Difference between revisions of "King"

From BiblePortal Wikipedia
(Created page with "King <ref name="term_16032" /> <p> King, a title applied in the Scriptures to men (;; ), to God , and to Christ (;;;; )—to men, as invested with regal authority by...")
 
Tag: Manual revert
 
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
King <ref name="term_16032" />  
== Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament <ref name="term_56365" /> ==
<p> King, a title applied in the [[Scriptures]] to men (;; ), to God , and to [[Christ]] (;;;; )—to men, as invested with regal authority by their fellows; to God, as the sole proper sovereign and ruler of the universe; and to Christ, as the Messiah, the Son of God, the King of the Jews, the sole Head and [[Governor]] of His church. </p> <p> Regal authority was altogether alien to the institutions of [[Moses]] in their original and unadulterated form. Their fundamental idea was that [[Jehovah]] was the sole king of the nation : to use the emphatic words in , 'The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king.' We consider it as a sign of that self-confidence and moral enterprise which are produced in great men by a consciousness of being what they profess, that Moses ventured, with his half-civilized hordes, on the bold experiment of founding a society without a king, and that in the solicitude which he must have felt for the success of his great undertaking, he forewent the advantages which a regal government would have afforded. Nor is such an attempt a little singular and novel at a period and in a part of the world in which royalty was not only general, but held in the greatest respect, and sometimes rose to the very height of pure despotism. Its novelty is an evidence of the divine original to which Moses referred all his polity. Equally honorable is the conduct of Moses in denying to his lower nature the gratifications which a crown might have imparted, and it is obvious that this self-denial on the part of Moses, this omission to create any human kingship, is in entire accordance with the import, aim, and spirit of the [[Mosaic]] institutions, as being divine in their origin, and designed to accomplish a special work of [[Providence]] for man; and, therefore, affords, by its consistency with the very essence of the system of which it forms a part, a very forcible argument in favor of the divine legation of Moses. </p> <p> That great man, however, well knew what were the elements with which he had to deal in framing institutions for the rescued Israelites. [[Slaves]] they had been, and the spirit of slavery was not yet wholly eradicated from their souls. They had, too, witnessed in [[Egypt]] the more than ordinary pomp and splendor which environ a throne, dazzling the eyes and captivating the heart of the uncultured. Not improbably the prosperity and abundance which they had seen in Egypt, and in which they had been, in a measure, allowed to partake, might have been ascribed by them to the regal form of the [[Egyptian]] government. Moses may well, therefore, have apprehended a not very remote departure from the fundamental type of his institutions. Accordingly he makes a special provision for this contingency , and labors, by anticipation, to guard against the abuses of royal power. Should a king be demanded by the people, then he was to be a native Israelite; he was not to be drawn away by the love of show, especially by a desire for that regal display in which horses have always borne so large a part, to send down to Egypt, still less to cause the people to return to that land; he was to avoid the corrupting influence of a large harem, so common among Eastern monarchs; he was to abstain from amassing silver and gold; he was to have a copy of the law made expressly for his own study—a study which he was never to intermit till the end of his days; so that his heart might not be lifted up above his brethren, that he might not be turned aside from the living God, but observing the divine statutes, and thus acknowledging himself to be no more than the vicegerent of heaven, he might enjoy happiness, and transmit his authority to his descendants. </p> <p> The [[Jewish]] polity, then, was a sort of sacerdotal republic—we say sacerdotal, because of the great influence which, from the first, the priestly order enjoyed, having no human head, but being under the special supervision, protection, and guidance of the Almighty. The nature of the consequences, however, of that divine influence avowedly depended on the degree of obedience and the general faithfulness of the nation. The good, therefore, of such a superintendence in its immediate results was not necessary, but contingent. The removal of Moses and of Joshua by death soon left the people to the natural results of their own condition and character. [[Anarchy]] ensued. [[Noble]] minds, indeed, and stout hearts appeared in those who were termed Judges; but the state of the country was not so satisfactory as to prevent an unenlightened people, having low and gross affections, from preferring the glare of a crown and the apparent protection of a scepter, to the invisible and, therefore, mostly unrecognized arm of omnipotence. A king accordingly was requested. The misconduct of Samuel's sons, who had been made judges, was the immediate occasion of the demand being put forth. The request came with authority, for it emanated