In both instances the intention is to go beyond the mere designation of our Lord as the Messiah, and to bring into relief the supernaturalness of His person. Even when the Jews railed at Him as He hung on the cross that He had proclaimed Himself ' the Son of God' (27^"'^^), the point of their scoff was that He had laid claim to a supernatural relationship which implied supernatural powers. Nevertheless, the deepest connotations of the Sonship to God come out most plainly in connection with the less technical forms of this designation. At the apex of these stands, of course, the double attestation which, it is recorded, was given to Jesus from heaven itself as God's ' Son,' who be- cause His ' Son ' was also His ' Beloved,' His chosen, in whom He was well pleased (3^"^ 17^).^^ But quite worthy of a place by the side of these supreme attesta- tions is the allusion which our Lord makes to Himself in one or two of His parables, as the ' Son,' in dif- ferentiation from all "servants" of God whatsoever; as God's Son and unique Heir, who, despite what those to whom He was sent should do unto Him, shall be constituted by God's marvelous working the stone
29 Cf. Zahn in loc, pp. 145 seq., where the question is fully discussed and solidly argued: "As at 2^^ so here the divine Sonship is to be explained from 1 18-25. Jt expresses not an official, but a personal rela- tion ; it is not identical with the Messianic office, but its presupposi- tion." One of the arguments on which Zahn lays stress, however, scarcely serves: "The idea that God, out of the many sons which He has, has chosen one and that for the Messiahship, is excluded by the attribute d^a7r7;T<59; for in this connection dyazrjTog bears the es- tablished sense of only son= pLovoyevrji^" It appears to be probable, on the contrary, that, as W. C. Allen, in loc, puts it " 6 dyaTnjzoi^ is not an attribute of 6 ol6<s fioo, but an independent title — 'the Beloved ' — the Messiah." The matter is discussed by Dr. J. Armitage Robinson in Hastings' Diet. Bib. \l. 501, and in his commentary on Ephesians, pp. zzgS.
The Designations in Matthew 8i
which is the head of the corner (21^'^'^^) ;^° and as the King's Son, all those unworthy of a place at whose marriage feast should have their part in the outer dark- ness where is the weeping and the gnashing of teeth (22-). This ' Son ' obviously is no less in origin and nature divine than in His working in the earth the Lord of the destinies of men.
But perhaps the most illuminating passages in this reference remain yet to be adduced. These are those
^ ^ , . , three remarkable utterances of our Lord Culminating , . , . . q*? 07 j
Assertions which are recorded at 24 , ii"' and 2gi8-2o^ The first of these we have al- ready met with in Mark. It is that difficult saying in which our Lord declares that " concerning the day and hour " of His coming " no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor yet the Son, but the Father only " — which differs from the parallel in Mark sig- nificantly only in the added emphasis placed on the exclusion of all others whatsoever from this knowledge by the adjunction to the exception of the Father of the emphatic word " only." The elevation of the Son here to superangelic dignity, as the climax of the enumeration of those excluded from the knowledge In question is reached in His name — no one at all, not even the angels of heaven, nor yet even the Son — is M'hat it particularly concerns us to note, implying as it does the exaltation of the Son above the highest of creatures, *' the angels of heaven. "^^ The second of
30 Cf. Zahn, in loc, pp. 620, 621.
31 The words " nor yet the Son " are, to be sure, lacking in a few somewhat unimportant witnesses to the text, but can scarcely be ad- judged of doubtful genuineness. W. C. Allen rejects them in sequence to a theory of his own of the relation of Matthew to Mark, and Mat- thew's habit of dealing with Mark's christological statements. Zahn
82 The Designations of Our Lord