ing
"the anointed of Jehovah." Without definition it is not found until
the Christian period. There is no reason to suppose that at the
beginning of the first century it was used exclusively to describe the
hope of the Jews that a {48} prince of the house of David would restore
their fallen fortunes, though in the later Jewish literature it was
used in this way.[3]
Thus if we try to construct the impression which the early Christians
made on the Jews of Jerusalem by claiming that Jesus was anointed by
God, we are obliged to say that the phrase itself only implied his
divine appointment; it did not by itself indicate definitely the
function to which he was appointed. But the way in which it was used
must have suggested two special functions--that of the Davidic prince
alluded to above, and that of the supernatural representative of God
who would judge the world at the last day.
It is quite clear that the writer of Luke and Acts, and the editor of
Matthew, identified Jesus with the expected Son of David, but there is
room for doubt whether this fully represents the thought of the first
disciples. There is very little in Mark which identifies Jesus with
the Son of David. In the preaching of Jesus the Kingdom of God, so far
as it was not the divine sovereignty, was the Age to Come much more
than the restored monarchy. It is true that the people of Jerusalem
seem to have been looking forward to a Davidic king, as may be seen
from the cries of the multitude at the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem.
It is also true that Bartimaeus greeted Jesus as Son of David; but
there is nothing in the recorded words {49} of Jesus to show that he
accepted this view. It seems, therefore, probable that just as the
people were thinking of the splendours of a restored monarchy, while
Jesus was speaking of the reign of God in the Age to Come, so they were
looking for a Davidic Messiah, and explained Jesus' strange and
overmastering personality in accordance with their own wishes rather
than with his words. It is not the only point at which the Church
followed the leading of the people rather than the teaching of Jesus.
The figure of the Son of Man destined to be God's representative at the
day of judgement which will divide this age from the Age to Come is
prominent in the undoubted teaching of Jesus, but forms one of the most
difficult problems in New Testament criticism. There seems but little
doubt that "Son of Man," which in Greek
|