The Lord of Glory; Counterfeit Miracles; Revelation and Inspiration

stand in Matthew's Gospel, therefore, and raising doubts of their genuineness, we should have had to postulate something like them for Matthew, had they not stood in his Gospel. Matthew's portrait of Jesus and the self-witness he quotes from Jesus’ lips to His estate and dignit}’, in other words, themselves necessitate a doctrine of His nature and relations with God very much such as is set forth in these passages: and we can feel perfectly assured, therefore, that these passages represent with great exactness what Matthew would tell us of Jesus' deity and what he would report as Jesus' own conception of His divine relations. And what they tell us — we must not balk at it — is just that Jesus is all that God is, and shares in God's nature as truly as in God's majesty and power.

We meet very much the same series of designations applied to our Lord in Luke as in the other Synoptists. But they are applied with some characteristic differences.

In Luke, too, the ordinal*}^ narrative designation of our Lord is the simple ‘ Jesus,’ which occurs about seventy-seven times. ^ This simplest of all des- The Narrative... i • i i i

Designations ignations IS not so exclusively employed in the narrative of Luke, however, as in those of Matthew and Mark. There is an occasional variation in Luke to the more descriptive designation of ‘the Lord’ jq1,39,41 ^^39 ^^42 j^l5

18® 19® 2 fourteen times). No other designation than these tv*o, however, occurs as a narrative designation in Luke, although in three instances Luke makes use of another in his narrative. In two of these instances he is apparently repeating words from the lips of others: he tells us that it had been revealed to Simeon that he should not die until he had seen ‘ the Lord’s Christ’ (2“®) and that Bartimaeus was told that ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ was passing (i8^‘). In the remaining instance he remarks that the evil spirits knew that Jesus was ‘the Christ’ (4'^^); where ‘the Christ’ is not strictly a designation of Jesus, but the general term ‘ the Messiah.’ These instances exhibit Luke’s willingness to speak of Jesus as the Messiah indeed; but are scarcely exceptions to the general fact that he himself designates Jesus in the course of his narrative only as ‘ Jesus ’ and as ‘ the Lord.’^ As in the other Synoptists, the simple ‘ Jesus ’ in Luke is also practically reserved for the narrative designation. Only in the two instances of the annunciation of His name by the angel (T^), which is no exception, and in the address to Jesus on the cross by the dying thief (2342)3 jg broken. But, as in the other Synoptists, the name ‘ Jesus ’ occurs in compound forms of address to Him recorded by the evangelist, — ‘Jesus, Thou Son of God’ (8-^), ‘Jesus, Thou Son of David” (18"^), ‘Jesus, Master’ (17^^); and at the hands of the evil spirits (T^), the people (18^^) and His disciples (24^^) alike, ‘Jesus the Nazarene ’

2 In 242 the general transmission gives “the Lord Jesus”: but this is one of the instances in which it is scarcely possible not to follow a few “ Western ” witnesses in omitting a very strongly attested reading. This combination of designations occurs also in the spurious ending of Mark (i6i9), but not elsewhere in the Gospels. It becomes, however, quite frequent in Acts: 433 759 gi6 „it.20 1526 196,13,17

2o2i,24,35 2i13 28^!. It might thus have very well been used by Luke in his Gospel also. It is common in the Epistles.

3 The text is not quite certain here, and there are three ways of rendering it: (i) “And he said to Jesus, Remember me”; (2) “And he said, Jesus, remember me”; (3) “And he said. Lord, remember me.” The reading ‘Jesus’ seems the preferable one; but it is not altogether clear that anarthrous '’I-qnou here may not be the dative after 'iXeyev. The uniqueness of the ascription of the simple ‘ Jesus ’ as a form of address, to a speaker in the evangelist’s narrative, is, of course, favorable to taking it as a dative. In that case xopie would be an instinctive correction of "Irjffoo mistaken for a vocative; as in the other case it would be an instinctive insertion of a vocative “ because ^Irjffou here was mistaken for the dative” (Plummer).