from all the elders of Israel, who, after holding a formal conference, proceeded to Samuel, in order to make him acquainted with their wish. Samuel was displeased; but, having sought in prayer to learn the divine will, he is instructed to yield to the demand on a ground which we should not assuredly have found stated, had the book in which it appears been tampered with or fabricated for any courtly purposes or any personal ends, whether by Samuel himself, or by David, or any of his successors—'for they have not rejected thee (Samuel), but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them' (, see also ). Samuel was, moreover, directed to 'protest solemnly unto them, and show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.' Faithfully did the prophet depict the evils which a monarchy would inflict on the people. In vain: they said, 'Nay, but we will have a king over us.' Accordingly, Saul the son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, was, by divine direction, selected, and privately anointed by Samuel 'to be captain over God's inheritance;' thus he was to hold only a delegated and subordinate authority. Under the guidance of Samuel, Saul was subsequently chosen by lot from among the assembled tribes; and though his personal appearance had no influence in the choice, yet when he was plainly pointed out to be the individual designed for the scepter, Samuel called attention to those qualities which in less civilized nations have a preponderating influence, and are never without effect, at least, in supporting 'the divinity which doth hedge a king:' 'See ye him whom the Lord hath chosen, that there is none like him among all the people,' for he was higher than any of the people from his shoulders and upward; 'and all the people shouted, God save the king.' </p> <p> Emanating as the royal power did from the demand of the people and the permission of a prophet, it was not likely to be unlimited in its extent or arbitrary in its exercise. The government of God, indeed, remained, being rather concealed and complicated than disowned, much less superseded. The king ruled not in his own right, nor in virtue of the choice of the people, but by concession from on high, and partly as the servant and partly as the representative of the theocracy. How insecure, indeed, was the tenure of the kingly power, how restricted it was in its authority, appears clear from the comparative facility with which the crown was transferred from Saul to David; and the part which the prophet Samuel took in effecting that transference points out the quarter where lay the power which limited, if it did not primarily, at least, control the royal authority. We must not, however, expect to find any definite and permanent distribution of power, any legal determination of the royal prerogatives as discriminated from the divine authority; circumstances, as they prompted certain deeds, restricted or enlarged the sphere of the monarch's action. Thus, in , sq., we find Saul, in an emergency, assuming, without consultation or deliberation, the power of demanding something like a levy en masse, and of proclaiming instant war. With the king lay the administration of justice in the last resort (; , sq.). He also possessed the power of life and death (2 Samuel 14). To provide for and superintend the public worship was at once his duty and his highest honor (1 Kings 8;;; ). One reason why the people requested a king was, that they might have a recognized leader in war . The Mosaic law offered a powerful hindrance to royal despotism . The people also, by means of their elders, formed an express compact, by which they stipulated for their rights , and were from time to time appealed to, generally in cases of 'great pith and moment' . Nor did the people fail to interpose their will, where they thought it necessary, in opposition to that of the monarch . The part which [[Nathan]] took against [[David]] shows how effective, as well as bold, was the check exerted by the prophets; indeed, most of the prophetic history is the history of the noblest opposition ever made to the vices alike of royalty, priesthood, and people. When needful, the prophet hesitated not to demand an audience of the king, nor was he dazzled or deterred by royal power and pomp (;; ). As, however, the monarch held the sword, the instrument of death was sometimes made to prevail over every restraining influence . </p> <p> After the transfer of the crown from Saul to David, the royal power was annexed to the house of the latter, passing from father to son, with preference to the eldest born, though he might be a minor. [[Jehoash]] was seven years old when he began to reign . This rule was not, however, rigidly observed, for instances are not wanting in which nomination of a younger son gave him a preferable title to the crown : the people, too, and even foreign powers, at a later period, interrupted the regular transmission of royal authority . The ceremony of anointing, which was observed at least in the case of Saul, David, and [[Solomon]] (;;;;;;; ), and in which the prophet or high-priest who performed the rite acted as the representative of the theocracy and the expounder of the will of heaven, must have given to the spiritual power very considerable influence. Indeed, the ceremony seems to have been essential to constitute a legitimate monarch ; and thus the authorities of the Jewish church