If the common reading is to be preferred, then the first hall of the words presents a coincidence with Ps 'T', the second half with Is 421. The words heard at the Transfiguration also pre- sent a general resemblance to Ps 2. That psalm ia directly quoted in Acts and Hebrews.
/S. The nature of the Manifestai ion. — It is char- acteristic of the OT prophets that the revelations made to them sometimes took the form of remark- able sights and sometimes of remarkable sounds. At least these are the terms in which they are described to us ; what exactly were the ps3'cho- logical phenomen.a corresponding it is beyond our power to say. They belong to the peculiar experi- ence of the Hebrew prophets. The Jewish notions about tlie Bath Kol are an extensijn of the same idea (Weber, JUd. Theol? p. 194 f.).
It is natural to suppose that the manifestations at the Baptism and at the Traiisliguralion were similar in kind. It is possible that tlicy were known only to Jesus Himself, perhaps in the one case also to the Baptist, and in the other to one or more of the apostles who possessed the prophetic endowment. Through such a channel as this the Divine ap- proval of the Son was in all probability communi- cated to men. The significance of this Divine testimony will come before us later.
(6) The correlative terms ' Father' and ' Son.' — We are told (Dalman, Worte Jcsu, p. 156) that it is contraiy to Jewish usage to speak of God as ' the Father simply without some such addition as ' who is in heaven.' The only exceptions occur in prayers. It also appears that great care and reserve were used in the application of this title generally. The Targunis, where they have occa- sion to refer to it, adopt a parajdirase.
In this respect the Gospels show a marked con- trast. Our Lord does, indeed, make use of the Je\rish form (which is found most frequently in Matthew, but cf. also Mk 11-", Lk 11") ; and it i8 probable enough that the real instances of this use may have been more numerous than would appear from our Gospels.
At the same time the Christian use goes far beyond the Jewish limitations. And besides the general use as applied to the disciples, there is a special use in wliich our Lord reserves it in a peculiar manner to Himself. He nowhere speaks of ' our Father,' numbering Himself with His fol- lowers. The Lord's Prajer is not an exception, because it is a form prescribed to the disciples, and constructed entirely for them. The prayers of the Son to the Father are diUerent.
On the other hand, our Lord constantly speaks of ' my Father,' whether with (Mt 7-' ItP^ 15'» 16" Igiu. i». S5) Qr without addition. And this use ap- parently goes back even to His childhood (Lk 2").
The use in question is illustrated in a number of ways. So in the parable of the Wicked Hus- bandmen, where the ' beloved son ' (Alk 12*), who is also ' heir,' is distinguished from aJl other mes- sengers. So again in the parable of the Marriage Feast, which the king makes for liis son (Mt 22'') (
SON OF GOD
SON OF GOD
572
where, thonj,'Ii the parallel in Lk 14'" may point to this descri])tion as acKled later, the instant-o just given wouki at least show that it lay near at hand ; and some further support is given to it bv the part plaj'ed by the ' bridegroom ' in the parable of the Ten Virgins.
in any ease the whole argument of Mt 17™ turns ou the distinction between 'son' and 'stranger.' And the point of the discussion about Ps 110' (Mk 12"'") is just to prove that tlie Mcssiali is not ' son of David ' in tlie same sense in which otlier members of his lineage are spoken of as sons. We shall have occasion to come back to some of these passages presently.
We observe in our Lord's use of the titles 'Father' and 'Son' in connexion with Himself an ascending scale. First, there are the i)lace3 where Ho speaks of God as His heavenly Father, or Father in heaven, after ordinary Jewish usage (Mt "-' etc., see above). Then tliere are the places where He speaks of God as 'my Father' witliout addition, which are too numerous to need specifica- tion. Then we come to a smaller numlier of pas- sages in which ' the Son ' and ' the Father ' are at once opposed and associated. And lastly, there are the ea.ses in which mention is made of ' the Father' and 'the Son,' where the correlation is not expressed but implied. The last two classes of passages alone will re^juire some discussion.
The ila.ssical jiussage in tlie Synoptic Gospels for the correlative use of ' tlie Father' and ' tlie Son ' is, of course, Mt 1 1-'' II. By the side of this we have Mk 13^^11 [«./.] and the important and much de- bated verse Mt 28'".
Dalraan (see pp. 231-235) allows the first of these passages to stand, explaining it as a figurative application of the relation of ' father and son.' The relation of Jesus to Him whom we call 'the Father' is such a relation, and therefore implies mutual knowledge. But the other places, lie thinks, bear too close a resemblance to the theo- logical language of the Early Church ; and he would set them down, in their present form, to the reflex influence of that l.-inguage. lie ques- tions the use by our Lord Himself of either phrase as a theological term. And this kind of view is, no iloubt, widely spread in critical circles.