686
SOX OF MAX
SOX OF MAN
as using it before Peter's confession at Csesarea I'hilippi. Matthew (in whom most of the pas- sages occur) is the evangelist who, generally, displays the least regard for historical sequence, and sometimes groups incidents and sayings to- gether merely on account of material resemblances ; he even represents the disciples as owning Jesus to be the 'Son of God' (14^: no 1! in Mk 6^"- Jn 6-^ bt'fore the confession at Ca'sarea Philippi. Hence there is no ditrunilty in supposing that 5lt 10^ 13^' [\n which, whatever view be taken of the meaning of the title, tlie predicates api)licd to it, describ- ing the Second Advent, show that the Messiah is referred to) are placed too early in our Lord's ministry;* and the same supposition might be reasonably made {upon the assumption that ' the Son of man ' was a Mess, title) in the case of some other passages, as Mt 8-^ 12"**^ ;t but it is difficult to think that Mk 2'« = Mt 9« = Lk 5-*, Mk 2-^ = Mt 128 = Lk Qi^ [jMi^ 3-s'=] Mt 12^2= Lk 12'^ can be so misplaced. Nevertheless, those who believe * the Son of man ' to be an exjdicit Mess, title are obliged to assume this {cf. § 20. 12), or else to hold either that Jesus never used the title at all, or (so Holtzm. p. 263, cf. 256 f.) that, on at least the three last-named occasions. He spoke of * man' in general (see, further on these passages, § 22).^
The second of these alternatives we have already found ourselves unable to accept ; but does either the first or the third suffice to remove the diffi- culty? Is it really credible that our Lord Jirst used the expression of Himself, after Peters con- fession at Ciesarea Philippi? Is not the familiar manner in which He used the title, if not in the question put to Peter (Mt 16'^ but not Mk 8-^ Lk 9^«), yet directly after it (Mk S^S Lk 9"), with- out exciting any comment or surprise, sufficient evidence that it must have been often used by Him previously, and that it was an expression which, whatever special ideas it may have been intended to convey, was well understood to denote Himself? These considerations, as it seems to the present writer, constitute a strong argument against the supposition that it Avas a current Mess, title, or even (without supposing as much as this) that it was adopted by our Lord as a Mess, title, for the purpose of proclaiming His Messiahship.
The title, we thus seem forced to conclude, was used by our Lord in His Galiloean ministry ; but it did not suggest to those who heard it Mess, associations, until it came to be connected with liredictions of the Second Advent ; it thus did not reveal, but veil, His Messiahship. Christ's use of the term was pctdafjogic. It veiled His Messiah- ship during the earlier part of His ministry, till the time was ripe for Him to avow it openly.§ I»y His adopti»m of it, He found a means, on the one hand, of not denying even in public His con- sciousness of His unique mission, and, on the other hand, of lending no countenance to the crude and illusory' hopes which attached to popular ideas of tlie Messiah (Weiss, Lchen JcsUy i. 429).
20. The following summary (which makes no pretension to be exhaustive) may be useful to the reader, partly as illustrating, especially when taken in connexion with the views that have been already stated, the gruat diversity of opinion which has prevailed— and in part prevails still — with regard to the meaning ot the title, partly as exemplifying the lines along which attempts have
• Som-j other passaj^es in Matthew, involving the avowal of Jesus' Mtssiahship, though not with the use of this title, are also probahlv ant«-<lated ; cf. Uoltzmann, p. 259.
t In Lk 6-'^tcontrast5It6ii],7W=Mt ll'^, Holtzmann (p. 251) doubta whether the title (which he regards as Mess.) is original.
t Fiebig, however (5 24], thinks that in these cases it was t)niplymisunderstood(a3='nian,' 'a man') by those who heard it.
{ Keini. Similariy Baur, Hase, Lange, Ritschl, Uarnack, and others, as cited by Uoltzmann, p. 261 n, 1, 262 n. 6.
been principally made to solve the problems which it presents.
1. Neander {Lfben Jem, 1S37. 129ff.; Eng. tr.< p. 99). The title denotes Jesus on His huu)an side, as One belonging to huinaiiii.\', uho in His humanity has done so much Ifor it, through whom it is glorified, and who has realized most com- pletelv the ideal (' Urbild ') of humanity.
2. liaur iZ. Wins. Theol. 1800, 274-292 ; AT Theol ISM, 77-S;i)- Not at the time a current titl« of the Messiah, but chosen by Jesus in opposition to prevalent Jewish conceptions of a victorious, earthly Messiah. It emphasized His humanity, His subjection to the needs and experiences of ordinary men ; and denoted Him also as one who made all the deepest human interests His own, and bad the wide human sympathies ex- pressed, for instance, in tlie Beatitudes. It was suggested by Dn 7I8 ; and Jesus adopted it as a title, which, while possessing no popular Mess, associations, was adapted to express the Mess. idea in its higher significance.