eyes than flesh and blood," and that these eyes were sharpened in the present case by their danger. This remark seems to imply that in the popular view " the Holy One of God " imported something more than divine appointment — something of superhuman nature or character. The sharpest eyes could scarcely discern appointment.
^"^ On the strength of the difference between the precise phrase ' the Son of God ' and these phrases where Jesus is called God's ' Son ' or speaks of Himself as ' Son,' it has become common to say Jesus does not use the title ' Son of God.' Thus e.g. Shailer Mathews, The Messianic Hope in the N. T., 1905, pp. 106-7: "Jesus Himself does not use the expression, although others use it with reference to Him. It IS of course true that Jesus frequently speaks of God as * Father ' and of Himself as ' the Son,' but this is quite another matter from speaking of Himself as 6 uld<s too Oeou. . . . That Jesus spoke of God as His Father in some unique sense cannot be denied, but such sayings as imply this do not employ either 6 uid<s rou deou or uib<s OtouJ^ Dr. Mathews in a note refers to Jno 10^^ 11*, but hesitates to speak of these as exceptions because of the possibility that John may have substituted here " a term expressive of his own estimate of Jesus for the word which Jesus used Himself." He might have pointed also not only to the general implication of Jesus' acceptance of the title when applied to Him by the demons and others, but to His express acceptance of it at Mk 14^2^ anj ^e niay add at Mt i6i^, though Dr. Mathews would not allow this instance. Nor is it so very clear that the ' Son of God,' ' God's Son,' ' the Son,' are not closely related to one another as Messianic titles.
22 The Designations of Our Lord
one after the other to the rebellious husbandmen; but only one son — who is called " the beloved one," a term which is not so much designatory of affection as of that on which special affection is grounded, and is there- fore practically equivalent to " only begotten," or " unique."^^ It is possible that it is by this epithet that God designates this His Son on both of the occa- sions when He spoke from heaven In order to point Him out and mark Him as His own (i^^ 9''^) — " This is my beloved Son." The meaning is that the Son stands out among all others who may be called sons as in a unique and unapproached sense the Son of God. Of course it is possible to represent this as importing nothing more than that the person so designated Is the Messiah, singled out to be the vice-gerent of God on earth; and it is noticeable that it Is as the Messiah that Jesus calls God approprlatlngly ' His Father ' when He declares that the Son of Man is to come In the glory of His Father with the holy angels (8^^) , and certainly it was in lowly subjection to the will of God that He prayed at Gethsemane, " Abba, Father, re- move this cup from me " (14^'''). But this explanation seems scarcely adequate; In any case there is intimated in this usage a closeness as well as a uniqueness of rela- ys Cf. Swete on Mk iz^ and also Wellhausen on these passages. " '0 ol6<i fjLou o ayaTtrjTOf;^ says the latter on i'^^, *' for the Semites means, not ' my dear Son,' but ' my unique Son.' " For a careful discussion of all the involved conceptions see J. Armitage Robinson, St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, 1903, pp. 229-233, on "'The Beloved' as a Messianic Title." Dr. Robinson seems to suppose that " beloved Son " in Mark — not elsewhere — means simply " dear Son." But this is scarcely conceivable. In point of fact, in 12^ the meaning seems to be, "sole, unique. Son"; while i^^ 9^ either bear that same meaning or else must be taken, like their parallels, as uniting to the ascription of Sonship an additional Messianic title — " the Beloved."
The Designations in Mark 23
tion existing between Jesus and God, which raises Jesus far beyond comparison with any other son of man. And that remarkable passage, 13^^, In which Jesus declares His ignorance, though He be the Son, of the day of His advent, exalts Him apparently above not men only, but angels as well, next to the Father Him- self, with whom rather than with the angels He seems to be classed.^'
All these Messianic designations are represented as not only ascribed to Jesus but accepted by Him. They Our Lord's own ^^^ ^^^1 however, currently employed by Testimony to Him; as reported in this narrative. He His Messiahship Joes Indeed make occasional use of them— 'the Christ' (9^ cf. 8"^ 12^^ 1321), the 'Son of David' (12^^), the 'Son [of God] ' {if\ cf. 12^) • — but only exceptionally. The Messianic designation which He Is represented as constantly applying to Hlm-