— whence it emerges that it was by this name that He was popularly identified.*

The ordinary forms of address applied to Jesus in Luke are the simple honorifics, ‘ Teacher,’ ‘ Master,’ Ordinary ‘ Lord,’ employed, however, with a cer- Forms of tain discrimination.® The Aramaic Address ‘ Rabbi ’ does not occur in Luke at all. Its common Greek rendering, ‘ Teacher ’ (^dtddaxaXe) ^ seems to be treated as the current noncommittal honorific, especially appropriate on the lips of those who were not, or at least not yet, His disciples (7*" II*® 12^^ i8*« 19^" 8*^ 9^^)-

The only exception to its employment by this rule is supplied by 2i^ where we are told that certain of His disciples “ asked Him saying, ‘ Teacher,’ ” etc. That it was not thought inappropriate as a form of address from His disciples to Him is also evinced, however, by the report of His own employment of it on two occasions. He instructs His followers, in preparing the last passover meal for Him, to say to the goodman of the house, ‘‘The Teacher saith unto thee, where is the guest-chamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples” (22**); and He tells them, broadly indeed, but no doubt with some, though certainly remote, reference to Himself and them, that

5 There is a tendency, of course, to refer to Jesus where He was present in fact or thought by the simple demonstrative ouro?

“the disciple is not above his teacher; but every one when he is perfected shall be as his teacher ” (6^^). The choice of the term ‘Teacher’ {dtddaxaXoc:) in these two passages appears to be due to the correlative “disciples” occurring in each; and it remains true that ‘ Teacher ’ ( dtddaxaXe) as a form of address is characteristic in Luke, of non-followers of our Lord.® The place of ‘ Teacher ’ on the lips of His followers Is partly taken by a new term for ‘^Master,’ peculiar to Luke ( iTTtardzrj^) which however

‘Master' occurs only six times (5^

17^^), only one of which (17^^) forms an exception or quasi-exception to the rule that the term indicates that the user of it stands in the closest relation to Jesus, and acknowledges Him as his Superior Officer — Chief, Commander, Master, Leader. This quasi-exception occurs in the case of the ten lepers who, we are told, lifted up their voices and said, “ Jesus, Leader, have mercy on us.” Perhaps there is an intention to convey the impression that these lepers, formally at least, recognized the authority of Jesus completely. We cannot account 5^ another such exception, since the whole tone of the narrative indicates that this was not the first call of Peter to become Jesus’ disciple (cf. Jno i^^), but his call to become Jesus’ constant companion. There is no such direct use of Jesus in Luke (or in Mk) as in Matthew of the figurative expression ‘ Master of the House ’

Teacher’ is in 3^2 employed as an address to John the Baptist; and the Jewish Rabbis in the temple are called ‘Teachers’ in 2^®.

When Wellhausen on says ^^^E-Kiardra (and xopte) is used in Luke by the disciples; diddffxaXs by others,” he is thus substantially right. Cf. Plummer on 5^, where the meaning of the word is discussed.

' (^ohodeanoTTj^) ^ although the term occurs in parables with reference to Him (13^®

The prevailing form of address to Jesus in Luke is, however, the ordinary Greek honorific ‘ Lord ’ ( xupte), ^, used, however, obviously as an honor-

^ Addrws especially high connotation. It is put upon the lips, indeed, of outsiders, suitors for mercy (5^^ 7® 18^^ 19^) and possibly others 13^^); and our Lord’s own remark to the effect that some called Him ‘ Lord, Lord,’ who did not do the things He said (6^®) shows that it might be insincerely used of Him. But this very passage also indicates that to address Him as ‘ Lord ’ i^was to acknowledge His authority and involved subjection to His commandments, and accordingly the term is represented as employed chiefly by His professed followers (5® ii^ 12^^ 17®"^ 22®®’®®’^^).

