Mdri}^ A tendency seems even observable to reserve ‘Teacher’ {dcddaxaXe) for the non-committal, respectful address of those who were not followers of Jesus (12^® 22^®’^^’^®; 9I1 19^®). It is employed, however, in
If the reading ‘ Jesus Barabbas ’ in Mt 27131'^ could be accepted, it would supply a reason why Pilate should have employed the full name ‘Jesus surnamed Christ.’ He would have wished to ascertain which Jesus the people wanted. But see A. Plummer in Hastings’ DicL of the Bible, art. ‘Barabbas’ (i. 245).
1^ The contrast between the address of the other disciples, “ Is it I, Lord ( xbpie.)?” (verse 22), and that of Judas, “Is it I, Rabbi?” is marked. It imports that Judas, though among our Lord’s closest followers, was not of them: they recognize Him as their Lord, he only as his teacher. But it remains obscure why in the case of Judas only Matthew uses the Aramaic “ Rabbi,” rather than, as in other cases of similar contrast, the current Greek form, diddffxaXe.
13 Wellhausen on Mt 23'^'i3 (p. 117) remarks: “We observe that the address or diddaxaXe is claimed here for Jesus and for Him alone, whereas elsewhere In Matthew and Luke it is too low for Him and is replaced hy xopie (mari).”
the case of a scribe who came to Jesus and declared his purpose to become His constant follower (8^®, cf. 19^®). And our Lord places it on His disciples’ lips when He instructs them to “ go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Teacher says. My time is at hand; I keep the passover with my disciples at thy house” (26^®). Similarly in didactic statements He refers to the relation between Him and
His followers as well under the terms of ‘ Teacher and disciple ’ as under those of ‘ servant and Lord,’ ‘ the Householder and the household ’: and forbids His followers to be called ‘ Rabbi,’ because He alone is their ‘ Teacher,’ as pointedly as He forbids them to be called ‘ guides,’ because He, the Christ, alone is their ‘ Guide ’ (23^-^^).
Two new terms are brought before us in these lastquoted declarations, — ‘ House-master ’ Mt
{^adrjT^Tij^) occurs indeed nowhere elsed® and we can say of it only that our Lord chose it as one of
^®The source of the term xadrjYi^TTj^ has been much discussed. It seems to have been in use in the Greek philosophical schools in the sense of Master, Teacher (see Wettstein in loc.). The Hebraists (Wunsche, Delitzsch, Salkinson) are inclined to seek for it an Aramaic original, miD (cf. Holtzmann, Hand-Corn., 251): but on this see Dalman, W ords, pp. 335-340. It is a deeper question whether it may not be a Messianic title in accordance with the preservation of such a designation — ^ Hathahy ‘the Guide’ — among the Samaritans: see Stanton, Jevnsh and Christian Messiah, 127. There is no rational ground for simply casting the verse out of Matthew (Blass, Wellhausen, Holtzmann, even Dalman).
the designations which expressed His exclusive relation to His disciples. He was their only Teacher, Guide, Master and Lord. But ‘ House-master ’ (ocxod£(77r6r/^(:) seems to have been rather a favorite figurative expression with Him, to set t^e^^Hou^e forth His relation to His disciples, whether in didactic or in parabolic statement. In one of His parables, indeed, it is not He who is the ‘ H^use-master ’, but in distinction from the slaves which make up otherwise the household; and the uniqueness of His relation to the Father as His Son is thrown up into the strongest light, and is further emphasized in the application, where Jesus speaks of Himself as the chief cornerstone on which the Kingdom of God is built (verse 42) and on their relation to which the destinies of men hang (verse 44). In other parables, however (13“^ etseq., etseq.^^ ‘Housemaster ’ (oho^eanoTT]^') is Jesus Himself, and the functions that are ascribed to Him as such have especial reference to the destinies of men. As the ‘ Housemaster’ {olxodzar.or/]^) He distributes to men the rewards of their labors in accordance with His own will, doing as He will with His own (20^^): and bears with the tares in the field in which He has sown good corn until the time of harvest shall come, when He will send the reapers — who are “ His Angels ” — to gather them out and burn them with fire (13^^ ^
In 13*^2 the ohodsarzoTTj^; is “every scribe who has been made a disciple in the kingdom of heaven.” And in 24^2 the oixodeffTzoTT^^ is the watching follower on earth who waits for His coming.
