We return to the more particular consideration of the second title, 'Son of God,' which, on the face of it, expresses the consciousness which Jesus had of His relation to God, just as the previous title expressed His consciousness of the relation He sustained to men. Those are undoubtedly right who warn us off from seeking, in the first instance, a metaphysical interpretation of this title. We shall not reach Christ's own meaning in the use of it, or the fact it represents in His consciousness, by starting with the definitions of the Nicene Creed ; but must seek our clue rather in the line of the OT conceptions through which originally it came also to Him. As J " was the Father of His nation Isr. (Ex 4^^-^, Hos IV), so was He peculiarly the Father of the theocratic King, ' I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son ' ^2 S 7", Ps 89*). We have seen already what the rela- tion imported in th'i theocratic ruler — a perfect unity with God in will and aim ; such a solidarity between God and His visible representative that the purposes of the former, and those only, were perfectly executed by tlie latter. We saw, too, now entirely this ideal failed to be realized on the purely human basis of the OT theocracy, and
* This is, in substance, Neander'8 view (Z(/« qf Christ), ajl^ I better has not yet been found.
KINGDOM OF GOD
KINGDOM OF GOD
851
how manifest it Ijccame, tliat if ever it was to he reali2e(i, the King in whom tliis was done must Btand in a relation of nearness and unity to J" tran- scending the limits of ordinary humanity — tliat he must possess an exceptional di;,'nity of nature, raising him to a superhuman rank of character and authority (Isa O"-' etc.). When, now, we turn to the Gospels, we cannot but notice that the same ideas prevail. ' Son of (!od ' is tliure also a Messianic title (Mt IG'" ao"", Jn 1" lO" etc.); and it connotes, with whatever else, a perfect one- ness of thought, will, aim, sentiment, purpose, between the Fatlier and the Son — entire moral and spiritual unity, reciprocal and exclusive knowledge, the perfect adoption by the Son of the divine ends as His own, and absolute fidelity and devotion in the execution of them (Mt 11-"', Jn 5» 10'»-»° etc.). And this is not less clearly associated in Jesus with the consciousness that this unbroken oneness in spirit with God is connected with some peculiar distinction in nature— that His relation to God as Son is not that of other men, but that He is the Son par excellence — the Son of God in a special and solitary relation of life and affection. It is observ- able, accordingly, that even while He recognizes the divine attimty in every human soul, invites men to sonship in His kin';dora, and teaches His discijdes to address God, and to love and trust Him as their Father, He never places Himself as Son in the same category «-ith them, but always carefully distinguishes His own relation to the father from theirs (e.y. Jn 20"). Here, then, we come on that in the consciousness of Jesus which, while it cannot be properly spoken of as a metaph3'sical conception of His Person, yet legitimately lays the basis for those metaphysical, or at least transcendental, pre- dications regarding Him which arc found in the creeds, and even earlier in the Kpistles, and the Joliannine Prologue. What this transoemlental element in the consciousness of Jesus implied, can only be inferred from His various utterances respecting Himself in the Gospels, from the claims He makes, the prerogatives He assumes, the works He does. His promise of His perpetual presence with His Church, and of His return in glory. His glimpses even into a previous state of preexistence, etc. (Mt ;"■« IS-"- 25. 26" 28>»-» Jn 8" 17" etc.)— all matters which we cannot discu.ss here. One thing, however, is at once implied in what has just been said, namely, that whereas in the OT concep- tion the oflicial -sense of the phrase 'Son of God' overshadows tlie personal, in the case of Jesus it is precisely the other way— the otlicial relation is grounded in the personal. He is the Son of God as Messianic King, because He is first Son of (Jod by nature. He is ' the Son ' simpliciter ; and this consciousness of a personal peculiarity in His rela- tion to the Father, springing as it no doubt did from His sense of entire spirilu:il oneness, may be presumed to go back in some form to the earliest dawn of His rellective life (cf. Lk 2"). There was no period of His life in which He did not know God as His Father ; was not conscious of an un- troubled relation of union with Him ; did not find in His soul the reflection of His character ; and did not yield to Him His entire love, trust, and obedience. We cannot err, therefnre, in finding the root of Christ's conception of His king<lom in His own perfect consciousness of His Jiliit relation to His Father, together with the new views of religion, of rigliteousncss, of iluty, and of blessed- ness, which this implied. The consciousness he had of Himself as Son, with the correlative idea of God as Fatlier, leads to the designation ol the kingdom as ' the kingdom of the Father' (.Mt V.i") ; just as St. Paul also speaks of it as ' the kingdom of the Son of His love,' into which the Father has translated OS (Col 1" "). The kingdom, in this view, is the