From these various instances the conclusion appears to be, that Jesus discouraged the appli- cation to Himself of the title ' Christ ' in every case in which it was likely to be misunderstood or to lead the people, with their narrow views as to wiiat the Messiah should be, to form inadequate conceptions of the nature and scope of His actual claims and His actual mission.
His aim throughout His ministry Avas to correct the current conceptions of the expected Messiah by calling attention to the spiritual significance of the national hope, and to the true meaning of that word which was so often upon their lips, thus gradually preparing them to accept Himself as the Deliverer who had been promised and whom
they required. This explains, on the one hand. His reticence on most occasions as to His personal claim to be the Clirist ; and, on the other hand, His frankness at other times, as when He revealed Himself as tlie Christ to the woman of Samaria, who had learned to look upon the promised ^Messiah as One who should reveal the Father and the Father's will.
Jesus sought to effect His purpose in various ways. To adduce one conspicuous example, He called the attention of the Pharisees to a well- known IMessianic i-iophecy, e\idently in order to correct that popular belief which they shared. He asked them, ' What think ye of Christ ? Vrhose son is he?' (Mt 22^-'-, cf. xMk 1235'- || Lk 20''^ J, clearly treating the matter as a question in Liulical theology or Scripture interpretation. They answered His question in terms of the belief then current, 'The son of David.' Then Jesus, by quoting from the Psalms a passage wliich they understood to be not only distinctly Messianic, but an utterance of David himself (Ps 110'), showed some of the practical difficulties involved in the belief that the Messiah of pro^jhecy owed his authority to his Davidic descent. ' How is David's son David's Lord ? ' Thus our Lord suggested the need there was of carefully revising the Avliole question of Messianic prophecy, tiiat the people should ask themselves whether they had taken into account not one element or aspect of the jjroblem only, but all that the prophets had spoken concerning the Christ. Until they had done this and were in a position to judge the Person, mission, work, and claims of Jesus by the light shed upon the subject by such a careful study of the whole question, they must necessarily find not merelj^ the teaching and work of Jesus, but the OT reve- lation itself, a dark j)roblem full of insoluble enigmas.
Thus Jesus sought gradually to lead His country- men to rise above their narrow views, and, instead of making an unintelligent use of words and names, mere signs of spiritual truths, to apprehend the thing signified by them. Thus He taught them that ' the Christ,' ' the Messiah,' ' the Lord's Anointed,' simply meant ' him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world' (Jn 10^") that He might ' do the ' Father's ' will and finish his work ' (Jn 4^, cf. 17^). The anointing which the name denoted, and of which under the old economy priests and kings, as types of the coming Deliverer, were the subjects, was only a symbol of the Holy Spirit by whose effectual working God's will was done. The Christ of God, the Anointed One by way of eminence, the Antitype to which those types more or less clearly pointed, was He upon whom the Spirit of God rested and abode according to the prophecy (Is 11'-- 2), and who was thus equipped for the fulfilment of the Father's will. We may compare with this what we learn from the Fourth Gospel of the manner in which the Baptist knew that Jesus was the Christ. The appointed sign was the descent upon Him of the Spirit in the form of a dove. ' Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost ' (Jn 1*'). That was the anointing which constituted Him the Christ, and by which He was publicly set apart for the perfect accomplishment of the Father's jnirpose of redemption. This truth was not fully learned, and therefore the name in which the truth was enshrined could not be used, with a correct understanding of its meaning, even by the most intimate disciples of Jesus, until after the Resurrection, when they knew that the doing of the Father's will, for which He had been anointed with the Spirit, involved the sufferings, death, and resurrection of the Christ (Lk 24'»«), after which, and
^'AMKS AA^D TITLES OF CHRIST NAMES AXD TITLES OF CHRIST 221
as a result of m liich, Cliiist s' ould impart to His followers the gift of the Holy Ghost, and so com- municate to them all the benefits of His redemptive work. See also art. Messiah.
4. Son of David ; King of Israel ; King of the Jews. — These titles, closely connected witli that of ' Christ,' and, like it, associated in the minds of the people with inadequate conceptions of Mes- sianic propliecy, were little favoured by our Lord. They had, however, their own si<;nihcance for the Evangelists in respect of their beaming upon the fuhihnent of projihecy. Thus St. Matthew in the beginning of his Gospel calls Jesus 'son of David,' and prefaces his narrative Avitli a genealogical table in which he notes Christ's place in history as a descendant of the royal house of David (Mt l'"^-). while in ch. 2 he calls attention to the general exj^ectation prevalent among the nations that the Messiah should appear as a Prince of the house of Judali (Mt2-). St. Luke also traces the genealogy of Jesus, and calls attention to His descent from David, in connexion with which he explains how it liappened that He was born in Bethlehem, though the home of Mary and Joseph was in Nazareth in Galilee (Lk 2i«- S-s-^S). The Evangelist further emjihasizes the point of our Lord's Davidic descent by recording the words of Gabriel at the Annun- ciation : ' The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David ' (Lk P-). The aim of these Evangelists in noting these points is to show that in Jesus of Nazareth, OT prophecy, and, in particular, the promise that the Christ should come of the house of David, find their fulfilment. The connexion between the Old Covenant and the New' having been thus established, and Jesus proved to be the subject of OT prophecies of the coming Deliverer, the title ' Son of David' ceases to be used or referred to until the Gospel narrative reaches the closing scenes of the life of Christ. Then we learn that Jesus was addi'cssed as ' Son of David ' by the two blind men (Mt 9'-'), by the Syrophcenician A\oman (Mt lo"), by the blind men at Jericho (IMt 20'^ \\ Mk IQ-*'- *» |1 Lk IS^s- 3") ; and that He Avas saluted as such by the multitude at His triumphal entry into Jerusalem (3It 2P || 'Mk 1 P'^). That the popular belief made the Davidic descent of the Messiah an essential element, is illus- trated by the exclamation of the multitude on the occasion on which He healed one ' possessed with a devil, blind and dumb,' ' Is not this the son of David?' (Mt 12-^); bj- the objection raised at anotlier time by those who maintained that Christ should come not from Cialilee, but ' of the seed of David, and out of the town of Uethlehem, where David was ' ( Jn 7^-) ; and by the answer of the Pharisees to our Lord's question, ' What think ye of Christ ?' (Mt 22-'2, cf. jNIk 12S5 || Lk 20«).