3. In examining the teaching of Jesuson the nature of this kingdom, we do well to start from the point alreailv established — the connexion of the kingdom with llis own Person. Nothinjj is plainer than that, in His own \-iew, Jesus is not simply the Founiler of this kingdom, but it is His kingdom as well as the Father's, and He is Lord and King over it (Mt 13" ll!" 20" 25>*-*' etc.). The idea here is moulded by that of the OT theocracy, in wliich GotI was at once the King of the chosen nation, and exiTcised His functions through a vis- ible representative. This relation, only brokenly and typically illustrated in the descendants of David, is now, in accordance with prophecy, per- fectly realizcil in the Me-ssianic King, whose soli- darity witli tlod in heart and will U conipleU (Mt 11", Jn 4»* .'!*' i;** etc.). But the connexion of the kingdom with the Person of Jesus is iuor« intimate even than this. Jesus is not onlv Uia
S50
KINGDOM OF GOD
KINGDOM OF GOD
Founder and Lord of the new theocracy, but w Ilimself the vital jjerm of it, — the living embodi- ment and representative of its principle, — the actual type of the new relation of eonship to God into which men are invited to enter through Him, — so that the kingdom of God may truly be said to have existed on earth in His Person from the first moment of His manifestation. It is through vital relation to Him, as the Synoptics, and still more clearly the Fourth Gospel, stiow, — tlirough reception of His Person and message, through faith in Him, surrender to Him, suomission to His lule, keeping His commandments, which is synonjTnous with doing the will of the Father, through union with Him as the branches and the vine, etc., — that the kingdom is constituted (Mt 7J1-S1 gio iiffl-80 i6»ts»_ jn 151.8 etc.). With all
thi.s goes a profoundly modified conception of the nature of the sovereignty in this new kingdom of God, which, as founded, not by worldly means ot coniiuest and violence, but by humilitv, by ser- vice, by deeds of mercy, by Buffering, by witness for the truth (Mt ll^""- ^ 13» 18»-^20-»-^, Jn IS*!-"), is ruled in like manner, not by force or tyranny, but by the suasive influences of love over freely surrendered hearts (Mt ll'^"*' 2-2^-«>, Jn 14" 15").
4. In light of this essential relation of Jesus to His kingdom, we are now prepared to consider the two
?'reat titles by which this relation was expressed >y Jesus Himself — 'Son of Man,' and 'Son of God.' The second of these titles, to which we return below, is, in the Synoptics at least, more freiiuently given to Jesus by others than assumed by Je-sus Himself (Mt 3" 4»'; W^ 27"-", Mk 3" 15^ etc.), but it is constantly implied, even in the earlier Gospels, in His mode of speaking of His Father, and is sometimes emphatically expressed {e.ff. Mt 11" 16'«" 26'«-"). In Jn it is the more common. It is otherwise with the title ' Son of Man,' which is the favourite designation of Jesus for Himself, but is never used by His disciples, or by the evangelists, in speaking of Him (only once outside the Gospels by Stephen, Ac 7°'). It occurs also in a singularly inipres.'iive and weighty form, with the definite article to both nouns, 6 viis ToO iyepJiTrov.* It was plainly on His own lips a Messianic title (Mk 2'", Mt 1G=« 2G'-', Jn 5" etc.), yet tliere is no evidence, apart from the doubtful Bk. of F.noch, that it was a current title for the Messiah in that time. The usage in the Gospels shows decisively it was not. It was not the wish of Jesus to make a public avowal of His Messiah- ship in His early ministry, but we find Him freely using this enigmatic title (Mk 2'°). The Jews evidently were perplexed as to its meaning (Jn 12**). The phrase ' Son of Man ' in Mt 16'» is manifestly not synonymous with 'Christ,' either in popular acceptation or in the minds of the discijiles We must therefore hold it for certain that the expression was one welling up from the depths of the original consciousness of Jesus, and e.'ipressing some profound conception of His mission. Wh.at precisely this is, is a point on which there is wide difTerence of opinion (see the various \-iews well stated in Lietzmann's Der Menschensohn, 1896). Wendt wUl have it (Die Lehre Jesu, ii. pp. 442, 443) that the title is meant to designate its possessor as a weak, creaturely being — member, Messiah though He was, of the weak, creaturely race of humanity. But this theory cannot be carried through without doing Holence to many passages in which this name is
• Lietzniann in his tractate, Der Meiinchensohn (1S96), seeks 10 break the force of this by going bacli frora the Gr. to the Aram., in which Ncn^ means simply * man ' (unemphatic). But the emphatic force of the expression cannot be erased from the Gospel usage. Lietzmann stands ahnost alone in holding that the term was not used by Jesus, but found it6 way into the Gospels from a Christian imscoQception.
evidently used as a title of dignity ; the highest functions bein^ claimed by Jesus, not, as Wendt'a argument would require, despite of His bein" Son of Man, but because He is Son of Man {JsUi 2^, Jn 5-'' etc.). More probable is the generally ac. ceiled \'iew which connects this title with the language of Dn 7" already alluded to — 'th.'re came with the clouds of heaven one like unto 8 Son of Man,' etc. (cf. Mt 26'"). Whatever view be taken of this expres.sion, — whether it be s'lp posed to denote an individual (so Beyschla"), 01 only to symbolize the humanness of the new King, dom in contrast with the kingdoms of the beasts which had preceded, — there lies in it at least the notion that the kingdom of God, not resting like the others on brute force, would be the first in which the divine ideal of humanity would be realized ; so that our Lord, in taking this title, may well have expressed the consciousness that there had appeared in Him the New Man of the race — the type and representative of a new humanity — one wno, because of tliis perfection of His humanity, stood in a relation to all men, and was their natural ruler and Lord in the kinj;- dom He had come to found. There lay thus, in the use of the title by Jesus, at once the idea of the reality and truth of His humanity, the con- sciousness of His unique perfection as man, the sense of His universal relation to the race, and the knowledge of His calling and function to be the Messianic Kin";.* He was Son of Man, as em- bodying in Himself the divine idea of a godlike humanity — the Son of Man, as the unique indi- vidual of the race who sustained this character — the Son of il/are in the universal sense, as repre- senting in His Person, not the seed of Abraham alone, but tlie whole of mankind. This title, accordingly, already expresses the principle of universality of the new religion in its contrast with the national limitation of Judaism, and the current conception of the Messiah. Baldensperger is therefore only partially correct when he re- jects the 'ideal man' theory of this title, and ridicules it as an attempt to carry back our nine- teenth-century notions into a period to which they were quite strange (2nd ed. p. 178). There lies behind it, certainly, no such abstract conception as 'the ideal man,' yet the reality which that phrase expresses is undoubtedly present from the beginning as an element in the consciousness from which the title springs.