sure, been understood as the general term, “ the Messiah.”³ 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 16 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.⁵ It appears then that the addition, ‘ surnamed Christ,” is intended in this passage as a formal identification of the particular Jesus in question;⁴ 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 (1¹⁶), and so prepares the way for an Seldom Used; J

occasional employment of this other name (1¹⁷ 11²). 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 11²⁷ and no doubt also at 1’⁵; and we may add equally so mirti(el. the Son of David’), 1¹⁸ and 16²¹ (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. >< 27¹⁷⁻²²)⁶ 8 The 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 of no other designation in speaking of our Lord than the simple ‘ Jesus,” although on three occasions he adduces with reference to Him designations which he finds in the prophets: Immanuel (1²³), Lord” (3³), the Nazarene (2²³). The implications of the first two 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 (26⁷¹). 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 (26⁶⁹), and the multitude seeking to do Him honor is represented as describing Him with great fulness as the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee” (21¹¹). The simple ‘ Jesus,” as has been already pointed out, He is not represented as called, except by the angel announcing His birth (1²¹), but Pilate is quoted as designating Him by His full name, ‘ Jesus, surnamed Christ (27¹⁷,²²), and we are told that there was set over His head on the cross the legend, This is Jesus, the King of the Jews” (27³⁷). 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 before Jesus’ death He had been so prevailingly spoken of as the Messiah that this 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.”⁷ 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 (23²) 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. 11²). On heathen ears, as we know, the term Christ” was apt to strike as a proper name;⁸ 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.⁹ 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 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 Barabbas.¹⁰

Note: So Dalman.

Like Mark, Matthew represents Jesus as customarily addressed by the simple current honorific titles. The actual Aramaic form, Rabbi,’ however, oddly enough, is retained only in repeating the only two remarks recorded in Matthew’s narrative as made to the Lord by Judas Iscariot (26²⁵,⁴⁹).¹¹ Its. usual ‘Greck rendering, Teacher (διδάσκαλε), also takes a relatively inferior place in Matthew, being largely supplanted by. the more Greek Lord (0p), perhaps as the representative of the Aramaic Mari.¹² A tendency seems even observable to reserve Teacher (d:0doxale ) for the non-committal, respectful address of those who were not followers of Jesus (12³⁸ 22¹⁶,²⁴,³⁶; 9¹¹ 17²⁴, cf. 19¹⁶). It is employed, however, in the case of a scribe who came to Jesus and declared his purpose to become His constant follower (8¹⁹, cf. 19¹⁶). 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” (26¹⁸). Similarly in didactic statements He refers (10²⁴²⁵) 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 (23719).

Two new terms are brought before us in these lastquoted declarations,—‘ House-master (οἰκοδεσπότης, Mt

10²⁵ 24⁴³; cf. Mk 13²⁵) and Guide (αθηγητύς, 23¹⁰ only in N. T.); both of which seem to have higher implications than Teacher (dwddoxaloc), although both are placed in the closest connection with it as jis. practical synonyms (10²⁴,²⁵ 23⁸,¹⁰), “Guide (ἀαθηγητής) occurs indeed nowhere else:¹³ and we can say of it only that our Lord chose it as one of the designations which expressed His exclusive relation to His disciples. He was their only Teacher, Guide, Master and Lord. But House-master (οἰκοδεσπότης) seems to have been rather a favorite Lone enrative expression with Him, to set a forth Ths relation to THis disciples, whether in didactic or in parabolic statement. In one of His parables, indeed, it is not He who is the House-master (οἰκοδεσπότης), but God,¹⁴ while Hells God’s Son and Heir (21³³ et =) 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 (13²⁴ et seq., gp¹ et seq.), the Houses master (οἰκοδεσπότηςν) is Jesus Himself, and the functions that are ascribed toc Him as such have especial reference to the destinies of men. As the ‘ House-master (οἰκοδεσπότης) He distributes to men the rewards of their labors in accordance with His own will, doing as He will with His own (20¹): 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 five (13⁴ sce se) Sidntn word, to the ‘ House-master οἰκοδεσπότης), who is expressly identified with the Son of Man (13³⁸) 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 (10²⁵). The implications of sovereignty inherent in the term run up in its application therefore into the sovereignty of God: as ‘ House-master (οἰκοδεσπότης), Jesus is pictured as our divine Lord.¹⁵

If Teacher (διδάσκαλε) somewhat sinks in value as an honorific form of address in Matthew as compared with Mark, its more Greek equivalent, Lord (κύριε), on the other hand, is more frequently and variously employed by Matthew than by Mark.¹⁹ It appears upon the lips alike of applicants for our Lord’s mercy, whether Jewish (8² 9²⁸ 17¹⁵ 20³⁰,³¹,³³) or heathen (3⁶,⁸ in²²,²⁵ 15²⁷), and of His ‘disciples ‘(8²¹,²⁵ 4²⁸,³⁰ 16²² 17⁴ 18²¹ 26²²); 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 (κύριε) is accordingly a higher mode of designation in Matthew than Teacher (deddoxale), and imports a closer bond of connection with Jesus and a more profound and operative recognition of His authority. It occurs some twenty-one times²⁰ as a form of address to Jesus, and, besides once as an address to God (11²⁵), only a single time (to Pilate, 27⁶³), outside of parables, as an address to anyone else. Even in its parabolic use, indeed, its reference is always (except 21³⁰ only) either to God (13²⁵,²⁶,²⁷,³¹ 18³²,³⁴ 21⁴² cf. 6²⁴) or to Jesus pictured in positions of supreme authority [137] 208 2 4 15-46.45,50 2 g[111,1111,18,19,

[²⁰,²¹,²¹,²²,²³,²³.⁴,²⁶ 221,23, 00.1240. 08 Dok. O²⁴,²⁵). 15 cannot be said, of 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.²¹ 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 (15²² apf 20³⁰,³¹ S²¹,²¹) andl is found occasionally to be suggestive of something even higher (25³⁷,⁴⁴). 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 l.ord, Lord (7¹); 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 (25³⁷,⁴⁴). 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 Him (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 21 δαββεί Mk 9 (17⁴); ῥαββονί Mk 1051 (2031:33); διδάσκαλε Lk 438 (825), Mk 917, Lk 938 (17¹⁵); ἐπιστάτα Lk 3²4 (823) 33 (17⁴).

our Lord is represented by Matthew as conceiving ve mobo Elis relation to His followers as very 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” (28⁶), the words ““the Lord” are probably} not genuine. Nevertheless, on the lips of our Lord Himself the appellative use of the term does occur, and that in no low significance. He declares Himself as the Sen of Man to be Lord of the Sabbath (12⁸). 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” (21³),—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 (24⁴²),—that Tord 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 (22⁴³⁻⁴⁵), 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 Designations in Matthew vi the evangelist himself (3³) 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 T “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 (21⁴⁶ 21¹¹ 16¹⁴) and that Jesus Himself was far from repelling this attribution (13⁵⁷); 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 (1¹), at the beginning of the narrative proper (1¹⁸), and at the new beginning marked by His open proclamation of His dignity

(16²¹), 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 (1¹⁶), on which account He forms the natural termination of the genealogy begun in Abraham (1¹⁷); and by implying that His works marked Him out as the Messiah (11², 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” (26⁹³), and the bitter sport His judges made of Him (26⁶⁸) 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 xclear, constant and emphatic: so a part Own Messianic of Himself in the popular understanding that His heathen judge already conceived the title Christ as only His surname (27¹⁷,²², cf. 11²). 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 (11³), He replied with no doubtful indication that He was indeed the Christ.” When Peter (16¹⁶) in his great confession declared Him “ the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus pronounced the declaration a revelation from heaven (16¹⁷), and only charged His disciples not as yet to reveal the fact that He was “the Christ” (16). 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 LLord—a Lord seated on the right hand of God (22⁴¹⁻⁴⁶). 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 (23¹⁰). The name the Christ,’ He explained (24⁵), 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,—“1 am the Christ.” When the high priest adjured Him to tell whether He were >‘ the Christ, the Son of God” (26⁶³) He, accordingly, > solemnly accepted the title and explained that in accepting it He took it in its highest connotation (26⁶⁴) —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 Coming One,’ based apparently on Mal 3¹ or Ps 40⁷ or 118²⁶, and itself the basis of a customary method of pregnant speech of the Messiah as “ coming.”’¹⁶ This designation is applied to Jesus in the question of the Baptist— “” Art thou the Coming One, or do we look for another?” (11³), 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” (3¹⁷ 9¹³ 10³⁴ 20²⁸, ct.

10⁴⁰), as well as certain popular ascriptions to the same effect (21⁹ 23³⁹)¹⁷ ²³

Even more directly connected with the title, Christ,’ however, is that of King’: and we find Matthew accordingly recording the ascription of that title to Him in the heathen form of the King of the Jews,’ alike by the wise men of the east who came to worship Him in His cradle (2²) and by the Roman governor at His trial (27,¹¹ cf. 27³⁷) and the mocking soldiery (27²⁹). Jesus accepts it at Pilate’s hands, despite the heathen form which he gives it, and which the priests (27⁴²) correct to the more acceptable ‘ King of Israel.” Of more significance is Matthew’s application to Him, when He entered Jerusalem in triumph, of the prophecy of Zechariah, Behold thy King cometh unto thee,” etc. (21⁵). But, of course, the deepest significance of all attaches to our Lord’s own use of the title King with reference to Himself in the great judgment scene of Mt 25³¹ = (verses 34 and 40). Here, calling Himself the ‘ Son of Man,” He ascends the throne of His glory, and as King, not of Israel, but of all flesh, dispenses their final awards to all, according to their several relations to Himself. Such a King certainly was something more than a Son of David (22⁴³), But that designation also belongs to Him as the ‘ Christ,” God’s Anointed, who was to occupy the Davidic throne, and accordingly it is represented that the sight of His Messianic works led Him to be recognized no more as the Coming One (11³) than as “the Son of David (12² 62⁷ 15²² 20³⁰³¹ ing ⁹,¹⁵8 lief, 1’)—and that He by no means refused the ascription (esp. 21⁹12),

Obviously, however, no lower title would suit the state of this Messianic King than that highest conceivable one, ‘the Son of God.’ It is likely that there were supernatural implications in the mind of the evangelist even when he applied to the persecuted infant Jesus the prophetic summary of Israelitish history, Out of Egypt did I call my Son” (2¹), although at first sight we might seem to be moving here in the atmosphere of a merely official sonship.¹⁸ In every other instance of the adduction of this designation in Matthew these supernatural implications are thrust prominently forward. The very point of Satan’s temptation of our Lord was that He should exercise the supernatural powers which necessarily belonged to Him—if He were indeed really ‘a Son of God (4³,⁶ cf. 82⁹).²⁵ Similarly the confession wrung from the disciples by the spectacle of His control of the forces of nature, emphasizes as strongly as possible the supernaturalness of the Being who is capable of such works (14³³).¹⁹ Tn Peter’s sreat confession ((16¹⁶)²⁰ the adjunction of the Son of the Living God to the simple Christ is no more without its high significance than the similar adjunction in the high priest’s adjuration (26³)²¹ of the Son of God to the simple Christ.’

