1^ Cf. Stanton, Jeii-ish and Christian Messiah, 286-7 • " I "^^y remark that the idea of the preexistence of Christ as an angel, is irreconcilable with that of a true Incarnation. Those who have thought of Christ as essentially an angel have never in fact conceived, and could not con- ceive. His human life to be real. A whole and complete human nature could not be united to another finite being, whether angel or man, as it could be united to, and could become the perfect organ of, God. Wherever, then, we find a belief in the real human nature of Jesus Christ, there we may confidently say the idea formed of His super- human preexistence and personality is not that of an angel. . . . Hellwag fails altogether to see this when he attributes such a concep- tion of Christ's person to St. Paul, Theol. Jahrb., 1848, pp. 240 ff. . . .
The Jesus of the Synoptists 137
latlons," and finding His appropriate place only by the side of God Himself, whose functions He performs" and whose throne He occupies as King.^^
The conception attached in these Gospels to the des- ignation ' Son of God ' is in no respect less exalted.
The title does occasionally occur, to be Meaning of . . .,.,,.
'Son of God' su^^' ^^ circumstances in which this ex- alted significance seems more or less in danger of being missed. For example. It Is employed by the Jewish officers at the trial of Christ as in some sense a synonym of the general Messianic title ' Christ ' (Mk 14^ Mt 26^^ Lk 22^^ cf. Mt 2f'''^) ; It Is also employed, according to Matthew's account, by Peter in his great confession alongside of the term ' Christ' (16^*^) ; and on one occasion Jesus' disciples, having witnessed a notable miracle, cried out as they did Him reverence, " Of a truth Thou are the [or, a] Son of God" (Mt 14^^). Such passages, no doubt, Illustrate the use of the term as a Messianic title. But It seems clear enough that they illustrate its use as a Messianic title of inherently higher connotation than, say, the simple term ' the Christ ^ as a general synonym of which it Is employed. The very point of the Jews' approaching Jesus with this particular Messianic title appears to have been — as the form of the narrative In Luke may suggest-'-to obtain a confession which would enable them from their point of view to charge
Hellwag is the writer ■*»7ho has most insisted on the influence of a Jew- ish doctrine of the Messiah's preexistence upon Christian belief." The speculative elemeM in this remark is perhaps too dogmatically put: but there is foo^l for thought in it.
1^ The angels are subject to Him and do His bidding: Mt 13*1 i627 2431 ; and also Mt 4" is^^, Mk ii3 ^ss 1327^ Lk 926.
1^ Especially forgiveness of sins (Mk 2^) and judgment of the •world (e.g. Mt 2521 seq.) — t^g inalienable divine functions.
" E.g. Mt 2581.
13 B The Designations of Our Lord
Him with blasphemy. That is to say, the implications of this Messianic title in their minds seem to have been such that its use by a mere man, or by one seemingly a mere man, would involve him in claims for himself which were tantamount to blasphemy. It seems equally clear that Peter in acknowledging Jesus to be the Mes- siah (Mt 1 6^*^) intended by adjoining to the simple, " Thou art the Christ " the defining phrase " the Son of the Living God " to attach an exalted conception of the Messiahship to Him. And it is fairly obvious that the frightened disciples in the boat (Mt 14^^), — though certainly they understood not and their heart was hard- ened (Mk 6'^^), — yet expressed out of their distracted minds at least the sense of a supernatural presence when they cried out, " Truly Thou art " — possibly " a," not " the " — " Son of God." Their exclamation thus may in its own degree be paralleled at least with that of the centurion at the cross (Mk 15^'', Mt 27^^), " Truly this man was a Son of God " — which surely is the natural expression, from his own point of view, of his awe in the presence of the supernatural.
This series of exceptional instances of the employ- ment of the term ' Son of God ' will scarcely, there- fore, avail to lessen the general impression we get from the current use of the title, that it designates the Mes- siah from a point of view which differentiates Him as * the Son of God ' from the children of men, and throws into emphasis a distinct implication of the supernatural- ness of His person. It seems to be on this account that It is characteristically employed by voices from the unseen universe. It is by this term, for instance, that Satan addresses Jesus in the temptation, seeking to induce Him by this exploitation of His supernatural
The Jesus of the Synopt'ists 139