Something of its high implication, when so used, may be caught from 5® in comparison with 5^ When our Lord, having used Simon’s boat for a pulpit, commanded him to let down his nets for a draught, Simon responded with the respectful address which implied that he recognized Jesus as his ‘Superior Officer’ {iTuaTdrrjQ) ^ “Master, we toiled all night, and took nothing: but at Thy word I will let down the nets.” But when he saw the resultant miraculous draught, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said: “ Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord ” — using now the higher honorific, ‘ Lord ’ ().* Obviously the address

® Streatfeild, Self -Interpretation of Jesus Christ, p. 99 note, is clearly in the wrong in supposing that the change from intardra of v. 5 to xvpie of V. 8 has no significance; and the occasional interchange of the terms, noted by Dalman as appealed to by Streatfeild, does not

‘ Lord ’ on the lips of Jesus’ followers was charged with very high significance, and this is borne out in its entire use.

Such a constant mode of address as ‘ Lord ’ by His followers, naturally would beget the habit of speaking

,,,, of Tesus among themselves as ‘the

Appellative Lord; and we can feel no surprise therefore that Jesus, in giving them instructions how to reply to possible objections to their taking the ass He sent them for as He was about to enter Jerusalem, placed this designation on their lips. “ Say,” He said, “ the Lord hath need of him ” ( 19^^); and accordingly they said (v. 34), “The Lord hath need of him” (cf. This instruction is recorded by all the Synoptists, and the usage which it involves of the term ‘Lord’jof Jesus as an appellative designation might very well, therefore, have been illustrated in the narratives of them all. The copious designatory employment of the title ‘ Lord ’ of Christ, however, is characteristic of Luke.® It is placed on the interpose an obstacle. Cf. Godet on verse 8: “ Peter here employs the more religious expression, Lord, which answers to his actual feelings ”; and Plummer, verse 8; “The change from ^raffrara (see on verse 5) is remarkable and quite in harmony with the change of circumstances. It is the ‘ Master ’ whose orders must be obeyed, the ‘ Lord ’ whose holiness causes moral agony to the sinner (Dan

pp. 12, 13: “In contrast with Matthew and Mark, Luke speaks of Jesus by the designation x6pco(^ comparatively often. Even if 7I9.31 10^1 22^1 24^ be neglected as more or less uncertain in the reading, and 19^^ as a parallel to Mt 21^, Mk n^, there remain nevertheless fourteen passages peculiar to Luke (71^ 12-12 1315 jy5,6 jge 1^8,34

2261,61 24^^) which speak of Jesus by the designation of ‘Lord’: and to these may be added the expressions ‘the mother of my Lord’ (i*^) and ‘the Lord Christ’ (2II).” “It may be further remarked that although one of the uncertain passages enumerated (24^) belongs to

lips of the disciples themselves in this designatory form at 24^^*, and it occurs in two passages in the opening chapters of the Gospel — in the elevated language of the angelic announcement in the combination, ‘ Christ the Lord’ or ‘the anointed Lord’ (2“), and in the response of Elisabeth ( in which she expresses her wondering awe that “ the mother of her Lord ” should come to her. Obviously in such usages the term connotes a very high dignity, certainly Messianic at the least. It is also employed of Himself by our Lord in the question He is recorded by all the Synoptists as putting to the scribes as to the significance of David’s prediction of the Messiah as his ‘Lord’ (20^^®®'^*) — again, obviously with a high connotation. But the particularly significant fact in this connection is its current employment by Luke himself as an alternative narrative designation to the simple ‘ Jesus ’ jq1,s9,4i j j39

1242 J^15 J^5,6 jgo J^8 22^^’®^). It does not seem easy to detect any special significance in the interchange of these designations; the reason for the passage from one to the other seems either purely literary or at least obscure. The meaning of the appearance of this narrative employment of the term in Luke seems, therefore, to be merely that in the usage of Luke in his own person there emerges a reflection of a usage evidently common among the disciples of Jesus from the beginning, but not chancing to be copiously illustrated

the time when Christ was, though resurrected, not yet manifested to His disciples, and one of the certain ones (24^4) is a word of the disciples to whom the risen Lord had manifested Himself, yet all the others fall in the time before the resurrection. Although Luke mentions Jesus, however, comparatively often by the designation ‘ Lord,* this is nevertheless far from his current designation of Him, as the names of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ meet us 112 times.”

