It will be noted from this that in four examples the title is specifically related to the healing either of the blind (three times) or of those possessed with devils (twice, one of which is also connected with blindness), while in the fifth it is found on the lips of a crowd (21.9), who would no doubt have been aware of the recent healing of the blind men witnessed by pilgrims as they streamed towards Jerusalem, and on the lips of Jewish leaders (21.15) where the healing of ‘the lame and the blind’ is mentioned in the same context (21.14, compare Isaiah 35.5-6). So in context there is clearly a heavy stress on the healing of the blind in connection with the term ‘Son of David’, including in that context those who had called Him the Son of David in 20.30-31 (compare Isaiah 29.18). Some of the crowd who had seen that healing as they flocked towards Jerusalem for the feast may well indeed have had these healings in mind as they welcomed Jesus, thus intermingling the reference to Him as Son of David with the Scriptures that they were citing. These incidents might suggest that the healing of the blind (and the lame) and the casting out of evil spirits would in some way especially evoke the idea of ‘the son of David’.

The use of the term must be seen as especially significant in the case of the Canaanitish woman, from whom we would not have expected it. It must therefore raise the question, ‘why do these people so often connect their appeal for help with “the Son of David”?’ There are probably two good reasons, not necessarily exclusive of each other:

• 1). The first is the reputation of Jesus’ ancestor, Solomon, ‘the son of David’ current at that time. For according to Josephus, around the time of Jesus Solomon, ‘the son of David’, had a legendary reputation as knowing the secrets of healing and casting out evil spirits, and as passing those secrets on. Josephus (a Jewish historian of late 1st century AD) declared of Solomon that, ‘God also enabled him to learn that skill which expels demons, which is a science useful and giving health to men. He composed such incantations also by which derangements are alleviated. And he left behind him the manner of using exorcisms, by which they drive away demons, so that they never return; and this method of cure is of great force to this day; for I have seen a certain man of my own country, whose name was Eleazar, releasing people who were demoniacal in the presence of Vespasian, and his sons, and his captains, and the whole multitude of his soldiers. The manner of the cure was this: He put a ring that had a root of one of those sorts mentioned by Solomon to the nostrils of the demoniac, after which he drew out the demon through his nostrils; and when the man fell down immediately, he abjured him to return into him no more, making still mention of Solomon, and reciting the incantations which he composed. And when Eleazar would persuade and demonstrate to the spectators that he had such a power, he set a little way off a cup or basin full of water, and commanded the demon, as he went out of the man, to overturn it, and thereby to let the spectators know that he had left the man; and when this was done, the skill and wisdom of Solomon was shown very manifestly: for which reason it is, that all men may know the vastness of Solomon's abilities, and how he was beloved of God, and that the extraordinary virtues of every kind with which this king was endowed may not be unknown to any people under the sun. For this reason, I say, it is that we have proceeded to speak so largely of these matters’ (Antiquities 8.2.5). Thus Solomon, the son of David, clearly had a great reputation in the first century AD in connection with the healing and the casting out of evil spirits, and was seen as having himself been such a healer, and as one whose name and wisdom could be called on to assist in the task.

  This being so it is understandable why, if the legendary (as regards these tales of healing) Solomon, ‘the son of David’, had a reputation as a healer and exorciser of devils, the appearance of another such ‘son of David’ in the region, (a greater than Solomon - 12.42) Who also had a reputation for healing would have attracted a Canaanitish woman to Him and to His God. Had she not used the term ‘son of David’, and had it not been for the other episodes where the same name is used, it could equally have been His own reputation as a healer which had percolated over the border and drawn her. But these further factors would certainly help to explain why she used the specific title, and would also, partly at least, explain the source of her confidence in One Who was to her a virtual stranger. She would feel that a descendant of the great Solomon, the son of David, who had in the past been closely associated with the prince of Tyre and Sidon, and who had had such powerful gifts, would surely be able to help her, especially if the stories about Him were true. Tyre and Sidon would have good cause from their own history to remember the connection of David with Solomon. Thus ‘Son of David’ may have reflected this connection with Solomon, and along with the rumours of His healings have enhanced the belief that Jesus also could heal as ‘the Son of David’.