held in their hands, and had subject to their will, a most important power, which they could use either for their own purposes or the common good. We have seen in the case of Saul that personal and even external qualities had their influence in procuring ready obedience to a sovereign; and further evidence to the same effect may be found in; such qualities would naturally excite the enthusiasm of the people, who appear to have manifested their approval by acclamations (;;;; ). Jubilant music formed a part of the popular rejoicings thank-offerings were made the new sovereign rode in solemn procession on the royal mule of his predecessor , and took possession of the royal harem—an act which seems to have been scarcely less essential than other observances which appear to us to wear a higher character (;; ). A numerous harem, indeed, was among the most highly estimated of the royal luxuries (;; ). It was under the supervision and control of eunuchs, and passed from one monarch to another as a part of the crown-property . The law , foreseeing evils such as that by which Solomon, in his later years, was turned away from his fidelity to God, had strictly forbidden many wives; but Eastern passions and usages were too strong for a mere written prohibition, and a corrupted religion became a pander to royal lust, interpreting the divine command as sanctioning eighteen as the minimum of wives and concubines. In the original distribution of the land no share, of course, was reserved for a merely possible monarch; yet the kings were not without several sources of income. In the earlier periods of the monarchy the simple manners which prevailed would render copious revenues unnecessary; and a throne which was the result of a spontaneous demand on the part of the people, would easily find support in free-will offerings, especially in a part of the world where the great are never approached without a present. There seems also reason to conclude that the amount of the contributions made by the people for the sustenance of the monarch depended, in a measure, on the degree of popularity which, in any particular case, he enjoyed, or the degree of service which he obviously rendered to the state (;;;; , sq.). That presents of small value and humble nature were not despised or thought unfit for the acceptance of royalty, may be learned from that which [[Jesse]] sent to Saul , 'an ass, with bread and a bottle of wine, and a kid.' The indirect detail 'of the substance which was King David's,' found in , sq. (comp.; , sq.), shows at how early a period the [[Israelitish]] throne was in possession of very large property, both personal and real. The royal treasury was replenished by confiscation, as in the case of [[Naboth]] (; comp. , sq.; ). Nor were taxes unknown. Samuel had predicted , 'He will take the tenth of your seed and of your vineyards,' etc.; and so in other passages we find that levies both of men and money were made for the monarch's purposes; and, in cases of special need, these exactions were large and rigorously levied , as when [[Jehoiakim]] 'taxed the land to give the money according to the commandment of Pharaoh; he exacted the silver and the gold of the people of the land, of every one according to his taxation.' So long, however, as the native vigor of a young monarchy made victory easy and frequent, large revenues came to the king from the spoils of war (, sq.). [[Commerce]] also then supplied abundant resources . </p> <p> According to Oriental custom, much ceremony and outward show of respect were observed. Those who were intended to be received with special honor were placed on the king's right hand . The most profound homage was paid to the monarch, which was required not merely by common usage, but by the voice of religious wisdom —a requirement which was not unnatural in regard to an office that was accounted of divine origin, and to have a sort of vice-divine authority. Those who presented themselves before the royal presence fell with their face towards the ground till their forehead touched it (;; ), thus worshipping or doing obeisance to the monarch, a ceremony from which even the royal spouse was not exempted . A kiss was among the established tokens of reverence , as were also hyperbolical wishes of good . Serious offences against the king were punished with death . </p> <p> Deriving their power originally from the wishes of the people, and being one of the same race, the [[Hebrew]] kings were naturally less despotic than other Oriental sovereigns, mingled more with their subjects, and were by no means difficult of access (;;;;; ). After death the monarchs were interred in the royal cemetery in Jerusalem: 'So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David' (;; ). But bad kings were excluded 'from the sepulchers of the kings of Israel' . In 1 Kings 4 will be found an enumeration of the high officers of state under the reign of Solomon (see also;;;;;;;;; ). The misdeeds of the Jewish crown, and the boldness with which they were reproved, may be seen exemplified in Jeremiah 22 : 'Thus saith the Lord, Execute judgment and righteousness, and do no wrong; do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow; neither shed innocent blood. But if ye will not hear these words, this house shall become a desolation,' etc. </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