In the personal literary manner of Mark and Matthew: the usage, namely, of currently speaking of Jesus as ‘ the Lord.’

This implies, naturally, that Jesus stood to His disciples for whatever the title ‘ Lord ’ meant to them.

There Is Involved In It certainly the of^Lord^*^ recognition of His Messianic dignity, and there Is Included, therefore, the recognition In Him of all that they saw In His Messianic dignity. So far, we suppose, we may be sure that, as has been suggested. He was thought of as ‘Lord’ In contrast to the earthly potentates who were claiming lordship of men, and especially In contrast with the emperor In Rome, the ‘ Lord ’ by way of eminence In all men’s mlnds.^° To Jesus, rather than to the emperor, was allegiance due. But we must not forget that the allegiance expressed to Jesus rested on a spiritual basis, while, perhaps. It Is going too far to suppose that the divine claims of the Imperial monarch were held clearly In mlnd.^^ The simplest thing to say Is that the term ‘ Lord ’ was applied to Jesus by Luke obviously with the deepest reverence and obviously as the expression of that reverence.

Cf. Dalman, Words, 330: “When the Christians called Jesus 6 xopto?, they will have meant that He is the true ‘ divine Lord ’ in opposition to the ‘ God and Lord ’ on the imperial throne of Rome. Luke’s frequent use of 6 xupto<$ is certainly intended in this sense. The phrase Xpiffro? xbpio<s used in his Gospel 2I1 (cf. Acts 2^6) defines the term Xpiaro^s in that sense for the reader.” Dalman is probably thinking of “ Luke ” as representing a Gentile Christian usage. It is clear, on the contrary, that his is simply an aboriginal Christian usage — possibly with slightly changing— or enlarging — content, but with no essential alteration of meaning.

11 On the employment of xbpto<; of the emperor and its significance see T. D. Woolsey in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1861, pp. 595-608.

The full height of this reverence may be suggested to us by certain passages in which the term ‘ Lord ’ occurs in citations from the Old Testament, where its reference is to Jehovah, though in the citations it seems to be applied to Jesus. Like the other Synoptists, Luke cites, for instance, from Isaiah the promise of a voice crying in the wilderness, “ Make ye ready the way of the Lord, make His paths straight” (3^), and applies it to the coming of John the Baptist whom he represents as preparing the way for Jesus’ manifestation. As in the case of the other evangelists, the inference lies close that by ‘ the Lord ’ here Luke means Jesus, ^whose coming he thus identifies with the advent of ( Jehovah and whose person he seems to identify with Jehovah.^** On the other hand, in passages like although the language is similar, it seems more natural to understand the term ‘ Lord ’ as referring to God Himself, and to conceive the speaker to be thinking of the coming of Jehovah to redemption in Jesus without necessary identification of the person of Jesus with Jehovah.^® The mere circumstance, however, that the

12 Cf. Sven Herner, as cited, p. 11: “With a reference to our discussion of the citation in the passages in Matthew and Mark we hold it most probable that Christ is meant, and this view is more easily maintained in the case of Luke than of Matthew because Luke comparatively frequently uses the designation ‘Lord’ of Jesus.” Proceeding to discuss the parallel passage, he decides that there ‘ Lord ’ probably V refers to God the Father; which appears just. It does not follow, however, that Godet’s remark may not also be accepted: “ In saying the Lord Zacharias can only be thinking of the Messiah: but he could not designate Him by this name, unless, with Malachi, he recognized in His coming the appearing of Jehovah (cf. ii7,43 2II)” — if this can be read of the advent of Jehovah in His Representative.