pressly identified with ‘the Son of Man’ (13^®) the inalienably divine function of Judge of the earth is assigned, and it is with this high connotation in His mind that He speaks of Himself as such, over against His “ domestics,” when He warns them not to expect better treatment at the hands of men than He has received (10^^). The implications of sovereignty inherent in the term run up in its application therefore into the sovereignty of God: as ‘ House-master ’ {ohodeanozy]^), Jesus is pictured as our divine Lordd®
If ‘Teacher’ {dtddaxale) somewhat sinks in value as an honorific form of address in Matthew as,, compared with Mark, its more Greek other hand, is more frequently and variously employed by Matthew than by Markd^ It
On the meaning of olxods(nz6rrj<s see T. D. Woolsey, Bibliotheca Sacra, July, i86i, p. 599. means “the absolute owner of things... as... de(nt6rf)(s oixca?, the master of a house or
On the use of xopis in Matthew and its relations to other forms of address, cf. Zahn, on Mt. 7-1 (p. 315, note 235). Kupie, he tells us,
is employed “ as an address to Jesus on the part of people who still stood at a distance from Jesus, commonly in seeking help from Him, in Mt 928 (v. 27, Son of David), 1522,27 along
disciples of Jesus also address Him by diddaxals: (Jno 13^6-16^ of. io24; examples: Mk 468 988 13I. pa^^i, Mk 9® ii2i, Jno 188,49 481 ^2 II®), the distinction is, however, to be noted that this address is used also by His opponents, and especially by the scribes (in Mt 8^® no doubt by a friendly scribe in approaching Him, but still one who did not become a disciple, in clear distinction from 8^1, cf. 12®® 19I® 22^6*24, 3« Jno 32: and by Judas, Mt 2625,49), ^hile on the other hand xbpteis never so used, since from the very nature of the case it is the address
appears upon the lips alike of applicants for our Lord’s mercy, whether Jewish (8^ 9^^ 17^^ or heathen
1 522 j,^4 jg2i 26^^); but never on the lips of one who Is not in some sense a follower of Jesus, either as suitor for His grace or as His professed disciple. ‘ Lord ’ ( ''iopce) is accordingly a higher mode of designation in Matthew than ‘Teacher’ (^dcddaxah), and imports a closer bond of connection with Jesus and a more profound and operative recognition of His authority. It occurs some twenty-one times^° as a form of address to Jesus, and, besides once as an address to God (ii“^), only a single time (to Pilate, 27^^), outside of parables, as an address to anyone else. Even in its parabolic use, indeed, its reference is always (except 21^^ only) either to God ( 1 325,,27,31 1 832,34 2 j42^ ^24^ qj. Jesus pictured in positions of
of the servant to his master and ruler, among the Orientals and later the Hellenists and after Domitian also the Romans the address of subjects to governors, occasionally also of the son to the father (e.g. Berlin Aegypt. Ur hind. 8i6, i. 28, 821, i) and always an honorific expression of subjection to those addressed (cf. Mt 22*4 saq.)^ or at least of dependence upon them at the moment. Thus Pilate Is so addressed by the Sanhedrin (Mt 27®^), but also Philip by the Greeks (Jno la^i), the gardener by the Magdalen (Jno 2q4^), in each case in preferring a request.” When Zahn says (on the same page) that “ it was only
after Jesus’ death ” that xupis “ took on in the Christian community a more precise and richer content,” he seems not to be bearing In mind the Implications of such passages as 21 ^ 24^2 2243-45^ and even itself, though Zahn explains that passage otherwise. It is clear from even 21^ alone that Jesus was constantly called ‘Lord’ and that in a very high connotation.
course, that this supreme authority is explicit in every case of the actual use of the term: in a number of instances the term may express no more than high respect and a general recognition of authority, and in several instances it is represented in parallel passages in the other evangelists by one or another of its lower synonyms.^^ But its tendency is distinctly upwards; and no reader can fail to catch a very high note in its repeated use, or can feel surprise when it is observed to be connected usually with at least Messianic impli- 'cations (15^^ ^21, 21^ jg found occasionally to be suggestive of something even higher Nor will he be surprised to perceive that in its highest connotation it appears characteristically upon the lips of our Lord Himself, who represents men as seeking to enter the Kingdom of Heaven by crying to Him ‘Lord, Lord’ (7"^), and as addressing Him on the Day of Judgment as He sits King on the throne of His glory by the appropriate title of ‘ Lord ’ (25^^’^^). In the latter case, of course, nothing is lacking of rec- ' ognition of divine majesty itself: this ‘ Lord ’ is not only “ the Son of Man ” come in His glory with all Xthe angels with Llim (verse 31), ‘the King’ (verses 34, 40) seated on the throne of His majesty (verse 31), but ‘the Judge of all the earth,’ distributing to each man his eternal destiny, according to the relation in which each stands to His own person.