<p> <b> KING. </b> —The primitive [[Christian]] Church regarded herself as the vassal of Jesus Christ, her exalted Lord and King, under whose regal sway she had been brought by [[Divine]] grace (&nbsp;Colossians 1:13). The current belief was that Jesus had been installed in His royal office by the Resurrection; in that event God had made Him both Lord and Christ (&nbsp;Acts 2:36), and in it had been fulfilled the prophecy regarding the Messianic King, ‘Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee’ (&nbsp;Psalms 2:7, cf. &nbsp;Acts 13:33), as also another prophetic utterance, ‘Sit thou at my right hand’ (&nbsp;Psalms 110:1; cf. &nbsp;Acts 2:34, &nbsp;Revelation 3:21). This sovereignty is indeed temporary; it will come to an end with the final overthrow of the enemies of God: ‘Then shall he deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father’ (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:24; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:28). It was the conviction of the primitive community that the idea of a Messianic kingdom upon earth—whether eternal (&nbsp;Luke 1:33) or of limited duration (&nbsp;Revelation 20:4 ff.)—as it gleams through the [[Jewish]] [[Apocalyptic]] and in the earlier Messianic hope, had at last been realized in the [[Kingdom]] of Christ, <i> i.e. </i> , the Church as subject to her exalted King. </p> <p> Now the question which we seek to answer in the present article is this:— <i> Did Jesus Himself in His lifetime put forward a claim to be the Messianic King </i> ? Here we light upon a problem which is vigorously canvassed among theologians, particularly at the present day. While there are scholars of high repute, such as Wellhausen and Wrede,* [Note: Wellhausen, IJG3, Comm. zu den Synopt. Evangelien, Einleit. in die drei ersten Evangelien (1905), 89 ff.; Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimniss in der Evangelien, 1901.] who deny that Jesus thought of Himself as the [[Messiah]] at all, there are others who are convinced that He was in possession of some kind of ‘Messianic consciousness’; and among the latter the controversy turns upon the peculiar significance and the specific colouring of the implied claims and expectations. It is impossible in the space at our disposal to discuss the problem in all its bearings; for the details reference must be made to other works of the present writer.† [Note: Die Schriften des NT, i. i. 135 f., 198 ff., 476 ff.] The task of determining the sense in which Jesus assumed the title of King is all that meanwhile concerns us. </p> <p> The prophecy regarding Jesus uttered by the angel Gabriel: ‘The Lord shall give unto him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end’ (&nbsp;Luke 1:32 f.), was not brought to fulfilment in the lifetime of Jesus. But the writer of the [[Gospel]] of the [[Infancy]] in Lk. would hardly have recorded the prediction, had he not entertained the hope that its fulfilment was but a matter of time. It is beyond question that the earliest Jewish Christian communities believed that Jesus would come again in kingly glory, as is acknowledged by the repentant thief upon the cross (&nbsp;Luke 23:42, reading ὄταν ἔλθῃς ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ σου as preferable to εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν σου). This belief appears also in the emphasis which the early churches laid upon the descent of Jesus from David (&nbsp;Romans 1:3), and in the endeavours which were made to substantiate it by the construction of genealogical tables (&nbsp;Matthew 1:1-16, &nbsp;Luke 3:23-36). These tables were not constructed for merely academic or theological purposes; they were designed to support the contention with which the Jewish [[Christians]] confronted their unbelieving compatriots, viz. that Jesus was the King of Israel. It is true, indeed, that in the primitive tradition of the life of Jesus, His Kingship is not explicitly asserted. The acclamations of the multitude on the occasion of the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, ‘Hosanna to the son of David’ (&nbsp;Matthew 21:9), ‘Blessed is the kingdom that cometh, the kingdom of our father David’ (&nbsp;Mark 11:10), cannot have been more than a bold anticipation of the future. The crown of thorns (15:17) was an act of derision, to the true significance of which the soldiers were blind; while the inscription on the cross (15:26) was a prediction which Pilate, in opposition to the wishes of the [[Jews]] and in ignorance of what he was doing (&nbsp;John 19:19 f.), was constrained to set forth in all the great languages of the world. In point of fact the primitive tradition makes it perfectly clear that Jesus deprecated and even disclaimed the ascription of royalty, or at all events that He thought of the dignity as something to become His only in the future. </p> <p> To the question of Pilate, ‘Art thou the King of the Jews?’ Jesus answers, according to &nbsp;Mark 15:2, neither <i> yea </i> nor <i> nay </i> , but replies only in the words ‘Thou sayest it.’ Is this an affirmative? St. Mark certainly regarded it as such (cf. 14:62), but St. Luke shows unmistakably that the words were not so understood by Pilate, since, if he had regarded them as equivalent to <i> yea </i> , be could not have said, ‘I find no fault in this man’ (23:4): a claimant to the throne must necessarily have been convicted of sedition. St. John also indicates that Jesus at first replied evasively to the question (18:33f.), but that afterwards He frankly avowed His claim to the title of King, though with the reservation that His Kingdom was ‘not of this world’ (18:36). Even more clearly than in the Synoptists we see in St. John’s account a definite purpose: he aims at showing that Jesus was no political usurper, no pretender to the crown, who designed by force of arms to deliver His people from the thraldom of Rome, and to reinstall the dynasty of David. [[Notwithstanding]] the obvious tendency of the writer of the Fourth Gospel, we must grant that in this instance his narrative, equally with those of the earlier Evangelists, is essentially faithful to fact. </p> <p> That Jesus harboured no design of restoring the Davidic monarchy may be asserted without misgiving. To the policy of the violent, who would take the Kingdom by force (&nbsp;Matthew 11:12), He lent no countenance, and when, after the feeding of the multitude, they wanted to make Him a King, he betook Himself elsewhere (&nbsp;John 6:15). We shall be asked, however, if He did not, on the occasion of His Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, carefully organize and carry through a demonstration designed to further His royal claims. In answer to this it is to be said that St. Mark’s account of the episode (11:1f.) cannot be taken as historical; and we must either accept the narrative of Jn. (12:12ff.), according to which the demonstration emanated from His supporters among the people and was only <i> permitted </i> by Him, and which weakens the impression of the incident by its quotation from &nbsp;Zechariah 9:9;* [Note: cit. i. i. 163.] or else we must abandon the hope of winning from the event any light for our theme at all. Had the Triumphal Entry been of such capital importance and of such a striking character as St. Mark represents, the authorities would certainly have intervened, and the matter would have figured in the trial of Jesus as a count in the indictment [but see Entry into Jerusalem]. </p> <p> In the discourses of Jesus we find telling arguments, both positive and negative, in favour of the view that He either made no claim whatever to the title of Messianic King, or that He did so in a most unobtrusive way. To His descent from David, if He gave it credence at all, He did not attach the slightest importance; indeed, He even sought to convince the scribes that in regarding the coming Messiah as the Son of David they fell far short of the truth. To all appearance He desired to eradicate from the minds of His hearers the prevailing idea of a Davidic ruler, and to substitute for it another Messianic figure, viz. the ‘Son of Man,’ the ‘Man’ who, as Daniel (7:13f.) had prophesied, was to come in the clouds of heaven at the end of the age. This ‘Son of Man’ is no earthly monarch, but a Being of Divine and heavenly nature; not one who by means of a revolution rises from his native obscurity to a throne, but one who descends from heaven to earth. With such a figure dominating the outlook of Jesus, there is no place for a Messianic King. It is thus quite in keeping with these facts that He announces, not that God is about to send forth the Messiah, the Son of David, not that the kingdom of David is at hand, but that ‘the kingdom of <i> God </i> is at hand.’ The purport of this message has been dealt with elsewhere:† [Note: Weiss, Die Predigt [[Jesu]] vom Reiche Gottes2 (1900).] suffice it to say here, that the announcement of a cosmical catastrophe, of a new aeon, in which the existing sway of Satan shall be destroyed, and God shall be all in all, is intrinsically incompatible with the idea of a Messianic King standing side by side with the Most High. Nor do the prophecies of Daniel, when rightly interpreted, present us with the figure of a Messiah. Hence it is by no mere accident that in the utterances of Jesus the title ‘King’ is applied to God alone: cf. [[Jerusalem]] ‘the city of the great king’ (&nbsp;Matthew 5:35), the parable of the [[Unmerciful]] [[Servant]] (18:23); and in particular, the parable of the Marriage Feast (22:1ff.), where the Messiah appeals as the King’s son. It is only in the description of the Last [[Judgment]] (25:31) that the ‘Son of Man’ appears as King—note the abrupt change vv. 34, 40; probably, however, we have in this passage reminiscences of some older parable, which had to do with a king and not with the Messiah at all. Only on one recorded occasion (&nbsp;Luke 22:29) does Jesus invest Himself with the βασιλεία, but that is <i> for the future </i> . This occurred, according to Lk., during the Last Supper,—a circumstance which leads us to infer that Jesus did not in any sense regard Himself as being a king in the days of His flesh. What He has in prospect here is simply a participation in the Divine Sovereignty, a prerogative guaranteed also to those who accept Him. He believes, indeed, that He will occupy the chief place among them that are His; that He will take the seat of honour at table, having them on His right hand and on His left (&nbsp;Matthew 20:21); but of a Messianic Kingship in the ordinary sense of the word there is no suggestion at all. If Jesus deemed Himself to be the predestined Messiah in any sense whatsoever, He certainly thought of the Messianic office as being different from that of a king. See, further, art. Messiah. </p> <p> [[Johannes]] Weiss. </p>
       
== Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature <ref name="term_47450" /> ==
<p> is the name of the five canonical works of the followers of Confucius. (See [[Confucius]]). </p>
       
==References ==
==References ==
<references>
<references>
<ref name="term_16032"> [https://bibleportal.com/encyclopedia/kitto-s-popular-cyclopedia-of-biblial-literature/king King from Kitto's Popular Cyclopedia of Biblial Literature]</ref>
 
<ref name="term_56365"> [https://bibleportal.com/dictionary/hastings-dictionary-of-the-new-testament/king+(2) King from Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament]</ref>
       
<ref name="term_47450"> [https://bibleportal.com/encyclopedia/cyclopedia-of-biblical-theological-and-ecclesiastical-literature/king+(2) King from Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature]</ref>
       
</references>
</references>

Latest revision as of 10:59, 15 October 2021

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament [1]

KING. —The primitive Christian Church regarded herself as the vassal of Jesus Christ, her exalted Lord and King, under whose regal sway she had been brought by Divine grace ( Colossians 1:13). The current belief was that Jesus had been installed in His royal office by the Resurrection; in that event God had made Him both Lord and Christ ( Acts 2:36), and in it had been fulfilled the prophecy regarding the Messianic King, ‘Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee’ ( Psalms 2:7, cf.  Acts 13:33), as also another prophetic utterance, ‘Sit thou at my right hand’ ( Psalms 110:1; cf.  Acts 2:34,  Revelation 3:21). This sovereignty is indeed temporary; it will come to an end with the final overthrow of the enemies of God: ‘Then shall he deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father’ ( 1 Corinthians 15:24;  1 Corinthians 15:28). It was the conviction of the primitive community that the idea of a Messianic kingdom upon earth—whether eternal ( Luke 1:33) or of limited duration ( Revelation 20:4 ff.)—as it gleams through the Jewish Apocalyptic and in the earlier Messianic hope, had at last been realized in the Kingdom of Christ, i.e. , the Church as subject to her exalted King.

