mark in some way what was peculiar to himself.1 The question, then, takes this form: What sort of dignity, what kind of a claim, did Jesus implicitly assert in so naming himself? It is probable that the title designated for Jesus characteristics of his personality which accorded with his peculiar life-work. We have seen that the conception which best represented his life-task was that of the Kingdom of God. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that as Son of man he conceives himself as head and founder of the Kingdom of God. The origin and use of the title, so far as we can trace them, accord with this supposition. In Daniel it is the theocratic king who is likened to a son of man. If the usage, of which that in the Book of Enoch is an illustration, influenced our Lord's employment of the term, it would quite naturally fall into line with this explanation, as the Son of man there appears as the glorious founder and head of God's Kingdom. The use of the title in our sources accords well with this view. As his Kingdom is both present and future, so, as Son of man, he has certain experiences to undergo in founding the Kingdom here on earth and a manifestation in glory awaiting him in the consummation of that Kingdom. Especially does this explanation fit the apocalyptic passages which speak of the Son of man as coming in his Kingdom. But since it is through healing, teaching, suffering, and death that Jesus is to establish his Kingdom, it is no less natural to find the Son of man described as engaged in these various works and experiences connected with his calling.

To substantially this conclusion an increasing number of scholars now adhere. Despite minor points of difference they agree in making the title in question correlative to the Kingdom of God. I will present a few illustra

tions:

Weiss says: "No doubt every Israelite who believed in Scripture could, in consequence of prophecy, know of a Son of man who, because Jehovah would bring about the completion of salvation through him, had such a divine

1 See Beyschlag, N. T. Theol. I. 67 (Bk. I. ch. iii. § 5).

HEAD AND
FOUNDER
OF THE
KINGDEM

OF GOD

BLARE R

THE KIJSDOM

calling as no one had ever had, and as no one after him could have." 1

The conclusion of Beyschlag is similar. After reviewing the passages, he says: "All these widely diverging utterances have one thing in common; they all treat of the official sufferings and doings of Jesus; they all speak of him in so far as he has the task of setting up the Kingdom upon earth." "The Son of man is the divinely invested bearer of the Kingdom that descends from above, that is to be founded from heaven; it is he who brings in the Kingdom of God." 2

Holtzmann concludes his investigation thus: "Jesus is and is called Son of man, on the one hand, in every place where by forgiving and healing, teaching and suffering, he proclaims, extends, and represents the Kingdom of God; but, on the other hand, and especially where, coming on the clouds of heaven, he consummates the Kingdom." 3

This view admits of a natural application to the passages which present the greatest difficulties for other theories. It falls within his province as the founder of the Kingdom to forgive sins (Mk. ii. 10), and to interpret the true significance and use of the sabbath (Mk. ii. 28). The living of a natural, social (non-ascetic) life (Mt. xi. 19) and the relinquishment of the comforts of home-life (Mt. viii. 20) were conditions for the fulfilment of his heavenly vocation. To speak against his person is less heinous than to deride the Holy Spirit of truth and goodness which speaks in his words and deeds (Mk. iii. 28, 29). To seek and to save the lost (Lk. xix. 10) is an essential part of his work who offers the blessings of his Kingdom to the most wretched and sinful. All these passages of the first group (see page 41) depict or allude to aspects of his work as founder of he Kingdom. The numerous passages which refer to the sufferings and death of the Son of man (Mk. viii. 31; ix. 31; Mt. ix. 12; Lk. xxiv. 7, et al.) simply describe an essential condition for the fulfilment of his calling,- an expeb. 2 N. T. Theol. I. 64 (Bk. I. ch. iii. § 5). 8 Neutest. Theol. I. 253.

1 Bibl. Theol. § 16,

rience which he knew both from prophecy and from his own consciousness to be essential to the completion of work.

But corresponding to the rejection, suffering, and death which he is to experience is the glory with which the Son of man shall come in his Kingdom. The humiliation is offset by the exaltation. And there is no contradiction between these, since he who most humbles himself shall be most exalted (Lk. xiv. 11). The King comes to his throne by the way of the cross. Humility and majesty meet and blend in the character and experience of the Son of man.

