of Heavenly self-designation. The appeal involved Origin j^^ j^. ^.^ Daniel 7^^'^* is a definite as- sertion for the Messiah of a heavenly as distinguished from an earthly origin, with all the suggestions of preexistence, divine exaltation and authority, and end- less sovereignty necessarily connected with a heavenly origin. It would be impossible to frame a Messianic conception on the basis of this vision of Daniel and to suppose the Messiah to be in His person a mere man deriving His origin from the earth.'* This is sufficiently illustrated indeed by the history of the Messianic ideal among the Jews. There is very little evidence among the Jews before or contemporary with our Lord, of re- sort to Daniel 7^"-^^ as a basis for Messianic hopes : but wherever this occurs it is the conception of a pre- existent, heavenly monarch who is to judge the world in righteousness which is derived from this passage.' No other conception, in fact, could be derived from Daniel, where the heavenly origin of the eternal King is thrown into the sharpest contrast with the lower
2 Cf. Dalman, Words, 242 : " The destined possessor of the universal dominion comes not from the earth, far less from the sea, but from heaven. He is a being standing in a near relation to God . . ."
3 The Similitudes of Enoch and the Second Book of Esdras (more commonly called 4 Esdras). Cf. Dalman, Words, pp. 242 and 131: " From the first Christian century there are only two writings known which deal with Dan 7^^, the Similitudes of the Book of Enoch, and the Second Book of Esdras " . . . " After the Similitudes of Enoch the only representatives of the idea [of the heavenly preexistence of the Messiah] independent of Enoch, are 2 Esdras in the first Christian century and the Appendix to Pesikta Rabbati in the seventh or eighth century."
Mark^s Conception of Our Lord 39
source of the preceding bestial rulers. Judaism may not have known how to reconcile this heavenly origin of the Messiah with His birth as a human being, and may have, therefore, when so conceiving the Mes- siah, sacrificed His human condition entirely to His heavenly nature and supposed Him to appear upon the earth as a developed personality.* That our Lord does not feel this difficulty or share this notion manifests, in the matter of His adoption of the title ' Son of Man ' as His favorite Messianic self-designation. His independence of whatever Jewish tradition may be supposed to have formed itself. But His adoption of the title at all, with its obvious reference to the vision of Daniel,* necessarily carried with It the assertion of heavenly origination and nature.
This in turn carried with It, we may add, the con- ception that He had " come " to earth upon a mission, Jesus' a conception which does not fail to find
Earthly Life Independent expression In such passages, a Mission ^g jss ^n jq45^ Yov, that the assertions in these passages that He " came forth " to preach, that He " came " not to save the righteous but sinners, that He " came " not to be ministered unto but to minister and to give His life as a ransom for many, refer to His divine mission (cf. also ii^'^°), lies on their face. It is suggested by the pregnancy of the
* Cf . Dalman, 131: "Judaism has never known anything of a pre- existence peculiar to the Messiah, antecedent to His birth as a human being." " He is to make His appearance on earth as a fully developed personality," See p. 301 : " The celestial preexistence of Messiah, as stated in the Similitudes of Enoch and in 2 [4] Esdr 13, 14, excluding — so at least it seems — an earthly origin, implies, apart from the incen- tive contributed by Dan 7^^^ ^js miraculous superhuman appearance." Cf. p. 257 gt seq.
^ Cf. Dalman, pp. 257 et seq.
40 The Designations of Our Lord
expressions themselv^es, and the connections in which they are employed; and It is supported by the even more direct language of some of the parallels.* In themselves these expressions may not necessarily In- volve the idea of preexistence (cf. 9" and Jno i^ of John the Baptist) ; but they fall readily in with it, and so far suggest It that when supported by other forms of statement implying It, they cannot well be taken in any other sense.'