[Footnote 1:  The hesitancy of the immediate disciples of Jesus, of whom a considerable portion remained attached to Judaism, might cause objections to be raised to this.  But the trial of Jesus leaves no room for doubt.  We shall see that he was there treated as a “corrupter.”  The Talmud gives the procedure adopted against him as an example of that which ought to be followed against “corrupters,” who seek to overturn the Law of Moses. (Talm. of Jerus., Sanhedrim, xiv. 16; Talm. of Bab., Sanhedrim, 43 a, 67 a.)]

[Footnote 2:  Matt. xi. 12; Luke xvi. 16.]

The boldness of such a conception ought not to surprise us.  Long before this, Jesus had regarded his relation to God as that of a son to his father.  That which in others would be an insupportable pride, ought not in him to be regarded as presumption.

The title of “Son of David” was the first which he accepted, probably without being concerned in the innocent frauds by which it was sought to secure it to him.  The family of David had, as it seems, been long extinct;[1] the Asmoneans being of priestly origin, could not pretend to claim such a descent for themselves; neither Herod nor the Romans dreamt for a moment that any representative whatever of the ancient dynasty existed in their midst.  But from the close of the Asmonean dynasty the dream of an unknown descendant of the ancient kings, who should avenge the nation of its enemies, filled every mind.  The universal belief was, that the Messiah would be son of David, and like him would be born at Bethlehem.[2] The first idea of Jesus was not precisely this.  The remembrance of David, which was uppermost in the minds of the Jews, had nothing in common with his heavenly reign.  He believed himself the Son of God, and not the son of David.  His kingdom, and the deliverance which he meditated, were of quite another order.  But public opinion on this point made him do violence to himself.  The immediate consequence of the proposition, “Jesus is the Messiah,” was this other proposition, “Jesus is the son of David.”  He allowed a title to be given him, without which he could not hope for success.  He ended, it seems, by taking pleasure therein, for he performed most willingly the miracles which were asked of him by those who used this title in addressing him.[3] In this, as in many other circumstances of his life, Jesus yielded to the ideas which were current in his time, although they were not precisely his own.  He associated with his doctrine of the “kingdom of God” all that could warm the heart and the imagination.  It was thus that we have seen him adopt the baptism of John, although it could not have been of much importance to him.

[Footnote 1:  It is true that certain doctors—­such as Hillel, Gamaliel—­are mentioned as being of the race of David.  But these are very doubtful allegations.  If the family of David still formed a distinct and prominent group, how is it that we never see it figure, by the side of the Sadokites, Boethusians, the Asmoneans, and Herods, in the great struggles of the time?]