  So while the examples are so few that dogmatism must be ruled out, the continual connection of the title ‘son of David’ with the healing of the blind and devil-possessed, when seen in the light of Solomon’s undoubted reputation in the latter field (even if it was only legendary) must surely be seen as significant to say the least. It might very well suggest the idea that the title ‘the son of David’ was at that time seen as in some way very much related to such healings, so that as a prominent Son of David Jesus could be expected, even by foreigners, to provide a similar remedy from the God of Israel. (For Solomon as specifically ‘the son of David’ see 1 Chronicles 29.22; 2 Chronicles 1.1; 13.6; 30.26; 35.3; Proverbs 1.1, and consider the use of ‘the Son of David’ in the Psalms of Solomon 27.23 as indicating Solomon’s coming heir).

• 2). With others ‘Son of David’ would, of course, have had significance because of its Messianic associations. Healing was not a prominent aspect in popular Jewish hopes concerning the Messiah as we know them, nor indeed for that matter was the title Son of David. Nevertheless the latter was certainly, as we have seen, used as such in the Psalms of Solomon (1st century BC) and Jesus certainly expected that such healings would convince John that He was the Coming One (11.5). This latter was presumably mainly in the light of Isaiah 29.18; 32.3; 35.5; 42.7, 16; 61.1-2; Jeremiah 31.8.

  We should also perhaps note that Jesus mentions the healing of the blind first (followed by the lame) when sending His message to John. This might suggest that He knew that in certain circles among the pious Jews this healing of the blind was something which would be especially expected of the Messiah as a part of His overall ‘salvation’ (Luke 1.77; compare Matthew 9.12). See also John 9.26-32; 10.21; 11.37 for the impact caused by opening blind eyes. We actually know very little about the beliefs of the common people in Palestine at the time apart from what we find in the Gospels, and that is especially true of the spiritual remnant.

Furthermore these ideas might have been especially enhanced in people’s minds in the light of the fact that kings were regularly superstitiously connected by the common people with healing powers (compare 2 Chronicles 30.18-20; Malachi 4.2 contrast Zechariah 11.16), as were prophets. (Compare how in more superstitious days, people even believed this healing power to be true of Kings of England). And in the case of Israel we might have expected it especially to have been so as their kings were seen as the anointed of God, and as intercessory priests after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110.4; Jeremiah 30.21; 2 Chronicles 32.20). Such powers might well therefore have especially been seen as applying to a ‘son of David’ Who was so clearly approved of God.

So the use of the term ‘Son of David’ in cases where it was used by those seeking healing and the casting out of evil spirits, is very much explicable in terms of the above environment and expectancies of Jesus’ day, not so much as a Messianic title but as one connecting Him with Solomon. But it would then certainly help many to link Jesus with the Messiah as the successor to Solomon and as Son of David supreme as revealed by His mighty works, and we may thus see why Matthew took up their usage of the term in order to confirm Who Jesus was. Mark and Luke would not be so interested in it (they both only mention one such incident, and that for another purpose). To most Gentile readers there would be no such background to the idea of ‘the Son of David’.

Son of God.

This title also was not a recognised Messianic title, even though kings of Israel/Judah were seen as adopted sons of God. But the idea is present through the voices after His baptism and at the Transfiguration (3.17; 17.5). Jesus, however, rarely used it of Himself (John 9.35-37; 11.4) but clearly admitted to it on the lips of Satan (4.3, 6; Luke 4.3, 9); evil spirits (8.29; compare Mark 3.11; 5.7; Luke 4.41; 8.28) those awed at His awesome powers (14.33); and Peter (16.16). It was also hurled at Him by the chief priests (26.63; 27.40, 43; Mark 14.61; Luke 22.70), who claimed that He spoke of Himself as such (27.43), and it was then guardedly acknowledged by Him (Luke 22.70). It was finally used by a number present at the cross, including the centurion in charge of the execution party, in the light of awesome signs that they had seen (27.54; Mark 15.39). Thus in Matthew, apart from when used by His enemies, it was used by others at times of ‘other worldly’ significance, either in confrontation with those connected with such a world (Satan, evil spirits), or in a voice from God or after the revelation of awesome power. Luke also has the equivalent used by an angel (Luke 1.32). It must therefore be seen as signifying more than the popular idea of the Messiah, that is, as signifying Someone of even more unique significance, Someone greater than Satan, Someone on the divine side of reality.