In both instances the intention is to go beyond the mere designation of our Lord as the Messiah, and to bring into relief the supernaturalness of His person. Even when the Jews railed at Him as He hung on the cross that He had proclaimed Himself the Son of God (27⁴⁰,⁴³), the point of their scoff was that He had laid claim to a supernatural relationship which implied supernatural powers. Nevertheless, the deepest connotations of the Sonship to God come out most plainly in connection with the less technical forms of this designation. At the apex of these stands, of course, the double attestation which, it is recorded, was given to Jesus from heaven itself as God’s ‘ Son,” who because His ‘ Son was also His ‘ Beloved,” His chosen, in whom He was well pleased (3¹⁷ 17⁵).²² But quite worthy of a place by the side of these supreme attestations is the allusion which our Lord makes to Himself in one or two of His parables, as the Son,’ in differentiation from all servants’ of God whatsoever; as God’s Son and unique Heir, who, despite what those to whom He was sent should do unto Him, shall be constituted by God’s marvelous working the stone which is the head of the corner (21³⁷⁻³⁸);²³ and as the King’s Son, all those unworthy of a place at whose marriage feast should have their part in the outer darkness where is the weeping and the gnashing of teeth (22²). This Son obviously is no less in origin and nature divine than in His working in the earth the Lord of the destinies of men.

But perhaps the most illuminating passages in this reference remain yet to be adduced. These are those three remarkable utterances of our Lord which are recorded at 24³⁶ 11²⁷ and 28¹⁸⁻²⁰2 The first of these we have already met with in Mark. It is that difficult saying in which our Lord declares that concerning the day and hour” of His coming no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor yet the Son, but the Father only “—which differs from the parallel in Mark significantly only in the added emphasis placed on the exclusion of all others whatsoever from this knowledge by the adjunction to the exception of the Father of the emphatic word “only.” The elevation of the Son here to superangelic dignity, as the climax of the enumeration of those excluded from the knowledge in question is reached in His name—no one at all, not even the angels of heaven, nor yet even the Son—is what it particularly concerns us to note, implying as it does the exaltation of the Son above the highest of creatures, “ the angels of heaven.²⁴ The second of the utterances in question (11²”) is in some respects the most remarkable in the whole compass of the four Gospels. [ Even the Gospel of John contains nothing which penetrates more deeply into the essential relation of the Son to the Father. Indeed, as Dr. Sanday suggests, “ we might describe the teaching of the Fourth Gospel” as only “a series of variations upon the one theme, which has its classical expression in” this “verse of the Synoptics”’:³² ‘” All things were delivered unto me by my Father; and no one knoweth the Son save the Father; neither doth any know the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him.” The point of the utterance, “it will be seen, is that in it our Lord asserts for Himself a relation of practical equality with the Father, here described in most elevated terms as the “Lord of heaven and earth” (v. 25).³³ As the Father only can know the Son, so the Son only can know the Father: and others may know the Father only as He is revealed by the Son. That is, not merely is the Son the exclusive revealer of God, but the mutual knowledge of Father and Son is put on what seems very much a par. The Son can be known only by the Father in all that He is, as if His being were infinite and as such inmore wisely retains them, as do all the editors. “The documentary evidence in their favor,” says Hort justly, “is overwhelming.”

3² Criticism of the New Testament,—by a company of scholars,— 2 ct Zahn on Mt 112⁵⁻³⁰ (p. 440): “As Jesus here names Him. I7.

scrutable to the finite intelligence; and His knowledge alone—again as if He were infinite in His attributesis competent to compass the depths of the Father’s infinite being. He who holds this relation to the Father cannot conceivably be a creature, and we ought not to be surprised, therefore, to find in the third of these great utterances (28¹⁸⁻²⁰) the Son made openly a sharer with the Father (and with the Holy Spirit) in the single Name of God: ‘ All authority was given me³⁴ in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Having in the former passage (11²⁷) declared His intercommunion with the Father, who is the Lord of heaven and earth, Jesus here asserts that all authority in heaven and earth has been given Him, and asserts a place for Himself in the precincts of the ineffable Name. Here is a claim not merely to a deity in some sense equivalent to and as it were alongside of the deity of the Father, but to a deity in some high sense one with the deity of the Father.

Alongside of these more usual Messianic titles, there are found in Matthew, as in Mark, traces of the use Of others of our Lord, apparently less current among the people. In Matthew, too, for example, we find Jesus represented as designated from heaven the Beloved,” who has been chosen out by God as His rep- ³⁴ Note the aorist, which as in 11²⁷ (cf. W. C. Allen, in loc.) appears to refer to a pre-temporal act.

resentative (3¹⁷ 17⁵),³⁵ and as identifying Himself with the mysterious Shepherd of Zechariah who is Jehovah’s fellow (26)¹. And we find Him here also not only designating Himself the Bridegroom (9¹⁵), but elucidating the designation in a couple of striking parables (the parable of the Ten Virgins, g 5¹ =8⁶,¹⁰,. 0 and the parable of the Marriage of the King’s Son, 22!¹) the suggestion of which is that the fate of men hangs on their relation to Him; that men all live with reference to Him; and it is He that opens and shuts the door of life for them. The high significance of these designations as applied to Jesus has already been pointed out when we met with them in Mark. It is more important, therefore, to observe here that the implicit reference in Mark to the ‘ Servant of Jehovah as a designation of Jesus is made explicit in Matthew by the formal application to Him of the prophecy in Isaiah 40¹ seq. (12¹⁸ seq.) as a divine prediction of the unostentatiousness of His ministry, in its striking contrast with the expectations which had been formed of the Messiah’s work on the basis of the predictions centering around the Anointed King, the Son of David.

This unostentatiousness entered also into the conception of the Messiah expressed in our Lord’s favorite self-designation of Son of Man, —., which in Matthew’s representation, too, appears as the standing Messianic designation which our Lord employs of Himself, occurring as such about thirty times. The Messianic character of this designation is placed beyond all doubt ³⁵ Cf. W. C. Allen on 3¹⁷ and J. A. Robinson, Ephesians 229 seq. and Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, 11., p. sor; also Charles, Ascension of Isaiah, p. 3 et passim, and E. Daplyn sub τος. Hastings’ D. C. G.

by its interchange with other Messianic titles (16¹³, cf. verses 16, 20; 17⁹ cf. verse 10 [the forerunner of Messiah]; 24²⁷, cf. verse 23; 26⁶⁴, cf. verse 63): and the conception suggested by it of the Messiah, as judged by the substance of the passages in which it occurs, differs in nothing from that derived from the passages in Mark except that it is illuminated by more details. Here, too, we learn that the Son of Man came to minister,—or more specifically for the purpose of redemption: the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many” (20²⁸). Suffering and death were, therefore, His appointed portion (17¹² 17²² 20¹⁸ $i 06²,²⁴,⁴⁵) ag indeed Scripture had foretold (12⁴⁰). But after death is” the resurrection (17⁹,²² 20¹⁹ 12⁴⁰), and after the resurrection the “ coming” in great glory to judge the world (10²³ 24²⁷,⁰,³⁹,⁴⁴,45⁶⁴). There is nothing here which we had not already in Mark, but everywhere details are filled in. The fortunes of the earthly life of the Son of Man are traced. We learn that He lived like other men, without asceticism,— eating and drinking” (11¹⁹); but lived a hard and suffering life,—He had not where to lay His head (8²⁰). His task was to sow the good seed of the word (13³⁷). As part of His lowliness, it emerges that blasphemy against Him is forgivable, as it is not against the Holy Ghost (12³²). And the suffering He is called on to endure runs out into death (17¹²,²²). It would not be easy to give a more itemized account of the sufferings He endured at the end than Mark gives, but they are all set down here, too (20¹⁸), as also is the promise of the resurrection (12⁴⁰ 17⁹,²³ 20¹⁸). When He shall come again is left here, too, in the indefinite future

(24, cf. 10)³, but the suddenness of its eventuation is emphasized (2 4²⁷,⁷,³⁹,⁴⁴).

The details become notably numerous again, however, when the purpose and accompaniment of this coming are adverted to (13⁴¹ 16²⁷ 107 24¹ 2c³¹ 26⁶⁴), The Son of Man is “ henceforth to be seen sitting at the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven” (26⁴ 24³⁰). He is to come in the glory of His Father with His angels (16²⁷), for all the angels are to be with Him (25³¹). The end of His coming is to pass judgment on men and to consummate the Kingdom. For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then shall He render unto every man according to his deeds ” (16²⁷)—and this is “to come in His kingdom (16)⁸. There is naturally a punitive side to this judgment and a side of reward. Of the punitive side we are told that ‘ when the sign of the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory shall appear,” “all the tribes of the earth shall mourn” (24); and that He shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that cause stumbling and them that do iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth” (13⁴¹. On the side of reward we are told that those who have followed Him, in the regeneration when the ‘ Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His glory” also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (19²⁸). For “He shall send forth His angels with a great sound of trumpets, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds; from one end of heaven to the other” (24³¹), and then IG TNA ARSE ra DR RAT Ch RRR ST RE BT CO SNR OO I ee dom of their Father” (13⁴³). It is obviously the universal judgment that is here brought before us; and the consummation of the Kingdom, when by this judgment all that is impure is drafted out of it and the chosen are made sharers in the universal regeneration. The whole scene of the judgment is pictured for us with great vividness in the remarkable passage, 25³¹⁻⁴⁶, where all the nations are depicted as summoned before the throne of the ‘ Son of Man’s’ glory and separated according to their deeds done in the body—interpreted as relating to Him—to the eternal inheritance of the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world or to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. The Son of Man appears here accordingly as the King on His throne apportioning to men their eternal destinies.

Clearly, according to Matthew’s account of our Lord’s declarations, the Son of Man has His period of humiliation on earth, living as other men (11¹⁹), sowing the seed (13³⁷), haying not where to lay His head (8²⁰) as He ministers to men (20²⁸), forgiving even blasphemy against Himself (12³²) and all indignities (17¹²,²²), down to death itself (17²² 20¹⁸)—and yet even while on earth having authority to forgive sins (9⁶) and to regulate religious ordinances (12⁸), and dying only that He may ransom others (20²⁸). And He has also His period of exaltation, when having risen from the dead (12⁴⁰ 17⁹,²³ 20¹⁸) He in due time comes in His glory, surrounded by His servants the angels (16²⁷ 25³¹ 24³¹), and gathers to Himself His chosen ones whom He has ransomed by His death (24³¹ 13⁴³) and, cleansing His Kingdom of all that ic nelean ieptd tt in in tte destined Berfection T16²⁸).

The picture that is drawn is clearly, then, a picture of voluntary humiliation for a high end, with the accomplishment of the end and return to the original glory. In order to bring all its implications out in their completeness we have only to recall what Matthew tells us, on the one hand, of the Son who is superior to angels (24³⁶), who is God’s adequate and exclusive Revelation, knowing Him even as He is known (11²⁷), who is sharer with the Father in the one ineffable Name (28¹⁸⁻²⁰); and, on the other, in the opening chapter of his Gospel, of the supernatural birth of this heavenly Being, breaking His way to earth through a virgin’s womb in fulfillment of the prophecy that He should be called “ Immanuel,” ‘ God with us.” For it can scarcely be doubted that Matthew means this name ‘ Immanuel (1³) to be interpreted metaphysically of Jesus, and therefore adduces the prophecy as a testimony to the essential deity of the virgin-born child,—and indeed the angel messenger himself is recorded as not obscurely indicating this when he explains that the child whose birth he announces shall be called Jesus “ because it is He that shall save His people from their sins’—thus applying to the promised infant the words spoken in Ps 130⁸ of Jehovah Himself: ‘ And He shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.”²⁵ (The very name Jesus’ for Matthew, as truly as that of ‘ Immanuel itself, is thus freighted with an implication of the deity of its bearer: and this is only a symbol of the saturation of his Gospel with the sense of the supreme majesty of the great personality whose life-history as the promised Messiah he has undertaken to portray.