Hahn says, rightly as we think, at “Not to be understood of the Messiah (Ambr., Beda, Euthym., Beng., Cast., Bisp., Schegg, Schanz) but of God”; and at “Not to be understood of the reader Is led to pause over such passages and to consider whether they may not intend by their ‘ Lord ’ — who Is Jehovah — to Identify the person of Jesus with Jehovah, Is significant. We should never lose from sight the outstanding fact that to men familiar w^ith the LXX and the usage of ‘ Lord ’ as the personal name of the Deity there Illustrated, the tei*m ‘ Lord ’ was charged with associations of deity, so that a habit of speaking of Jesus as ‘ the Lord,’ by way of eminence, such as Is illustrated by Luke and certainly was current from the beginning of the Christian proclamation (19^^), was apt to carry with It Implications of deity which, If not rebuked or In some way guarded against, must be considered as receiving the sanction of Jesus Himself.

The leading designations of Jesus in Luke, as In the other Synoptists, however, are, broadly speaking, Messianic. In other words. It Is distlnc- « Prophet* tively as the Messiah that Luke sets forth Jesus and represents Him as having conceived of Himself and as having been revered by His followers. We find in Luke, as In the other Synoptists, to be sure, traces of a widespread recognition of Him as a prophet 9*’^^). His followers set their hopes upon Him in that office (24^^); and Indeed with no uncertainty He Himself assumed the

Messiah (Kiin., Ols., Bisp., Schanz), but of God’'; but, we think, wrongly at “By the xOpio^ there is here, just as in the Old Test, passage, to be understood, not the Messiah (Kiin., Bh, Haupt) but God, for Luke wishes to say that in the Messiah God would hold His own advent.” So far as the mere language goes, that might be accepted: but the passage seems to mean otherwise (see Plummer per contra). Meyer has an excellent note on and decides rightly also at whom Weiss properly follows; so also Plummer.

role of a prophet (4-^ 13^^’^^). But no more In Luke than In the other Synoptlsts Is this particularly emphasized, and In Luke, too, the prophetic character Is, no doubt, conceived as part of the Messianic function, — as Indeed the collocation of His prophetic calling and His redemption of Israel In the thought of the disciples going to Emmaus not obscurely suggests (241^’^', cf. also

Luke also records from the mouth of the angel announcing the birth of Jesus the new designation of ‘ Saviour ’ — If we can call a deslgna-

‘ Saviour’ tion new which Is so plainly adumbrated In a passage like Mt (cf. also Lk 19^^) d® But this Is so little un-MessIanIc that It Is not only connected with the Messianic prophecies by adjacent references (i^h cf. 2^^ 3®), but Is expressly defined as Messianic In the annunciation Itself: “a Saviour, which Is Christ the Lord” (2^^). Like Mt this passage clearly Indicates that to the circle In which Jesus moved His coming as the Messiah was connected with the great series of prophecies which promised the advent of Jehovah for the redemption of His people, as truly as with those which predicted the coming of the Davldlc King. The terms, “ a Saviour, which Is Christ the Lord,” are. Indeed, an express combination of the two lines of prophecy, and import

Cf. Meyer on 7^®: “They saw In this miracle a (TTjtietov of a great prophet, and in His appearance they saw the beginning of the Messianic deliverance (comp. i6S-79).» On the whole subject, cf. Stanton, Jewish and Christian Messiah, 126 seq.