In John’s Gospel John the Baptiser bears witness to Him as the Son of God as a result of the signs following His baptism (1.34), and Nathaniel also sees Him as ‘the Son of God and the King of Israel’ following Jesus’ reading of his mind (1.49). The former use witnesses to John’s supernatural understanding, the latter at least to Jesus’ Messiahship and possibly more (see also John 11.27), for he may well have seen Jesus’ ability to know his thoughts as having a divine source. To the Apostle John, not to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God would result in final condemnation (3.18). For only those who hear His voice speaking out on the day of resurrection will rise at the last day (5.25).

As a result of the great miracle wrought on him Jesus calls on the former blind man to acknowledge Him as the Son of God (9.35-37 - note again the connection with the blind). For He is the Son of God as the One Whom God had set apart in holiness and sent into the world (10.36). Through the raising from the dead of Lazarus the Son of God will be glorified (John 11.4). In all this the title is firmly connected with supernatural events. It is probable therefore that we must read that into John 11.27, and that Martha’s Messianic expectation was to be seen as exceptional. Indeed the main reason for the antipathy of the Jewish leaders was His claim to be the Son of God (19.7), and that they saw that as signifying more than the Messiah comes out in their charge. It was not a crime in Jewish eyes to claim to be the Messiah. But it was a crime to claim to be the Son of God. So they knew what He meant.

The Son of Man.

The phrase ‘the Son of Man’ in the Gospels is found only on the lips of Jesus, apart from two instances, one where His own words are being cited by an angel (Luke 24.7) and the other where He is being questioned about His use of the title (John 12.34). Outside the Gospels it is used of Jesus in His glorified state in both Acts 7.56 (with the article) and Revelation 1.13; 14.14 (without the article). The idea that such a limited use, both in the narrative of the Gospels, and in the letters of the Apostles, could have been maintained had the title been in general use is unlikely to say the least. It is clear that it was seen as exclusive to Jesus. This was possibly because the early church did not understand it, and yet used it when referring to words of Jesus because they were faithful to His words. It may also possibly be because it would have had the wrong significance to Gentiles with no background in the Old Testament Scriptures. It would seem that they did not take it up and use it themselves because it would simply have caused problems to those who heard it, while by this stage there was no problem with calling Him ‘the Christ’.

Its use in the Gospels in this form (by Aramaic speakers), and with the article, points to a recognition that it had a unique meaning, and that the unusual use was deliberate. Any attempt to arrive back at the ‘original Aramaic’ stumbles at that stumblingstone. Why should Aramaic speakers translate a well known phrase in a way other than in terms of what they knew it to mean? So we have really no idea what Aramaic expression Jesus used that would produce this translation ‘the Son of Man’. It is not the natural translation for bar nasha and yet it is noteworthy that it was nevertheless agreed by all the evangelists. So any attempt to defend any Aramaic expression which does not explain this phenomenon simply suffers from being the result of the ‘bias’ of its inventor. If we are not careful we can invent what we think that He should have said, and then argue as though He had said it. It is, of course, true that at times when in one Gospel ‘the Son of Man’ is used, another replaces it by a personal pronoun, but that indicates no more than an attempt to make what is said clear to the reader. It is not necessarily saying that the one is the equivalent of the other, nor that the term ‘the Son of Man’ has been introduced by one of the writers. In fact it is more probable the other way. The clarification is far more likely than the making obscure.

We can, however, discover an approximation of what it would have been from considering its possible sources. But the problem then is that in no case is it translated in LXX by using the article. There is therefore no precise parallel in LXX and we must therefore beware of simply assuming direct connection. The case is not the same. The connection must rather therefore be in idea. Its possible sources may be seen as:

• 1). Its use in Psalm 8.4, ‘what is man that you are mindful of him, or the son of man that you visit him?’ Here ‘son of man’ equates with man, but it is extremely doubtful if we could therefore translate it in the Psalm as ‘The Son of Man’, and in LXX it is without the article. The idea in the Psalm is mainly of the weakness and relative unimportance of man in the scheme of things. He cannot compete with the heavens. It is, however, then emphasised that he is not as lowly as it seems because God has given him dominion over all living creatures. This is what was originally involved in being ‘human’, both connection with the heavenly and dominion over the beasts (Genesis 1.26-28).
• 2). Its use in Ezekiel (2.1 and often) where it is the expression regularly used by God with which to address Ezekiel, with a similar idea to Psalm 8 in mind. Again in LXX it is without the article. It reminds him that he is creaturely, and that God is God. And yet there is in its relatively unique use the recognition that Ezekiel is His chosen one from among men, and represents His people before Him.
• 3). Its use in Daniel 7, again in LXX without the article. Here its significance is a little more complicated. We have here a vision in which four beasts arise which represent kings who are over ‘world empires’ (7.17). The idea is that these kings behave like wild beasts, rampaging around with their armies generally and behaving as those without scruples or conscience. Each can be pictured as a wild beast, and as behaving like a wild beast. It is a picture of man without God, with his thoughts centred wholly on earthly things. Over against them, and in direct contrast with them is ‘a son of man’ Who will in the final analysis, having gone through suffering at the hands of the beasts, come to the throne of God to obtain everlasting rule. But He, along with His people, differs from the wild beasts because He will behave with conscience and scruples, and as God intended human beings to behave. He will take heed to the revelation of God that has come from Heaven (Deuteronomy 17.18-20). He and His people will walk in accordance with God’s instruction as ‘true men’, fulfilling the destiny that He planned for them when He first created man.

  By analogy with the beasts (verse 17) this ‘son of man’ in verse 13 represents Israel’s king, but as king over those who are true in Israel. The king represents the people. They saw their life as coming from Him (Lamentations 4.20). Just as the beastly kings also represented their beastly empires, so does this truly human son of man also represent those of His people who walk ‘as men’ rather than beasts, men whose destiny, as in Psalm 8, is to have dominion over the beasts. To begin with, as God’s purposes go forward, the wild beasts are to be allowed their way for a time, and He with His people will necessarily therefore be trodden down and will have to go through intense suffering (verse 21, 25), for He Himself represents, and is one with, ‘the holy ones of the Most High’. And this suffering will in fact continue until the time comes to receive the kingdom (verse 22). Then it is He, and they, through their king, who will come out of their suffering and receive the kingdom and possess it for ever and ever (verses 14, 18, 22, 27). Even among the Jews it was recognised that not all Jews would inherit the Kingdom, but only those who were faithful to His Law.

  From this we can appreciate more clearly Jesus’ words, ‘the Son of Man must suffer’. Such suffering is revealed by Daniel to have been necessary before He receives His Kingly Rule, but the suffering will then be followed by His triumphant approach to the throne of God to receive dominion, and glory, and kingship, and an eternal rule (verses 13-14), in which His people will finally join Him, having themselves endured similar suffering.

When we consider the way in which Jesus presented the idea of the Son of Man from different angles we can see quite clearly its connection with the three passages above, and especially the one in Daniel. He was very much aware that in Him the prophecies concerning Israel must be brought to the full (2.15). He applies Scriptures spoken to Israel to Himself (4.1-8), and also relates Himself to the Servant prophecies of Isaiah (20.28; Mark 10.45; Luke 4.17-18; 22.37).

Indeed one possible solution to the question of why there is a definite article with ‘the Son of Man’ in Jesus’ teaching, would be that it intended to signify ‘the One spoken about in the Scriptures/in Daniel 7’, with Jesus applying it to Himself as the King Who has come to suffer at the hands of men. It can then also be seen as leading on to signify His true people who will suffer with Him, which will then be followed by His and their triumph. But we must not see this ‘son of man’ as just a blanket description of Israel, even in Daniel, for Israel contained its own share of ‘beasts’, (as all parties would have agreed) and itself has regularly behaved in beastly fashion. It is those from among Israel, those who are God’s Israel, whose hearts are right towards God so that they walk as true men, ‘the holy ones of the Most High’, who are represented in a secondary way by the son of man. This can then Scripturally be expanded to all who commence walking as true men, who can also come under His Kingly Rule (Exodus 12.48-49; Genesis 12.3) for He had come as a light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 42.6; 49.6).

The ideas in the three passages are similar, but it is the last passage in Daniel that most illuminates Jesus’ use of the term and takes in all the aspects which He applies to it. The sayings of Jesus concerning Himself as the Son of Man can in effect be split up into four groups, the first referring to His walk among men in humiliation under the wild beasts (8.20; 11.19), the second referring to His suffering at the hands of the wild beasts as the suffering King and yet exercising power on earth on behalf of His people (9.6; 10.23; 12.8; 12.32, 40; 13.37; 16.13; 17.12, 22; 18.11; 20.18, 28; 26.2, 24, 45, compare Psalm 22.12-13, 16), the third referring to His approaching the throne of God to receive His Kingly power and glory, a Kingship which He has already been enjoying but which will now become more effective because being backed by His presence on the throne (16.28; 17.9; 19.28; 26.64; 28.19-20), and the fourth His manifestation of that power and glory as He comes to judge (13.41; 16.27; 24.27, 30, 37, 39, 44; 25.13, 31). This last is the only aspect not mentioned in Daniel 7, but the idea of final judgment is unquestionably assumed there.