It is clear enough from passages like these that our Lord is represented by Matthew as conceiving His relation to His followers as very an Appellat^n properly expressed by the term ‘ Lord.’ But the appellative use of the term of Jesus is nevertheless not common In Matthew. No;\^more in Matthew than In Mark Is Jesus spoken of by the evangelist himself or represented as freely spoken of by others as ‘ the Lord.’ Even In the words of the angel at the tomb, “ Come, see the place where the Lord lay” (28®), the words “the Lord” are probably not genuine. Nevertheless, on the Ups of our Lord Himself the appellative use of the term does occur, and that In no low significance. He declares Himself as ‘ the Son of Man ’ to be ‘ Lord of the Sabbath ’ (12®). He Instructs His disciples In requisitioning the ass and her colt for His formal entry Into Jerusalem to reply to all challengers with the simple words, “The Lord has need of them” (21^), — and the narrator connects this Instruction with the fulfillment of the prophecy that the King of Zion shall enter It “ riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass ” (verse 5). He warns His followers that as they know not on what day ‘their Lord’ cometh (24^“), — that Lord who Is the Son of Man, who Is to come In glory for the judgment of the world (verse 44), — they are to preserve a constant attitude of watchfulness. And in accordance with these declarations He explains that though David’s son. He, the Christ, Is much more than David’s son, — as David himself In the Spirit recognized,— even David’s ‘Lord’ (22^^’^®), and that, a Lord who sits on the right hand of the Lord who Is Jehovah. It Is In full harmony with these definitions of His Lordship cited from the Lord’s own lips that the evangelist himself (3^) applies to Him the term ‘ Lord ’ in that prophecy of Isaiah, in which there is promised “ a voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord,” Jehovah; thus identifying His coming with the promised advent of Jehovah and His person with Jehovah who was to come. However little therefore the mere form of f address ‘ Lord ’ as applied to Christ may necessarily imply in Him a superhuman dignity, it is clear that the actual Lordship accredited to Him by Matthew, and by Himself as reported by Matthew, stretches above all human claims.
We cannot fail to have observed, as we have contemplated these honorific addresses and titles accorded to our Lord, that it is His Messianic dignity which proximately underlies them all. And we shall be prepared by this observation to note that with Matthew as with Mark, the presentation of Him as the promised Messiah belongs among the primary ends of the evangelist, and that in the process of this presentation a considerable number of Messianic titles are ascribed to Him. Matthew bears witness, like Mark, to be ( sure, that the people recognized in Him a prophet (21^6 16^^) and that Jesus Himself was far from repelling this attribution (13^^); but little stress is laid upon this and it may be easily understood that prophetic powers were conceived by Matthew, as by Mark, to be included in His Messianic endowment. We have seen that he himself calls Jesus in the formal opening of his Gospel (i^), at the beginning of the narrative proper and at the new beginning marked by His open proclamation of His dignity
(i6^^), by the solemn compound name of ‘Jesus Christ,’ thus carefully announcing His Messianic claims as governing the very frame-work of his Gospel. And we have seen him following up this ceremonious use of the full name ‘ Jesus Christ ’ in the opening of the Gospel, by explaining the term ‘ Christ,’ which forms a part of it, as a surname of Jesus due to the recognition of Him as the Messiah on which account He forms the natural termination of the genealogy begun in Abraham and by implying that His works marked Him out as the Messiah ( 1 1^), so that the imprisoned John, hearing of them, was impelled to inquire into their meaning. How widespread the knowledge of His Messianic claims was is witnessed by the adjuration of the high priest at His trial, “ I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ” (26®^), and the bitter sport His judges made of Him (26®®) as they smote Him and demanded, “ Tell us, Christ, who smote thee.”
