2'2. We append a few remarks on some particular passages in which the title is used.
a. