pxnlain these utterances?
If the narratives are well founded, we are not
limite in our explanation by any inquiry as to the current contemporary interpretation of such texts a" Ps 2^ Is 4-i', Dt 18'», however much the v'rds said to 'have been spoken contain rem.nis^ cences of or allusions to t-l><'f,,^^ext3. 1 or Uie hearin" of the voices was what might be caiieu a i^oDlJlic hearing. The probability is, as we h.ave E'dTbive (p.: 572'.), t lat .J-^ - - - third occasion whUe the crowd said, It thundcrea, or 'in angd spake to him,' either in the '>rs ins ance the Baptist, or in the second instance the three apostlefor' perhaps in all tbrce. Jesus Cbnst riimself alone was aware of ^''""^''liing that con veyed a more articulate sense than this. Hut in Iny ca^e the sense thus conveyed -as conveyed to the spiritual ear by a method analogous to that of prophetic inspiration. Cnirit of
And if, on the occasions in question, the Spirit ot God did intimate prophetically t"«l'f f 'X"^-'^ ; more or fewer, a revelation couched partly in the anAa-e of the ancient Scriptures it would by no S^follow that the meaning of the revelation was" mUed to the meaning of those older bcrip- Tures On the contrary, it would be likely enough that the old words would be charged with new eanin^-that, indeed, the revelation contained in them, though linking on to some message of the I ast would yet be in substance a new revelation, 'we have seen that the ancient Scriptures of
We have seen tiwi-t li^; u-..v,.w.v ^-.-i-
j.d-rm-ntj. H^J^Yia. 19 171; cf.lJ); or that the Son IS top . j^, j^, appreliending eye and niiml,
\:C::^i;f^^fJaf;Pr.-nm..^^ -^;,\,„ JiLginations of , the contem- manl<..,d are invted to comt to the son ^^^^^^
hiih^ri.nJ^m^n^Jc^^^'i^).'^-^^ w^ - "-o ^'"'" (fli?. u. a 146).
It is open to us, if we will, to think tl.at «i this collection of sayings there is an ^l^"'*:;;^ ~^^ a somewhat considerable «'e"»^nt-that reprtscnls not so nmch what was actually spoken a-s enlargt n.ent or comment embodying the experience and rcHexion of the growing l-'''"^'^''- ^^ '^"';'^^'t "^1 if we will, to think that the part played by such I, «i,i>iii, ly ,„,.,„,rt nnntidy frcatcr
re exion ol ine grown.;; v.i....v... • ,-v-'| , , if ,„i„l,t well content us lo pu.- ."1.^ ^--^ ••-
if we will, to think that the part played by such U lui. ^^^^ .^ ^^ ^,^,^^,1^, ,,„,, ,,«
Hayings in the Gospel is l>r';l'"^t'""^.';^'y f^m^e ^ JuBti''"' '" supposing-not by way of
thkn they wouldhave seemed tobeartoa^nyaveia,^^ ^ a scrtion, but by way of pious belief- n
pora iJ oF Ji.;..;. To Jesus Himself it reached [he fnllest dimensions of which it was capable. And we may assume that to His mind the an- nounccni'nt 'Thou art my Son' meant not only aU that'it had ever meant to the "-^t enlightened
l;sl:ftl^i;:^'.^ia"i---^-^-
^/i-Jil^atueontentus^toputintoUie^ords
f
si,K,;r=-^»f.w t../KCT s«fSiFi;iS^iiH:'=i:5'd:
be so would be I'erfcctlyconsistent with heGospU ^^ov o ^,,^^^ 4,,^ ,,,„,,,, ,vere intended
duction of the events as to fill up gaps and del i- encies in the records of preceding e7"!|« 'f l^.,,/'^,^; when every deduction ,s ma,le he fact rm^^
t:C" "rn^^^uU; norhitherto made known. rVat the Son was Son not on y in the sens
VIZ. that tno aou >;«•» ^"" ■ :• .■ , ,,„„,.„ i,„t
nf the Messianic King, or of an I.leal 1 eoT le, but ?iat Uieideaof Sonship was f.ilfiUed m l(.m in a way vet more mysteriolis and yet more essential ; in other words, that He was Son, not merely in when every ucuuctiou .s "'•"';,•■"■'";•,- ertainly propheliccontemplation but in .-.ctual r.^nscenacm 'J:;eraTd^r/on.rsl;:b:tr Ur;r:'inrorthl l U before the foundation of the worlds.
576
SOX OF GOD
SON OF GOD
(iii.) Are.ixiahjhip rind diviniti/.—Thifilant possi- bility Urine's ua to the question, •\vhii-li in any case we shall have to face: What exactl)- is the mean- ing of the title ' Sun of (loil ' ? There is no (loul)t that it means the expected Messiah, — that at least. But how much more does it mean than tliat? In particular, does it mean the .Son as incarnate, or does it go behind and beyond the Incarnation ?
We reserve the last part of this question for a moment. In the meantime we must attempt to define rather more exactl}' the relation of the title ' Son of God ' to the conception of the Messiah. In the po]iular mind, at the period with which we are conceini'd, the two things would he simply iden- tical. IJnt, as we so constantly see, our Lord was not content merely to take a popular idea with the conventional stamp upon it. In His hands the popular idea is nearly always remoulded, renewed, brought into harmony with some fresh ami jiower- ful reality, and reissued with the signature of that reality.
He' had done this with the title SON OF Man. For the author of the Similitudes in the Book of Enoch and for those who inherited his tradition, the Son of Man w.as just the Messiah as Judge. But our Lord went back to the original sources of the title, Dn 7" and Ps S^ ; and He thus brought it into living contact with the conception of Man as Man. In His lips it was the Messiah »s Man, the perfect Man, in tliu sense of being more man — more completely embodying in Himself the essence of all that went to make man, more utterly in touch with everything in man — than any who had ever borne the name of man before.