Evidently our Lord’s claim to the Messianic dignity is intended to be represented as having been
Our Lord’s clear, constant and emphatic: so a part Own Messianic of Himself in the popular understand- Claims heathen judge already conceived the title ‘ Christ’ as only His surname (27^'^’“^ cf. ii^). And indeed Matthew’s narrative leaves us in no uncertainty that Jesus had claimed this title for Himself from His earliest ministry. When the Baptist, having heard of the works He did, sent from his prison to ask Him whether He was ‘ the Coming One ’ (ii^). He replied with no doubtful indication that Lie was indeed ‘the Christ’ When Peter (16^®) in his great confession declared Him ‘‘ the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus pronounced the declaration a revelation from heaven (16^’^), and only charged His disciples not as yet to reveal the fact that He was “the Christ” (i6“^). It was evidently to elevate the conception current as to the Christ whom He represented Himself as being that He put to His opponents the searching question, how could the Christ be merely 'David’s son, when David himself, in the Spirit, spoke of Him as his Lord — a Lord seated on the right hand of God (22^^'^®). Because He was, as ‘the Christ,’ the sole ‘ Guide ’ to His followers. He would not have them be called guides, even as they should put no earthly person in the place of their one Father in heaven (23^®). The name ‘the Christ,’ He explained 1(24^), was exclusively His own, and it would be a usurpation, therefore, which could only lead astray, if others should come “ in the strength of His name, saying ” — therefore falsely, — “ I am the Christ.” When the high priest adjured Him to tell whether He were the Christ, the Son of God” (26^^) He, accordingly, ^ solemnly accepted the title and explained that in accepting it He took it in its highest connotation (26®^)
< — in so high a connotation indeed that His judges promptly pronounced what He had spoken blasphemy. It is, therefore, only in imitation of Jesus Himself that Matthew treats the designation of ‘ the Christ ’ as Jesus’ peculiar property and — though of course without emptying it of its lofty connotation — deals with it as His proper name by which He might be currently designated.
The ascription of the title ‘ Christ’ to Jesus carries with it naturally certain other Messianic titles which are involved in it. The simplest of these is ‘ the The Simple Coming One,’ based apparently on Messianic Mai 3^ or Ps 40^ or 1 1 8^®, and itself the Designations b^sis of a customary method of pregnant speech of the Messiah as “ coming.’”^*^ This designation is applied to Jesus in the question of the Baptist — “ Art thou the Coming One, or do we look for another? ” ( 1 1^), which Matthew records as having been called out by the report brought the Baptist of the “ works of Christ ” — using the name of ‘ Christ ’ here instead of ‘ Jesus,’ contrary to his custom, apparently under the influence of this train of thought. And the evangelist records in accordance with this designation a series of sayings of our Lord in which He speaks pregnantly of having “come” (5^^ 9^^ 10^^ 20^®, cf.
22 See the passages carefully enumerated in Thayer-Grimm, sub voc. epyoixai^ I. i a. /?. (pp. 250-1 near top). Dr. Edersheim, Life, etc., i. 668, says: “The designation, ‘the Coming One’ {habba), though a most truthful expression of Jewish expectations, was not one ordinarily used of the Messiah. But it was invariably used with reference to the Messianic age...” Dr. Edersheim Is speaking, of course, of what Is to be garnered from extant Jewish writings. The employment of the phrase in Mt ii^ and Lk Is sufficient proof that It bore among the Jews of the day “ a technical sense ” as a title of the Messiah (cf. Westcott on Jno i^^). With reference to the appearance of this designation precisely here, Zahn {in loc.) remarks: “While Mat-
thew expresses the dignity, as the possessor of which Jesus has manifested Himself by means of His works heretofore described, by the long established title of 6 Xpi<TTd<; (cf. esp. 2^), he makes the Baptist (who also in his public preaching seems to have avoided this title) give expression to the same conception, consonantly with the manner in which he had spoken of the future founder and King of the Kingdom of Heaven (3I1, Mk i'^, Lk 3I®, Jno j27) by the term o kpy6pevo<;^ the Coming One, the Great Expected. No doubt other expected personalities might be similarly spoken of (Mt 11^^ 17^® Jno 6^^), but in the mouth of the Baptist the expression was without ambiguity: for he had spoken of One only who was already on the way, which John was to prepare for Him.”