Cf. Plummer in loc.: “ Here first in N. T. is aioTTjp used of Christ, and here only in Luke. Not in Matthew or Mark, and only once in John (4^2); twice in Acts (s^i 132s); and frequently in Titus and 2 Peter.”

that the Child who was born in the city of David was both the promised Redeemer of Israel and the Anointed King that was to come. Question may arise, indeed, as to how we are to construe these collocated designations. Some^® would wish us to take each separately, with an indefinite article to each: “ There is born to you a Saviour, who is an Anointed One, a Lord.” Others^’’' suggest that at least ‘ Messiah ’ and ‘Lord’ be kept separate: “There is bom to you a Deliverer, who is Messiah, Lord.” In either of these constructions we have three separate designations which so far explain one another: this Child is at once a Saviour, the promised Messiah, and Sovereign Lord of men and angels — for it is an angel who speaks these words. The essential meaning cannot be far from this in any case.^® Even if we should read “ who is Messiah, the Lord, ” or even “ who is an anointed Lord,”^® we have got but little away from this general sense: in either case what is said is that the Saviour is the promised Messiah and therefore entitled to our obedience as our Lord. Nor is much more said if we give the phrase the utmost definiteness possible, and translate, “ There is born to you this day in the city of David that Deliverer who is the Messiah, the Lord,”’^® — as, on the whole, we think we ought to read

“ In any event,” says Weiss, “ it is meant that this Deliverer is an Anointed Lord, and therefore destined to be the King of Israel.” But Weiss, who wishes to read only, “ a Deliverer who is an Anointed One, a Lord,” takes too low a view.

It, In the light of the distinction made between the two designations ‘ Messiah ’ and ‘ Lord ’ in such a passage as Acts 2^^ where Peter declares to the house of Israel “^that God has made Jesus both ‘ Lord ’ and ‘ Christ.’ The precise distinction Intended to be signalized be- ^tween ‘ Christ ’ and ‘ Lord ’ Is, no doubt, difficult to trace: perhaps there lies In it a testimony to the wider content of the Idea of Messlahship than that of mere sovereign power; perhaps a testimony to a higher connotation of the term ‘ Lord ’ than that of mere Messianic dignity. In any event there Is here a declaration that In this Child born In the city of David, the functions of Redemption, Messlahship and Supreme Lordship are united.

Almost Immediately afterward we are told that It had been revealed to Simeon that “ he should not see death before he had seen the Lord’s '^Christ’’’'* Christ” (2^'’)— an Old Testament expresslon (Ps 2“, cf. Lk 9“^ Acts 4“®) here applied to the Infant Jesus, who Is by It Identified as the promised Messlah.^^ Accordingly In announcing the birth of this Child, who Is thus so emphatically presented as the Messiah, the angel is represented as

erer’ (Luther, De Wette). The article is wanting not from inadvertence (De Wette), but because it is made superfluous by the succeeding relative clause. The sense is: ‘the particular Deliverer, who’... This Deliverer is characterized by the Xptffrd? xopio<$ as the promised Messiah. We are not to explain: ‘a Messiah, a Lord ’ (Holtzmann); and not: ‘one anointed to Lordship’ (Paulus); but the two expressions are two separate designations of the expected Messiah (cf. Acts 2^^):Xpi(TT()<; the then popularly current name of the Messiah; xopto?, the designation of His Sovereign dignity.”

describing Him as ‘ the Son of the Most High God,’ to whom should be given the throne of His father David, for an everlasting dominion (i^^); and as explaining the Divine Sonship of this Holy Child^^ as due to, or rather as evidenced b}^. His supernatural birth The latter of these two declarations is clearly the explanation of the former. The angel had promised Mary that she should bring forth a son who should rightly bear the great name of the ‘ Son of the Most High God,’ and he now explains that this Holy Son of hers shall be a supernatural product, and should by His supernatural advent be witnessed as rightly bearing the name of ‘ Son of God.’ That the title ‘ Son of God ’ bears in it a Messianic implication is clear from the functions ascribed in verses 33, 34 to the child so designated, but that this Messiah was conceived as something more than human appears to be implied in the connection of His claim upon the title of ‘ Son of God ’ with the supernaturalness of His birth. Perhaps it is not reading too much into the passage to say that His preexistence and heavenly descent are asserted, — certainly His heavenly, or supernatural, origin is asserted. This ‘ Son ’ is not merely to be attended with supernatural assistance and so to exhibit supernatural gifts: He is of supernatural origin, and therefore so far of supernatural nature. Already in the opening chapters of his Gospel, devoted to an account of the birth and infancy of Jesus, therefore, Luke makes it plain that the Jesus whose history he is to recount was first of all the Messiah of God, and as