The recognition of the significance of these Scriptures, combined with the Isaianic prophecies, is consonant with the genius of Jesus, and with no one else of His era. Others had partial glimpses. He alone had the independence of mind and ability to appreciate them, and to bring out their meaning as He did, although He was of course helped by the fact that He was the Coming One to Whom they pointed.

The King.

The idea of Jesus as the King is prominent in Matthew’s Gospel. This comes out in that Jesus is immediately declared to be the son of David in the first verse of the first chapter 1.1, and His Kingship is stressed by the emphasis found in the subsequent genealogy which depicts the royal line. It is then further revealed as being in fulfilment of prophecies, both concerning the birth of the coming King (1.23), and concerning His birthplace (2.6). The king then flees from the wrath of the beast to Egypt, from which He will eventually emerge to settle in Nazareth, in Galilee, commencing to lay the foundation for His rule (Isaiah 6.2-7). He is introduced by His herald (3.3) and is confirmed as King after His baptism (‘This is My beloved Son’ - 3.17). After this He enters the wilderness where He is offered a throne and power and dominion the easy way (4.9). Having refused this He goes out to proclaim that the Kingly Rule of Heaven is near, and calls men to respond in repentance and faith (4.17, 23). As promised by Isaiah the light has come in preparation for the government to be placed on the shoulders of God’s King (Isaiah 6.2-7).

In accordance with the test of a true King of Israel (Deuteronomy 17.18-20) He now lays down the laws for those who come under His Kingly Rule (5-7), having Himself studied thoroughly the Book of the Law and having learned to fear the Lord (see Deuteronomy 17.18-20). And this is followed subsequently by the blind recognising in Him the Son of David (9.27-31, see above on the Son of David), after which He continues to proclaim the Good News of the Kingly Rule as present among them (9.35).

Having commissioned His disciples He reveals His Kingly authority by giving them authority over unclean spirits (compare 12.28), and to heal every disease and infirmity (10.1). Here was a greater than Solomon, who had himself had a lesser reputation for doing something similar (see above on the Son of David). He gives them His power so that they can spread the word of the Kingly Rule of God and reveal its presence by miraculous acts of goodness. In 12.22-23 His exorcisms and healings again raised the question as to whether He was the son of David, with powers greater than Solomon. But the Pharisees had their own solution, considering that He was in league with the Satan, at which Jesus pointed out that His power over Satan was in fact evidence that the Kingly Rule of God had come (12.28), after which He emphasised that He was here as a greater than the great King Solomon (12.42).

Once a king was appointed it was always necessary for messengers to go out proclaiming His appointment and calling for loyalty. This was partly the idea of chapter 10 and in chapter 13 we have seven parables indicating the spreading of the message of His Kingly Rule which will lead up to the final judgment. Then in 15.21 He is hailed even by a foreigner as the Son of David. This leads up to chapter 16 where His disciples at last recognise that He is indeed the Messiah, the Son of the living God (16.16). His Kingship is now firmly established to such an extent that He can hand over the keys of His Kingly Rule to Peter, because they will shortly see Him as having come in His Kingly Rule to the throne of God and thus having been crowned as Lord of all (16.28). And this is shortly prefigured in the Transfiguration where He is again declared to be God’s beloved Son (17.5). Thus when challenged about paying the Temple Tax He points out that as the King’s Son He has no liability to do so (17.26).

In chapter 18 He lays down further rules for the establishment of His Kingly Rule (18.1, 4) and finalises the chapter with the story of a king Who will call His servants to account. Then in chapter 19 He expands the idea by pointing out that in the new world that is coming, once He has taken His glorious throne at His Father’s side (Daniel 7.13-14; Acts 2.36; 7.55-56), His followers will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. The thought is based on Psalm 122 5 where thrones of the house of David are to be set in Jerusalem to judge the tribes. Here then is a promise of His Davidic authority which they will share with Him, so that once He has been enthroned they will be able to commence their royal ministry in Jerusalem.