Now the question which we seek to answer in the present article is this:— Did Jesus Himself in His lifetime put forward a claim to be the Messianic King  ? Here we light upon a problem which is vigorously canvassed among theologians, particularly at the present day. While there are scholars of high repute, such as Wellhausen and Wrede,* [Note: Wellhausen, IJG3, Comm. zu den Synopt. Evangelien, Einleit. in die drei ersten Evangelien (1905), 89 ff.; Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimniss in der Evangelien, 1901.] who deny that Jesus thought of Himself as the Messiah at all, there are others who are convinced that He was in possession of some kind of ‘Messianic consciousness’; and among the latter the controversy turns upon the peculiar significance and the specific colouring of the implied claims and expectations. It is impossible in the space at our disposal to discuss the problem in all its bearings; for the details reference must be made to other works of the present writer.† [Note: Die Schriften des NT, i. i. 135 f., 198 ff., 476 ff.] The task of determining the sense in which Jesus assumed the title of King is all that meanwhile concerns us.

The prophecy regarding Jesus uttered by the angel Gabriel: ‘The Lord shall give unto him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end’ ( Luke 1:32 f.), was not brought to fulfilment in the lifetime of Jesus. But the writer of the Gospel of the Infancy in Lk. would hardly have recorded the prediction, had he not entertained the hope that its fulfilment was but a matter of time. It is beyond question that the earliest Jewish Christian communities believed that Jesus would come again in kingly glory, as is acknowledged by the repentant thief upon the cross ( Luke 23:42, reading ὄταν ἔλθῃς ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ σου as preferable to εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν σου). This belief appears also in the emphasis which the early churches laid upon the descent of Jesus from David ( Romans 1:3), and in the endeavours which were made to substantiate it by the construction of genealogical tables ( Matthew 1:1-16,  Luke 3:23-36). These tables were not constructed for merely academic or theological purposes; they were designed to support the contention with which the Jewish Christians confronted their unbelieving compatriots, viz. that Jesus was the King of Israel. It is true, indeed, that in the primitive tradition of the life of Jesus, His Kingship is not explicitly asserted. The acclamations of the multitude on the occasion of the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, ‘Hosanna to the son of David’ ( Matthew 21:9), ‘Blessed is the kingdom that cometh, the kingdom of our father David’ ( Mark 11:10), cannot have been more than a bold anticipation of the future. The crown of thorns (15:17) was an act of derision, to the true significance of which the soldiers were blind; while the inscription on the cross (15:26) was a prediction which Pilate, in opposition to the wishes of the Jews and in ignorance of what he was doing ( John 19:19 f.), was constrained to set forth in all the great languages of the world. In point of fact the primitive tradition makes it perfectly clear that Jesus deprecated and even disclaimed the ascription of royalty, or at all events that He thought of the dignity as something to become His only in the future.

To the question of Pilate, ‘Art thou the King of the Jews?’ Jesus answers, according to  Mark 15:2, neither yea nor nay , but replies only in the words ‘Thou sayest it.’ Is this an affirmative? St. Mark certainly regarded it as such (cf. 14:62), but St. Luke shows unmistakably that the words were not so understood by Pilate, since, if he had regarded them as equivalent to yea , be could not have said, ‘I find no fault in this man’ (23:4): a claimant to the throne must necessarily have been convicted of sedition. St. John also indicates that Jesus at first replied evasively to the question (18:33f.), but that afterwards He frankly avowed His claim to the title of King, though with the reservation that His Kingdom was ‘not of this world’ (18:36). Even more clearly than in the Synoptists we see in St. John’s account a definite purpose: he aims at showing that Jesus was no political usurper, no pretender to the crown, who designed by force of arms to deliver His people from the thraldom of Rome, and to reinstall the dynasty of David. Notwithstanding the obvious tendency of the writer of the Fourth Gospel, we must grant that in this instance his narrative, equally with those of the earlier Evangelists, is essentially faithful to fact.