22 So {not, that which is begotten shall be called holy, the Son of God) Bengel, Bleek, Meyer, Weiss, Holtzmann, Godet, Hahn.

such was of supernatural origin and therefore holy, was to establish the throne of David in perpetuity, and was to be recognized as Lord of men and angels.

In accordance with these declarations, recorded In the opening of the Gospel, Luke tells us that the evil spirits knew Jesus to be ‘ the Christ’ and greeted Him by the title ‘Son of God’ (4^^), and records Peter’s great confession in the form of “ Thou art the Christ of God” (9^®), and Jesus’ ready acceptance of it, as also His acquiescence in the ascription of the title of Messiah, ‘ Christ,’ to Him by Plis enemies (‘ the Christ,’ 22®’^, cf. 23^^ ‘Christ a King,’ 23^). Such an ascription of the title ‘ Christ ’ to Him by His enemies (22^^ 23-’^^’^^) is the best of all proofs that it was commonly employed of Him by Llis followers. But the significant fact for us is that in accepting it at their hands Jesus claims it for Himself (22®' 23*). We are not surprised, therefore, to find Him using it of Himself when, after His resurrection. He expounded from Scripture to His followers the doctrine of the Suffering Messiah and applied it to Himself (24"®’^®), even as He had at an earlier point expounded to the scribes (20^^) the doctrine of the Reigning Messiah with an equally clear application of it to Himself. He who was David’s ‘ Lord ’ as truly as his ‘ Son ’ was to enter upon His Lordship only through suffering, a suffering which should lay the basis of a preachment in His name of repentance and remission of sins (24^®). Here again is the Saviour, who is the Messiah, the Lord: and the Gospel ends much on the same note on which it began.

The royal dignity of this ‘Anointed King’ (23“) is of course dwelt upon in Luke as In the other Synoptics.

But the precise term ‘ King ’ Is not of ‘The King’ frequent occurrence. His disciples as

He entered Jerusalem on the ass’s colt acclaimed Him as “ the King that cometh In the name of the Lord ” (19^^), and when the Pharisees appealed to Him to rebuke them therefor — employing the simple formula of respect, ‘ Teacher,’ In addressing Him and thereby repudiating His Messianic claim by the contrast of this address with the title of ‘ King ’ — Jesus was so far from yielding to their request that He declared that If His disciples held their peace the very stones would cry out and recognize Him as the Messianic sovereign (cf. Lk 3®, Mt 3®). Similarly, when the Jews accused Him to Pilate as representing Himself to be “Christ, a King” (23“),*^ and that governor accordingly demanded of Him whether He was ‘ the King of the Jews,’ our Lord was so far from denying the ascription that He expressly accepted the designation (23^), and thus brought It about that He was mocked on the cross by this title, and had It set over His head (23^^’^®). The equivalent title ‘Son of David ’ also Is recorded as having been given Him by an applicant for His mercy as a recognition of His authority to heal (18^®’^^, cf. means repudiated when) Jesus explained that He was something much more than David’s son.

more naturally, ‘Messiah, a King’ (cf. on 2^^), so that the political significance of the Messianic title expressly explained is made to tell.” That is to say, Jesus has declared Himself to be ‘ Christ,’ which is the same as to say ‘ King.’ The term ‘ Christ ’ is employed appellatively, but so that it might easily be taken as a proper name, as it was taken (see Matthew) by Pilate. Hahn less naturally wishes to read “an anointed Kine.” It would be more natural to take ‘Christ’ as a