At this point He emphasises the equality of all His servants who will all receive equal reward (20.1-16). But this is not in line with the views of His disciples, for sensing that His Kingly Rule is approaching (although totally misunderstanding what would be involved), James and John seek to steal a march on the others. They ask through their mother that the royal thrones at His right and left hand be reserved for them (20.21). At this He declares that while they will certainly share His suffering, kingdom privilege is not His to give but is in the hands of the Father, and then goes on to point out that their whole attitude is all wrong. They should not be thinking in terms of privilege and glory, but should be seeking the way of service. They should leave the desire for Kingly glory to the Gentiles (20.25-26). Significantly this was then followed by two more blind men whose eyes were opened in recognising Him as the Son of David (20.29-34).

It is as the lowly king promised by Zechariah that He enters Jerusalem (21.5), and although the crowds do not recognise what He is doing (they see Him as the prophet of Nazareth - 21.11), their cries welcome Him as ‘the son of David’, for like Solomon the son of David He comes among them with royal healing powers (21.14). See again on Son of David above. When the Pharisees are indignant at this He points out that it is the young and foolish who are often wisest, an indication that He agrees with the crowds. He then follows this with an act of Kingly authority by casting out of the temple the profiteers (21.12-13), and warns that those who would enter under the Kingly Rule of Heaven will be those who obey the Father, even though for a while they may have held back (21.28-32).

In 22.1-13 there is another parable about a king, this time connected with his disobedient people, something which will result in judgment coming on them, and in their destruction. This goes along with the idea in the previous parable (21.33-45), in which a similar thing happens. The King is passing His judgment on the leaders of the Jews, who are rejecting Him and planning to do away with Him. And the chapter closes with Jesus revealing to the Pharisees that in fact His kingship is greater than that of David.

His stern declarations of judgment on the nation’s religious leaders in these parables has to be justified and in chapter 23 we have His arraignment of them, explaining precisely why the judgment of God is coming on them. Here is the legal declaration prior to sentence. It describes the charges laid against them, which as the King it is His responsibility to do. And this is followed in chapter 24 by the declaration that the Temple will be destroyed within the lifetime of that generation. The sentence has been passed and will be executed.

The disciples are aware by this time that He is planning to leave them, although not sure how, and they ask how they will know when He will return (verse 3). He replies by pointing out that false Messiahs will arise claiming to be Him (verses 5, 11, 23-24), but that they His disciples must not be misled by them but must be true to His name, suffering for His name’s sake (verse 9) and proclaiming the Good News of His Kingly Rule worldwide (verse 14). For when He does return it will be in unmistakable glory (verse 27), at which time His angels will gather all His people to Him (verse 31).

And when He finally does come in His glory, He will sit on His glorious throne and all nations will be judged before Him as their King (25.31, 34, 40). This will result in some going into eternal life, and others into eternal punishment (25.46). So the son of David of 1.1 will now have established His eternal rule.

However, in chapter 26-28 the thought returns to His coming enthronement and sending out of His disciples to all the world. After He has died He will once again drink with them under His Father’s Kingly Rule (26.29). Indeed after this point in time He will shortly be seen by the current Jewish leadership as being seated at the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of Heaven, both ideas linking with His coming to the throne of God in Daniel 7.13-14 (26.64), and indicating that the commencement of the establishing of His Kingly Rule after His resurrection will be made apparent to them in some visible way (as in Acts).

Before Pilate He confirms that He is the King of the Jews (27.11), and it is as the Messiah that He is sentenced and crucified (27.17, 22). Above His head on the cross is written then written the superscription ‘This is Jesus the King of the Jews’ (27.37). This annoys the Jewish leaders who then mock and say, ‘If He is the king of Israel, let Him come down from the cross and we will believe in Him’. (Had He come down they would not, of course, have believed but would immediately have charged the Roman soldiers with re-arresting Him. For by this time their hearts were too hardened). One of His final cries on the cross then echoed the words of a Psalm of David (27.46). And finally in Galilee He appeared and declared that all authority had now been given to Him in Heaven and earth (see Isaiah 9.7; Daniel 7.14). His Kingship is now being revealed and they are to go out declaring it to all nations (28.18-20), as He had said (24.14).

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?