MATTHEW’S CONCEPTION OF OUR LORD In seeking to form an estimate of the significance of this list of designations ascribed to Jesus in Matthew, it does not seem necessary to attempt to draw out separately, as we ¹;ttempted to do in the case of Mark, the evidence they supply to the primary emphasis laid in Matthew upon the Messianic dignity of Jesus and that they supply to the recognition of the divine majesty of His person. It lies on the very face of these designations that by Matthew, as truly as by Mark, Jesus is conceived in the first instance as the promised Messiah, and His career and work as fundamentally the career and work of the Messiah, at last come to introduce the promised Kingdom. And it lies equally on their very face that this Messiah whom Jesus is represented as being is conceived by Matthew, and is represented by Matthew as having been conceived by Jesus Himself, as a transcendent” figure, as the current mode of speech puts it, i. e., as far transcending in His nature and dignity human conditions.

So clear is this in fact that our interest as we read instinctively takes hold in Matthew of matters quite other than those which naturally occupy it in Mark. In Mark the attention of the reader is attracted particularly to the implications of the superangelic dignity ascribed to the Messiah; and he finds himself unpremeditatingly noting the evidence of the presupposition of His heavenly origin and relations, of His preexistence, of His more than human majesty, of His divine powers and functions. These things are so much a matter of course with Matthew that the attention of the reader is drawn insensibly off from them to profounder problems. This Gospel opens with an account of the supernatural birth of Jesus, which is so told as to imply that the birth is supernatural only because the person so born is not of this world, but in descending to it fulfills the prophecies that Jehovah shall come to His people to dwell among them and to save them from their sins. From the very outset, therefore, there can be no question in the mind of the reader that he has to deal not merely with a supernatural life but with a supernatural person, all whose life on earth is a concession to a necessity arising solely from His purpose to save.²⁶ No wonder rises in him, therefore, when he reads of the supramundane powers of this person, of His superhuman insight, of His supernatural deeds. That He is superior to the angels, who appear constantly as His servants, and is in some profound sense divine, clothed with all divine qualities, strikes him as in no sense strange. The matters on which he finds his mind keenly alert rise above these things, and concern the precise relations in which this superangelic, and therefore uncreated, Being is conceived to stand to the Deity Himself.

It is not possible to avoid noting that all the designations applied to Jesus in this narrative tend to run up at once on being applied to Him into their highest implications. Even the simple name ‘ Jesus’ is no exception to this. For here it is represented as itself a gift from heaven, designed to indicate that in this person is fulfilled the promise that Jehovah shall visit His people, —for it is He who, in accordance with the prediction of the Psalmist (130⁸), shall save His people—His people, although, in accordance with that prediction, they are Jehovah’s people—from their sins (1²¹). Similarly the simple honorifics Master and ‘ Lord rise in Matthew’s hands to their highest value; ‘ Mas-ter becomes transformed into the more absolute ( Master of the House” with His despotic power, governing all things in accordance with His will (20¹⁵) and disposing of the destinies of men in supreme sovereignty (10²⁵ 137 =aS6=a.), and Lord becomes the proper designation of the universal King and Judge (25³”) whose coming is the coming of Jehovah (3³). X As the Christ He is pictured as sitting less on David’s throne than on God’s (22⁴³,⁴⁴); as King,’ less as the ruler of the nation for Israel than as Judge of all the world for God (25³¹ seq.); as Bridegroom as holding in His own hands the issues of life (22¹ 25¹); as the Son of Man as passing through humiliation only to His own proper glory (16²⁷ 24³⁰ 26⁶⁴); as the Son of God less as God’s representative and the vehicle of His grace than as God’s fellow (11²⁷) and the sharer with the Father in the one ineffable Name (28¹⁸⁻²⁰), Thus the reader is brought steadily upwards to the great passages in which Matthew records Jesus’ supreme self-testimony to His essential relations with His Father, and his attention is quite insistently focused upon them.

‘“” All things were delivered unto me of my Father,” says Jesus, as reported in one of them (11²⁷): “and no one knoweth the Son save the Father; neither doth any know the ¹ Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him. Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” { Thus our Lord solemnly presents Himself to men as the exclusive source of all knowledge of God, and the exclusive channel of divine grace. No one can know the Father save through Him, and through Him alone can rest be found for weary souls. And this His exclusive mediation of saving knowledge He makes to rest upon His unique relation to the Father, by virtue of which the Father and Son, and all that is in the Father and Son, lie mutually open to each other’s gaze. Attention has been called to the fact, and it is important to observe it, that the whole passage is cast in the present tense, and the relation announced to exist between the Father and Son is, therefore, represented not as a past relation but as a continuous and unbroken one. What our Lord asserts is thus not that He once was with the Father and knew His mind, and is therefore fitted to mediate it as His representative on earth: it is that He, though on earth, still is with the Father and knows His mindyea, and will know it unchangeably forever. The relations of time do not enter into the representation. Our Lord presents Himself as the sole source of the knowledge of God and of the divine grace, because this is the relation in which He stands essentially to the Father,—a relation of complete and perfect intercommunion. The assertion of the reciprocal knowledge of the Father and Son, in other words, rises far above the merely mediatorial function of the Son, although it underlies His mediatorial mission: it carries us back into the region of metaphysical relations. The Son is a fit and perfect mediator of the divine knowledge and grace because the Son and the Father are mutually intercommunicative. The depths of the Son’s being, we are told, can be fathomed by none but a divine knowledge, while the knowledge of the Son compasses all that God is; from both points of view, the Son appears thus as ‘ equal with God.”