In the midst of the designations we have somewhat rapidly adduced, clustering around the central title ‘ Christ,’ there is one which we should

* God’s Elect ’ not pass over unnoticed because it has not met us heretofore. The mocking Jews, scoffing at Jesus as He hung on the cross, are represented as flinging in His face His claim to be ‘the Christ of God, His Chosen^ (23^^). The same designation occurs in the account of the transfiguration, where the voice from heaven is represented by Luke as declaring of Jesus, “ This is my Son, my Chosen ’’ (9^^). No doubt the Greek is not quite the same in each instance: b exXexroQ of the one is replaced by 6 exXsXeyfj.ivo(: in the other.^^ But doubtless the underlying Messianic title is the same in both instances. It is rooted in Isaiah 42^ “ Behold my servant whom I uphold; my chosen in whom my soul delighteth,” etc. (where the parallel terms are o;ra?c and blxXexrb^)^ and emerges into view even in pre-Christian Jewish usage (Enoch 40^ 45^ 53® 39^, etc.).^® The conception seems to be not essentially different from a designation which has already met us in Mark (i^^) and which occurs also in the parallel passage of Luke (4^^), but elsewhere in the New Testament only at Jno 6®^ — ‘ the Holy One of God.’ For it does not seem likely that ‘ G d’s epithet, in the first instance at least,

\Holy°oL’ refers to the moral purity of the Messiah,^® but rather probable that it designates Him as One whom God has “ separated out, equipped and dedicated to His service, in a word as ‘ the Consecrated One.’ In this understanding of it, it stands in close relation to the epithet, ‘ the Elect One,’ and unites with it in emphasizing the unique loftiness of the Messianic office. At the same time it seems difficult to believe that there is no implication of moral purity, or perhaps we would better say moral exaltation, in the epithet, as used whether by Peter (Jno 6^’^) or by the demoniacs (Mk Lk 4^^), although this reference may be secondary. It is scarcely conceivable that the demons could recognize a mere official-standing on sight (Mk 3^^), while the contrast between the moral perfection or exalted nature of

27 Xhis language is borrowed from Holtzmann, Hand-Corn., p. 76:

“ The demon recognizes in Him the Holy One of God, i.e., Him whom God has separated out, equipped and dedicated to His service (cf. Jno 669 io36 — the ‘Elect One’ of the Book of Enoch), whom the demoniacs (Mk 3I1) immediately recognize and fear as such: for the Messiah’s task is to judge and destroy the demons (the evil spirit speaks in the name of his fellows, too, ‘us’). They divine, therefore, at once Jesus’ greatness and their own fate.” In this view it is not the moral purity

Vof Jesus over against their wickedness that the demons divine; but the official task of Jesus which they are aware of. Similarly Ernst Issel, Der Begrijf der Heiligkeit im N. T., 1887, p. 67 seq.: “In Mk

cf. Lk 4^^, we have the most original application of the notion [of holiness] to Jesus. The title ‘the Holy One of God’ is clearly a well known one, on hearing which no one could be in doubt who was meant. The same evangelist [Mk], at 3I1, opens the way to understanding it by recording that the demons cried out ‘ Thou art the Son of God.’ That, however, is the title of the theocratic King...

In the title of the theocratic ruler, the eye is just as little directed by the ‘ holy ’ to ethical perfection as in the expression ‘ Son of God.’ The Messiah is ‘the Holy One of God,’ as He whom the Father has sanctified, Jno 10^®, that is, as He whom God has chosen and endowed for His special possession and service. There speaks for this also the designation ‘ the Chosen One,’ Lk 23^® 9^®. To this election to God’s possession and service limits itself also the designation in Lk 1^®... and the representation of Jesus in the Temple, Lk 2-^..