When the verse Mt 5*^ ' Give to him that asketh thee,' etc., is criticized from the point of view of modern political economy, the mistake is in apply- ing a standard whicli is out of place. In those days the natural and, indeed, the only outlet of the kind for benefiting the poor was almsgiving; and our Lord's main object was to strengthen the motive, which was in itself a thoroughly right one. It would have been in vain to anticipate methods w-hicli God has evidently intended to be the result of long experience. The argument from analogy comes in liere with great force. God might have removed many forms of human ill with a word ; but as it is, He has been pleased to let improved methods, and the wisdom to use them, grow gradually and grow together. The advance which mankind slowly makes is a solid advance, and an advance not here and there, but all along the line.
We have seen that our Lord was not careful to guard against misunderstandings. It has been a salutary exercise for His followers to find out what was the true sense of his sayings for them- selves.
(4) TTie Messiah. — We are not concerned here with the very remarkable historical evolution of the claim of our Lord to be the Me.ssiah, which will come before us in connexion with the narra- tive of His life. At present we have to do only with His teaching on the subject, and that mainly with reference to the deeply significant names by which His claim was conveyed.
(i.) The Christ. — We need not delay over the title 'Messiah,' 'Christ,' 'Anointed,' which is .simply that of the current Jewish expectation. It is repeatedly applied to our Lord by others, and on three occa- sions, at least, expressly accepted by Himself (Jn 426, Mtl6", Mkl4«i-62||, of. Jn 11-"); but only once does our Lord use the terra of Himself (Jn 17^ 'lTi<ro!)y Xpiardv), and that in a p<issage where we cannot be sure that the wording is not that of the evangelist. In like manner the title 'Elect' (iK\e\ey)i^vi>s, Lk i)-^; iK\(KT6t, Lk 23^), which is also current (cf. Knoeh 40^), is applied to our Lord, but not by Himself.
(ii.) Son of David. — Much the same may be .said of ancilhcr tille which lii-lungs to a prominent side of the expectation. 'Sun of David' occurs .several times (on the lips of the crowd at and before the triumphal entry, of the Syrophieiiician woman, of Barliniieus, of the I'hari.sees), but Jesus Himself does not use it, and rather propounds a difliculty in regard to it (iMk l^^' II).
(iii.) Son of Man. — The really characteristic title which occurs some 80 times in the Gospels, and is without doubt the one which Jesus chose to express His own view of His othce, is 'the Son of Man.' Where;is the other titles are used by others of Him, this is used only by Him and of Himself. What He desired to convey by this is a (pieslion at once of no little difficulty and of peat im- portance ('Die Frage gehort zu den verwickeltsten ja verfahrensten der ganzen neutesU Theologie,' Holtzmann).
The starting-point for this, as well as for the idea of the kingdom, is, we may be sure, l)n "'". The 'Son of Man' in that pa.ssage, as originally written, stood for Israel. The four world-emi)ires are represented by beasts, the dominion that falls to Israel is that of a man. But in this as in other respects the passage was intcrjireted Mcssianically. In the Similitudes of the Bk. of Enoch (chs. 37-70) the Son of Man takes a i)rominent place. He is a person, and a .suiierhiunan person. It is He who holds the great judgment to which the Apocalyptic writings look forward. The attributes ascribed to Him are all more or less directly connected with this judgment, which is at once to vindicate (he righteous, and linally to put down the wicked. The date of this ijortion of the Bk. of Enoch has been much debated, but opinion at the present time is still more preponderantly in favour of the view that it is pre-Christian (between b.c. 94-04, Charles, Ennch, p. 20 f.). The language of the Gospels requires that the title as applied to a person and to the Messiah should be not entirely new. It also requires that it should be not perfectly under- stood and familiar (Mt 10'^ Jn 12''*). It is imibable that its use did not go beyond a small circle, the particular circle to which the Similitudes of Enoch belonged. This, however, would be enough to give the phrase a certain currency, and to make it at least sugge.st association with the Messiah.
It is as.sociated w'ith Him, especially in His char- acter as Judge, and as tlie chief actor in that series of events which marks the end of the age, and the reversal of the places of good and wicked. This sense Jesus did not discard. It appears un- mistakably in a number of passages (Mt 13'" 10-' 1928 2430ff-2.5^"r- 20''* etc.). But at the same time there can be no doubt that He read into it a number of other ideas, new and original, just as He read them into the conception of the King- dom.
What is most distinctive in this novel element in the teaching of Je-sus ? There is an increasing tendency amongst scholars to lay stress on the Aramaic original of the phrase. The Aramaic equivalent is said to mean and to be the only way which they had of expressing ' Man ' (generic- ally, i.e. 'Mankind'). Hence the attempt has been made to interpret the phrase impersonally, and to get rid more or less of its Messianic appli- cation (see Hohzmann, NT Th. i. 256 ff.). It is true that an impersonal sense will suit such a passage as Mk 2-i* ' The Sabbath was made for man . . . therefore the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.' At the same time this is by no means the necessary sense. And Wellhausen, who is one of those who most emphatically main- tain the equation ' Son of Man ' = ' Man,' yet sees that the expression mu.st have been used by our Lord to designate His own person {Israel, u. Jiid,