But even this is far from the whole story. The perfect reciprocal knowledge of each by the other which is affirmed goes far towards suggesting that even equality with God falls short of fully expressing the relation in which the Son actually stands to the Father. Equality is an external relation: here there is indicated an internal relation which suggests rather the term interpenetration. There is a relation with the Father here suggested which transcends all creaturely possibilities, and in which there is no place even for subordination. The man Jesus does indeed represent Himself as exercising a mediatorial function; what He does is to reveal the Father and to mediate His grace; and that because of a delivery over to Him by the Father. But this mediatorial function is rooted in a metaphysical relation in which is suggested no hint of subordination. Rather in this region what the Father is that the Son seems to be also. There is mystery here, no doubt, and nothing is done to relieve the mystery. All that is done is to enunciate in plain words the conception of the relation actually existing between the Father and Son which supplies their suitable account to all those passages in Matthew in which there seems to be suggested a confusion of Jesus with God, whether in function or in person. If this be the relation of Son and Father—if there is a certain mysterious interpenetration to be recognized between them—then it is no longer strange that to Jesus is attributed all the functions of God, including the forgiveness of sins and the universal judgment of men, nor that in Him is seen the coming of Jehovah to save His people, in His presence with men the fulfillment of the prophecy of Immanuel,’ God-with-us, in the coming of John the Baptist to prepare His way the fulfillment of the prophecy of the messenger to make the way of Jehovah straight, and the like. All things were delivered to Him, in short, because He is none else than God on earth.

Of quite similar import is the great declaration with which the Gospel closes. In this our Lord, announcing that all authority was given to Him in heaven and earth—that is, that unima versa dominion was committed to Him —commands His disciples to advance to the actual conquest of the world, baptizing all the nations into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and promises to be Himself with them unto the end of the world (28¹⁸⁻²⁰). In the absence of the former passage, it might conceivably be possible to look upon the dominion here claimed and the conjunction here asserted of the Son with the Father in the future government of the Kingdom as having no rooting in His essential nature but as constituting merely a reward consequent upon our Lords work. In the presence of that passage we cannot void this, however, of its testimony to essential relations. And the relation here assigned to the Son with respect to deity is the same as was suggested there. The significant point of this passage is the singular ‘ Name.” It does not read, ‘ Into the names’—as of many, but of one, —” Into the Name” of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Father, the Son and the Spirit are therefore in some ineffable sense one, sharers in the single Name. Of course it is what we know as the Christian doctrine of the Trinity which is suggested here, as it was less clearly suggested in the former passage, and as this doctrine is needed in order __to give consistency and solidity to the pervasive sug- _ gestion of Matthew’s entire narrative that Jesus, whose career he is recounting, is in some higher sense than mere delegation or representation not merely a superhuman or superangelic or supercreaturely person, but an actually Divine Person, possessed of divine prerogatives, active in divine power, and in multiform ways manifesting a divine nature. It were impossible for “Matthew to paint Jesus as he has painted Him, and to attribute to Him what we have seen him attributing to Him, without some such conception as is enunciated in these two great passages in his mind to support, sustain and give its justification to his representation. So far from these passages offending the reader as they 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 dignity, 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.

---

← Mark’s Conception of Our Lord · Contents · The Designations of Our Lord in Luke and Their Implications →

Footnotes

1. In all these three places Ϊησοῦς Χριστός seems to be used as a proper name. Meyer (1¹, p. 51) says: “In the Gospels Χριστός stands as a proper name only in Mt 1¹,¹⁶,¹⁷,18 Mk 1¹, Jno 11⁷,.,.. here also (cf. Mk 1¹), in the superscription, the whole of the great name’lygodg Χριστός 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 designtions (Jesus Christ, 1¹ 1¹⁸ 162¹; Jesus surnamed Christ,” 1¹⁶ 27¹⁷,²²; Jesus the Nazarene,’ 26⁷¹; Jesus the Galilean,” 26⁶⁹; the prophet Jesus who is from Nazareth of Galilee, 21¹¹; Jesus the King of the Jews, 27³⁷). The simple Jesus’ occurs therefore about 140 times; and always is Matthew’s own except 12¹. It is according to Moulton and Geden anarthrous in the following passages: (1¹) 1¹⁶2¹25 14¹ (1621) 178 2017:30 21112 2651,69,71,75 2717,22,37 2859 (18[20] in all). Two of these instances (17⁸ and 20¹⁷) may, however, be eliminated as probably false readings. Jesus Christ, 1,¹ 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 1¹⁸ the article is present because it takes up the Jesus Christ of 1¹ again, further explained at 1¹⁶ as the “Jesus surnamed Christ,” and hence is almost equivalent to this Jesus Christ.” In 1¹6 27¹7.²² 2669.71 27³⁷7 the article is properly absent on 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 28⁵ may be classed here. Blass 152 supposes the omission of the article at 28⁹ regular, on the ground that no anaphora is conceivable there. In 20³⁰ 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 28⁵ may be so explained. In 1²¹,²⁵ certainly an article would be out of place. There remain 14¹ 21¹,¹² 26⁵¹,⁷⁵5 an 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). ³” John the Baptist,” says Holtzmann (Hand-Com., 133), “was almost persuaded that Jesus could fulfil the Messianic purpose, that His works were therefore of the Messianic variety (ἔργα rob Χριστοῦ).” ↩

3. 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) Kiibel and Nosgen. This carries with it the appellative sense in 1¹⁷ and 27¹⁷7. ⁵ Cf. Dalman (Words, 303): “In Mt 27¹⁷,²². Pilate uses the expression [Ϊησοῦς 6 λεγόμενος Χριστός. 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 1¹⁶, and in Σίμων 6 λεγόμενος Πέτρος 4¹⁸ 10². Cf. Meyer’s note on 1¹⁶, where he remarks that λεγόμενος expresses neither doubt, nor assurance, but means simply “who bears the name of Christ (4¹⁸ 10² 27¹⁷); for this name, which became His from the official designation, was the distinctive name of this Jesus.” Exact parallels to “Jesus surnamed Christ” (Mt 11⁶ 27¹⁷,²²) occur in N. T. only at Mt 4¹⁸ 10², “Simon surnamed Peter”; Jno 11¹⁶ 20²⁴ 21², “Thomas surnamed Didymus”; Col 4¹¹, “Jesus surnamed Justus.” Its equivalent in such forms as “a man named” (Mt 9? 26³,¹⁴ 27¹6 Mk 15⁷, Lk 22⁴⁷), or a “city called “(Mt 2²³, Jno 4⁵ 11⁵⁴ 19¹³), or “a place called” (Mt 26³⁶ 27³³, Jno 5², Acts 3² 6⁹) are not infrequent. ↩

