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 sim- ple 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 (i8^^'^^, cf. i^^-os)^ and by no means repudiated when (20^^^^'^) Jesus explained that He was something much more than David's son.
-3 So Holtzmann, Weiss and others. Weiss: "'King Messiah,' or 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 terra ' 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 King." It would be more natural to take ' Christ ' as a proper name — as Pilate appears to have taken it.
The Designations in Luke 113
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 : o exXexzoQ of the one is replaced by 6 ixhhyjuspo^ in the other.^* But doubtless the under- lying 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 6 ;ra?c and 6iz>^£xr6c), 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
this epithet, In the first Instance at least, H 1 One' refers to the moral purity of the Mes-
siah,^^ but rather probable that It des- ignates Him as One whom God has " separated out,
24 Cf. on these terms and on the general matter, W. C. Allen, Hast- ings' D. C. G., I. 308.
25 Cf. Charles, Book of Enoch, p. 112; Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, p. 249; Schiirer, JeixnsA People, etc., II. 2. p. 158.
28 So Keil on Lk 4^*.
114 The Designations of Our Lord
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 i-^, Lk 4"^), al- though 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