Was the title, then, for Jesus' own mind a name for Messiah? I believe we must adopt the conclusion to which our whole investigation points, that it had Messianic significance for Jesus; that it was a veiled designation of his messiahıship. We have seen that it was not in popular use as a Messianic title. Its use by our Lord would not therefore carry an explicit assertion of messiahship. His use of it involved the claim of a unique mission, a calling distinguishing him from all others. As his disciples came to know the nature of that calling, they would inevitably conclude that it veiled the claim and involved the fact that he was the Messiah. In this way the term, though not in itself an equivalent for Messiah, would easily become a Messianic title in actual usage. In the later usage which the Synoptics reflect the apocalyptic usage the title could only have been understood by the disciples as a practical equivalent for Messiah, or, at least, as implying messiahship. The term as used by Jesus was more generic than Messiah, and just on this account it was adapted to his use. But the head and founder of the Kingdom of God was in reality the Messiah, and the more explicit he made his claim to found and ́ complete his Kingdom, the more naturally would "Son of man" assume the character of a Messianic title. And thus this "most unassuming name," "this title which is no title, but the avoidance of every such thing," easily came to signify what it was used to veil but no less truly implied.

1 Beyschlag, N. T. Theol. I. 66 (Bk. I. ch. iii. § 6).

CHAPTER V

THE SON OF GOD

It is noticeable that Jesus in speaking of God to the people, or even to his own disciples, never uses the term "Our Father." He speaks of himself as God's Son, and of others as sons of God, but he does not class himself along with other men under a common term. He does not speak of God's fatherhood as if it had the same meaning for him and for them. He says: "my Father," and "your Father"; for example: "All things have been delivered unto me of my Father," etc. (Mt. xi. 27); "Your Father knoweth what things ye have need of," etc. (Mt. vi. 8). Only once, so far as our sources inform us, does Jesus use the phrase "our Father," and that is in giving a form of prayer for the use of his disciples. No example can be adduced in which he comprehends himself and them together in a single term as being in the same sense "sons of God."

We have seen that Jesus' favorite self-designation was "the Son of man." There is no passage in the Synoptic Gospels in which Jesus explicitly calls himself "Son of God." He does so, however, by very clear implication in two instances: in Mt. xi. 27, where he says "my Father," and adds: "no one knoweth the Son, save the Father," etc., where "the Son" clearly implies the complement, "of God." So, also, in Mk. xiii. 32: "Of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." God is "the Father," "my Father"; Jesus is "the Son," i.e., God's Son.

By less direct implication Jesus is twice represented as the Son of God: (1) in the parable of the Vineyard (Mk. xii. 1 sq.). The lord of the vineyard is Jehovah, and the

son.

vineyard is the Jewish nation. The master sent to this people a succession of his "servants," the prophets, "that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruits of the vineyard." The people rejected and killed them. At length he sent his own son, but he received the same shameful treatment: "He had yet one, a beloved son: he sent him last unto them, saying, They will reverence my But these husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours. And they took him, and killed him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard" (vv. 6-8). This son is Jesus himself. (2) Somewhat less prominent is the implication of Jesus' sonship in the parable of the Marriage Feast in Mt. xxii. 2 sq. "The Kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king, who made a marriage feast for his son," etc. The parable pictures under the image of a wedding festival the joys and blessings of Christ's Kingdom to which the Jews are first bidden. Upon their refusal to participate in them the messengers are sent to the heathen with the gospel-invitation.1 We have thus but four cases in which Jesus of his own accord refers to himself by implication as the Son of God, and two of these are quite indirect and incidental. We shall see, however, that he acquiesces in the application of the title which is made to him by others.

The title under consideration is applied to Jesus by others under the most varying conditions. All the Synoptics record that a divine voice came to him out of heaven after his baptism: "Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased" (Mk. i. 11; Lk. iii. 22; Mt. iii. 17). In somewhat varying form the same utterance is said by all (Mk. ix. 8; Lk. ix. 35; Mt. xvii. 5) to have been addressed to him at his transfiguration. In these expressions the characteristic thought seems to be that as Son of God he is the special object of the Father's good pleasure. In

1 Difficult critical questions beset this parable. By many it is regarded as a variation of the parable of the Great Feast given in Lk. xiv. 16 sq. to which Matthew has given an anti-Jewish turn. Wendt, Lehre Jesu, p. 134, regards vv. 11-14 as a distinct parable which naturally follows the parable as given by Luke. He thinks it had some introductory formula prefixed to it which he supplies by the conjectural use of v. 2.