4. So also Fritzsche, iz 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 Χριστός does not declare Him Messiah, but as in verse 1¹ is His name.” According to this interpretation, he would have passages of similar character explained, e.g. Mt 2717 [and 221 “Jesus quem Christi nomine ornant”—and so Mk 15⁷, Mt 26¹⁴ 9⁹ 26³,³⁶ 27³³, Jno 19¹³,¹⁷, Acts 3², Eph 2¹¹. Similarly Keil, on 1¹⁶6, ↩

5. Cf. Zahn, in loc.: “That Matthew, who elsewhere in the narrative statedly speaks of Jesus by His proper name, writes od Δριστοῦ here instead, is explained just as in 1¹⁸ from his purpose to give brief and emphatic expression to the fact that the deeds which are spoken of indicate Him as the Messiah.” ↩

6. 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 11²⁶). Cf. art. “Christian” in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, ↩

7. So e.g. Alexander and Weiss. ↩

8. Suetonius, “Chresto impulsore,” and note Acts 11²⁶6, ↩

9. Lk 2421, ↩

10. If the reading Jesus Barabbas’ in Mt 27¹⁶⁻¹⁷ 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’ Dict. of the Bible, art. ‘ Barabbas’ (1. 245). ↩

11. The contrast between the address of the other disciples, “Is it I, Lord ( κύριε )?” (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, διδάσκαλε. ↩

12. Wellhausen on Mt 23⁷⁻¹⁰ (p. 117) remarks: “We observe that the address ῥαββί or διδάσκαλε is claimed here for Jesus and for Him alone, whereas elsewhere in Matthew and Luke it is too low for Him and is replaced by κύριε (mari).” ↩

13. The source of the term καθηγητής has been much discussed. It seems to have been in use in the Greek philosophical schools in the sense of Master, Teacher (see Wettstein iz loc.). The Hebraists (Winsche, Delitzsch, Salkinson) are inclined to seek for it an Aramaic original, 19 (cf. Holtzmann, Hand-Com., 251): but on this see Dalman, Words, 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—‘ Hathab,’ the Guide’—among the Samaritans: see Stanton, Jewish and Christian Messiah, 127. There is no rational ground for simply casting the verse out of Matthew (Blass, Wellhausen, Holtzmann, even Dalman). ↩

14. In 1352 the οἰκοδεσπότης is “every scribe who has been made a disciple in the kingdom of heaven.” And in 24⁴³ the οἰκοδεσπότης is the watching follower on earth who waits for His coming. ↩

15. On the meaning of οἰκοδεσπότης see T. D. Woolsey, Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1861, p. 599. Ζ“εσπότης means “the absolute owner of things… as… δεσπότης οἰκίας, the master of a house or household; whence the οἰκοδεσπότης of the sacred writers.” Cf. Trench, Synonyms of N. T., xxviii., p. 91. ¹⁹ On the use of κύριε in Matthew and its relations to other forms of address, cf. Zahn, on Mt. 7²¹ (p. 315, note 235). Hopes, 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 8²,6.⁸ 9²8 (v, 27, Son of David), 1522²⁷ (the first time along with Son of David), 17¹⁵ 20³⁰,³³, Jno 4¹¹,¹⁵,¹⁹,⁴⁹ 7⁷ 3³⁴ 3³⁶,³⁸. gn the part of male and female disciples at Mt 8²¹,²⁵ 14²⁸,³⁰ 16²² ypy⁴ 18²¹ 2622, Jno 668 113,12,21,27,32,34,39 [36,9,25,36 145,8,²²2. Although the disciples of Jesus also address Him by διδάσκαλε (Jno 13¹³⁻¹⁶, cf. Mt 10²⁴; examples: Mk 4³3 922 331; ’ ῥαββί, Mk 9⁵ 11²¹, Jno 1³⁸,⁴⁹ 4³¹ g² 11⁸), the distinction is, however, to be noted that this address is used also by His opponents, and especially by the scribes (in Mt 8¹⁹ no doubt by a friendly scribe in approaching Him, but still one who did not become a disciple, in clear distinction from 8²¹, cf. 12³⁸ 19¹⁶ 22¹⁶,²⁴,³6 Jno 3²: and by Judas, Mt 26²⁵,⁴⁹), while on the other hand κύριε is never so used, since from the very nature of the case it is the address 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. Urkund. 816, 1. 28, 821, 1) and always an honorific expression of subjection to those addressed (cf. Mt 22⁴⁴50-), or at least of dependence upon them at the moment. Thus Pilate is so addressed by the Sanhedrin (Mt 27⁶3), but also Philip by the Greeks (Jno 12²¹), the gardener by the Magdalen (Jno 20¹⁵), in each case in preferring a request.” When Zahn says (on the same page) that “it was only after Jesus’ death” that κύριε “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 21³ 24⁴² 22⁴³⁻⁴⁵5 and even 7²¹ itself, though Zahn explains that passage otherwise. It is clear from even 21³ alone that Jesus was constantly called Lord and that in a very high connotation. 20 82,6,8,21,25 28 428,30 125,27 1622² yy415 182²1 2030,33 2622 cf. 2537.44 221,21, Also 1522² 2031. ↩