That Jesus harboured no design of restoring the Davidic monarchy may be asserted without misgiving. To the policy of the violent, who would take the Kingdom by force ( Matthew 11:12), He lent no countenance, and when, after the feeding of the multitude, they wanted to make Him a King, he betook Himself elsewhere ( John 6:15). We shall be asked, however, if He did not, on the occasion of His Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, carefully organize and carry through a demonstration designed to further His royal claims. In answer to this it is to be said that St. Mark’s account of the episode (11:1f.) cannot be taken as historical; and we must either accept the narrative of Jn. (12:12ff.), according to which the demonstration emanated from His supporters among the people and was only permitted by Him, and which weakens the impression of the incident by its quotation from  Zechariah 9:9;* [Note: cit. i. i. 163.] or else we must abandon the hope of winning from the event any light for our theme at all. Had the Triumphal Entry been of such capital importance and of such a striking character as St. Mark represents, the authorities would certainly have intervened, and the matter would have figured in the trial of Jesus as a count in the indictment [but see Entry into Jerusalem].

In the discourses of Jesus we find telling arguments, both positive and negative, in favour of the view that He either made no claim whatever to the title of Messianic King, or that He did so in a most unobtrusive way. To His descent from David, if He gave it credence at all, He did not attach the slightest importance; indeed, He even sought to convince the scribes that in regarding the coming Messiah as the Son of David they fell far short of the truth. To all appearance He desired to eradicate from the minds of His hearers the prevailing idea of a Davidic ruler, and to substitute for it another Messianic figure, viz. the ‘Son of Man,’ the ‘Man’ who, as Daniel (7:13f.) had prophesied, was to come in the clouds of heaven at the end of the age. This ‘Son of Man’ is no earthly monarch, but a Being of Divine and heavenly nature; not one who by means of a revolution rises from his native obscurity to a throne, but one who descends from heaven to earth. With such a figure dominating the outlook of Jesus, there is no place for a Messianic King. It is thus quite in keeping with these facts that He announces, not that God is about to send forth the Messiah, the Son of David, not that the kingdom of David is at hand, but that ‘the kingdom of God is at hand.’ The purport of this message has been dealt with elsewhere:† [Note: Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes2 (1900).] suffice it to say here, that the announcement of a cosmical catastrophe, of a new aeon, in which the existing sway of Satan shall be destroyed, and God shall be all in all, is intrinsically incompatible with the idea of a Messianic King standing side by side with the Most High. Nor do the prophecies of Daniel, when rightly interpreted, present us with the figure of a Messiah. Hence it is by no mere accident that in the utterances of Jesus the title ‘King’ is applied to God alone: cf. Jerusalem ‘the city of the great king’ ( Matthew 5:35), the parable of the Unmerciful Servant (18:23); and in particular, the parable of the Marriage Feast (22:1ff.), where the Messiah appeals as the King’s son. It is only in the description of the Last Judgment (25:31) that the ‘Son of Man’ appears as King—note the abrupt change vv. 34, 40; probably, however, we have in this passage reminiscences of some older parable, which had to do with a king and not with the Messiah at all. Only on one recorded occasion ( Luke 22:29) does Jesus invest Himself with the βασιλεία, but that is for the future . This occurred, according to Lk., during the Last Supper,—a circumstance which leads us to infer that Jesus did not in any sense regard Himself as being a king in the days of His flesh. What He has in prospect here is simply a participation in the Divine Sovereignty, a prerogative guaranteed also to those who accept Him. He believes, indeed, that He will occupy the chief place among them that are His; that He will take the seat of honour at table, having them on His right hand and on His left ( Matthew 20:21); but of a Messianic Kingship in the ordinary sense of the word there is no suggestion at all. If Jesus deemed Himself to be the predestined Messiah in any sense whatsoever, He certainly thought of the Messianic office as being different from that of a king. See, further, art. Messiah.

Johannes Weiss.

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature [2]

is the name of the five canonical works of the followers of Confucius. (See Confucius).

References

  1. ↑ King from Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament
  2. ↑ King from Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Retrieved from "http://wiki.bibleportal.com/index.php?title=King&oldid=357121"