674
SON OF GOD
SUN OF GOD
(6) The titles 'Father' and '5.-n.'— In the Pro- logue to the Fourth Gospel we are in tlie region of Iiigli theology. Uut the fundamental assumptions of the Epistles (Pauline, Petrine, Johannean, Hebrews) are on the same plane. From the first we have in the greetings of such as begin with greetings frenuent reference to the staniliiig cor- relatives ' the Father' and ' the Son.' There never was a time within the range of this literature when the two correlative terms were not under- stood and accepted as part of the essential voca- bulary of Christianity.
When, therefore, we read in Mt 28" the com- mand to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son, this combination is one proved to have been in common use less than 25 years after the command is said to have been given ; and the complete triad is proved to have been recognized very little later.
We repeat that the matured form in which these conceptions are found in tlie earliest Epistles seems to us abundantly to justify not only the few places in which they enter into the Synoptic Gos])els, but, in principle at least, the more numerous [ilaces in which they occur in the Gospel that bears the name of St. John (see below, 3 6 i).
Sole on the u3e of -raif $iou. — We must reckon with the possi- bility that rrix7i (fli&y) in Ac 313- 26 4'i7. 30 was intended to be taken in tlie sense of * Son.' It certainly has this sense in a number of places in the Apostolic Fathere (see below, III. 1). It is, however, more probable that (as in Sit 12t**) the earlier writers distinctly have in view the 'Servant of Jehovah' of Is 421 etc. Only when the preaching of the gospel left Jewish ground and began to spread! amon'jr peoples ignorant of Heb. were the two senses wholly confaseii. This process, indeed, was rapid ; and the effect was so far good that it blended with the conception of Christ as 'Son' a quantity of valuable teaching relating to the ' Servant ' which was moj^t truly applicable to Him (tiiough under another name), and which, but for this, might have met with less attention. On the passages iu Acts see esp. an excellent note by Knowling on Ac 31^ ; cf. also what ifl said by the same writer on ' St. Peter's Discourses,' p. 119 ff.
3. TBE SIGXIFICANCE OF THESE TITLES.— We have now collected most of the data bearing upon our subject. The next step must be to con- sider their significance under the difierent condi- tions in which wc have found the titles used. In other words, we shall have to ask what the}' really meant, in the fulness of their meaning, (<t) for the contemporaries of Jesus, both Jewish and non- Jewish ; (6) for Je.sus Himself ; (c) for the apostles, looking back upon and interpreting them.
(«) For contemporaries, Jewish and non-Jetmsh. — (i.) The populace. — Not much can be extracted from the witness of the demoniacs (Mk 3" || 5' II). If we read into it a higher me.aning than the words conveyed to the mind of the sjiuaker, it could only be by assuming a providenti.-il action outside the working of ordinary laws. TheprophecvofCaiaph.as (Jn 1 !■'"■'-') is perhaijs sutriciently parallel to justify us in introducing ttiis ; and it is a common belief that, where the human will is most dormant, Divine intluences are felt most readily. But, looked at p.^j'chologic.ally, the confessions of the demoniacs could not mean more than that they believed themselves to be in the presence of the expected Messiah.
(ii.) The centurion. — In spite of the divergent report of the words of the centurion at the cross iu Lk '23", there can be little doubt that the common source of theSj-noptic narrative is rightly reproduced by Mark and Matthew, * Truly this was the Son of God.' As, however, there is no obvious reason why Luke should have altered this, and as there are other details in the historj' of the P.assion for which he appears to have inde- pendent authority, it is po.ssible that another version of the words may have reached him ; and that version may have as good a chance of being true as that which competes with it. If the words 'Son of God' were really used, the
sense attaching to them would depend to some extent on the nationality of the centurion, in regard to which we are in the dark. Probably what was in his luiiid would be an undefined feel- ing of awe, and a consciousness that events were happening that transcended his experience and apprehension.
(iii. ) The rulinfj cla.sses. — The question was directly put to our Lord by the high priest, ' Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed ? ' (Mk W^). And the assenting answer was treated as bias- pliemy. Still, it would not follow that this was taken as an assertion of full Divinity. It prob- ably was taken as a claim to be the Messiah. But if the Jews in general thought of the Messiah as superhuman indeed, but not strictly Divine, the high priest (unless it were by such an overruling as we have considered above) is not likely to have meant more than this. The claim might well seem so audacious as to amount to blasphemy even without this aggravation (cf. Holtzmann, Neutest. Thcol. 1. 266), more esi)ecially as it in- cludes the prophecy of a second coming as Judge.