son; He asserts that He is David's Lord. It seems, therefore, not quite exact even to say that He wishes to suggest that His sonship derives from a higher source than David: that He is, in a word, the Son of God rather than of David.^^ But it seems clear that He desires to intimate that as Lord of David He was something far more than was conveyed by the accus- tomed— and so far acceptable^^ — title of ' Son of David ' :^* and something of this higher dignity than mere kingship belonging to Him is doubtless inherent in this, therefore, higher Messianic title of ' Son of God.' This higher title, If It Is not applied to Jesus by Mark himself In the heading of his Gospel (i^), Is at least in the course of the narrative °^° repeatedly represented as applied to
Him by others, and Is expressly ap- proved as so applied not only by the evangelist (3^^), but by our Lord Himself (14^-). The form of the title varies from the simple 'Son of God' ([i^] 3", cf. 15^^) to the 'Son of the Blessed' (14^^) and the 'Son of the Most Fligh God' (5^). It is, in the Instances recited by Mark, found chiefly on the lips of the unclean spirits whom Jesus cast out (3" 5'^) ; though it Is employed also, apparently as a culmi- nating Messianic title, by the high priest at His trial,
32 See Dalman, Words, 286.
33 Cf. Meyer's good note E. T. Mark and Luke, i. 194 note.
34 Dalman, arguing that what Jesus wished to suggest was that He was Son of God, not of David, goes on to urge that this implies a supernatural birth, and (though not the doctrine of the two natures) a nature which though " appearing in human weakness, is yet a perfect revelation of God," and fits Him for future rulership over the world. Swete remarks : " The title does not involve divine sovereignty ; yet it was a natural inference that a descendant who was David's Lord was also David's God."
20 The Designations of Our Lord
seeking to obtain from Jesus an acknowledgment of His great pretensions (14^^), and was frankly accepted by our Lord as fairly setting these pretensions forth (14*^^). As a Messianic title it differs from those which have been heretofore engaging our attention, in emphasizing, as they do not, the supernatural side of the office and functions of the Messiah: He comes as the representative of God to do God's will In the world. From this point of view another Messianic title ap- plied to Him by a demoniac — ' the Holy One of God ' (i-^),^^ — ranges with it: and the employment by the unclean spirits of this class of titles only (cf. 3" and i^^) may be due to the fact that they were voices from the spiritual world and were as such less concerned than the people of the land with national hopes or earthly developments.^®
35Westcott (on Jno 6^®) remarks: "The knowledge of the demo- niacs reached to the essential nature of the Lord " (comparing Rev 3'', I Jno 2-°; and Jno lo^^ and 62^). The expression, however, (which occurs only in Mk i-*, Lk 4^*, Jno 6''^) need not in itself, as Hahn (Lk 4^*) puts it, "refer to the moral purity of Jesus (Keil) ; but may express rather His Messianic dignity, designating Him as God's con- secrated, dedicated One (cf. Jno lo^^)." Hahn adds that though the demon knows of the humble human origin of Jesus (Nai^apr^^i) he nevertheless knows also of His divine appointment. Holtzmann (p. 76) accords in general with Hahn, and points out that the demon speaks for his class ("us"). Wellhausen supposes this title to have been formed by transference to the Messiah of epithets at first appro- priated to Israel: "Israel originally is both the Son of God and the Holy One of the Highest" (on Mk i^*). It seems, however, a little difficult to understand how the demons were supposed to recognize at sight ("as soon as ever they saw him") an official appointment. Does it not seem that there must have been supposed to be something about Jesus which betrayed to an eye which saw beneath the surface His superhuman nature — whether this were thought of as His supreme holi- ness or as His unapproachable majesty?
^^ From his own point of view Wellhausen speaks (on i25,28) of " the popular belief that the spirits have for the supersensual other
The Designations in Mark 21
By the side of the passages In which the precise title
' Son of God ' is employed, there stands another series
in which Jesus speaks of Himself, or
*The Son' is represented as spoken of by God, simply as 'the Son' (13^^, cf. 12^; i" 9'^) , used obviously in a very pregnant sense :^' and these naturally suggest their correlatives In which He speaks of God as His ' Father ' In the same pregnant manner (8^^, cf. 13^^ 14^*^) • The uniqueness of the relation Intended to be Intimated by this mode of speech Is sharply thrust forward in the parable recorded in Mark 12. There were many slaves who were sent