16. See the passages carefully enumerated in Thayer-Grimm, sub woc. ἔρχομαι, I. 1a. B. (pp. 250-1 near top). Dr. Edersheim, Life, etc. I 668 says: “The designation, the Coming One (/abba), 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 11³ and Lk 7¹⁹ 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 1¹¹). With reference to the appearance of this designation precisely here, Zahn (iz loc.) remarks: “While Matthew 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 Χριστός (cf. esp. 2⁴), 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 (3¹¹, Mk 1⁷, Lk 3¹⁶, Jno 12⁷) by the term ἐρχόμενος, the Coming One, the Great Expected. No doubt other expected personalities might be similarly spoken of (Mt 11¹4 1710 sed. Jno 6¹⁴), 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.” ↩

17. Cf. W. C. Allen on Mt 11²⁷. Commenting on the aorist, παρεδόθη, he remarks: “The idea involved is of a pre-temporal act, and carries with it the conception of the preéxistence of the Messiah. The same thought probably underlies 7A00y of 5¹⁷ 10³⁴, and the ἀποστε λαντα of 10⁴⁰.” ↩

18. Cf. Zahn in loc.: “According to the connection of the narrative up to this point, Jesus can be called the Son of God for no other reason than that He was born of the Virgin apart from any aid of man (cf. Lk 1³⁵). The divine sonship of Israel, which was grounded in God’s calling this people into being for a particular purpose, and, as it were, begetting it (Deut 32¹⁸)—an idea which was so vividly conceived that God’s fatherhood is set excludingly over against that of Abraham and Jacob (Is 63¹6)—appears as a type of the divine Sonship of Jesus, which actually excludes the bodily fatherhood of the son of David.” ²5 Cf. Zahn, in loc. (p. 152): “He is by a word of power to create for Himself the food for which He hungers. This is an echo out of the abyss corresponding to the voice from heaven (3¹⁷). What God declares of Jesus, the devil brings into question (Gen 3¹, Job 18sea), demanding from Jesus that He should offer him proof of it. We must not overlook, however, that he does not say, as might have been expected from the undeniable connection with 3¹⁷, e/ υἱὸς but ef υἱὸς el τοῦ θεοῦ. He is to prove not that He is the unique Son of God whom God just on that account has chosen as the Messiah, but that He is a being more closely related than other men to God (cf. Mt 14³³ 27⁴⁰), If it cannot be unknown to the evil spirit, who is acquainted with the voice from heaven, that Jesus has been chosen to be the Messiah, nevertheless what he demands of Him has nothing directly to do with this vocation. It is, however, surely to be expected of One who as a Son of God must have power over nature, that He should rescue Himself from the unsuitable condition of a hungry man by the use of His power.” ↩

19. Cf. Zahn, in loc. (p. 513): “Neither the absence of the article from the predicate (cf. on the other hand, 3¹⁷ 16¹⁶ even 11²7), nor the position of θεοῦ before υἱός is to be overlooked. Even if divine Sonship and Messianic dignity were synonyms (see to the contrary p. 145 seq.), and what had cast the disciples into adoring wonder had had anything to do with the office of the Messiah, the absence of the article nevertheless would forbid us to think of that here (cf. on the contrary, 12²³ 16¹⁶ 21⁹ 26⁶³). What is said and what there was occasion to say is not who but what kind of a man Jesus was. The question elicited by a similar occasion, ποταπός ἐστιν οὗτος (82⁷) is here answered; though, naturally, not after the fashion of a scholastic dictum, but in the direct expression of an overwhelming experience. Not a son of man, but a Son of God He is, who exhibits such supernatural power over the elements, and shows Himself so exalted over the hesitancies between the power of faith and the feebleness of the flesh which accompany human weakness even when the spirit is willing, —as was to be seen in Peter.” ↩

20. Cf. Zahn in loc. pp. 534-5: goes above 14³³ in confessing Jesus as the Son of God, and of the living God; that is, Jesus had manifested the works of the Son of a God who exists and acts, etc. ↩

21. Cf. Zahn in loc., pp. 694-5. ↩

22. Cf. Zahn in loc., pp. 145 seq., where the question is fully discussed and solidly argued: “As at 2¹5 so here the divine Sonship is to be explained from 1¹⁸⁻²⁵, It expresses not an official, but a personal relation; it is not identical with the Messianic office, but its presupposition.” One of the arguments on which Zahn lays stress, however, scarcely serves: “The idea that God, out of the many sons which He has, has chosen one and that for the Messiahship, is excluded by the attribute ἀγαπητός; for in this connection ἀγαπητός bears the established sense of only son=μονογενής.” It appears to be probable, on the contrary, that, as W. C. Allen, ἐπ loc, puts it “ ἀγαπητός is not an attribute of vide pov, but an independent title—the Beloved —the Messiah.” The matter is discussed by Dr. J. Armitage Robinson in Hastings’ Dict. Bib, II. sor, and in his commentary on Ephesians, pp. 229ff. ↩

23. Cf. Zahn, in loc., pp. 620, 621. ↩

24. The words “nor yet the Son” are, to be sure, lacking in a few somewhat unimportant witnesses to the text, but can scarcely be adjudged of doubtful genuineness. W. C. Allen rejects them in sequence to a theory of his own of the relation of Matthew to Mark, and Matthew’s habit of dealing with Mark’s christological statements. Zahn whom He has just called ‘ His Father, in the second and third clauses simply the Father’—which is not to be paralleled with the address of vv. 25, 26—so He names Himself three times simply the Son,’ in order to designate Himself as the only one who stood to God in the full sense of that name in the relation of a Son to a Father.” ↩

25. So Dalman, strikingly, Words, 297. ↩

26. Cf. W. C. Allen, Hastings’ D. C. G., 1, 308: “In the thought of the evangelist, Jesus, born of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit, was the preéxistent Messiah (= the Beloved) or Son (11²⁷), who had been forechosen by God (3¹⁷ 175), and who, when born into the world as Jesus, was God-with-us’ (1²³). In this respect the writer of the First Gospel shows himself to be under the influence of the same conception of the Person of Christ that dominates the Johannine theology, though this conception under the categories of the Logos and the Divine Son is worked out much more fully in the Fourth than in the First Gospel.” ↩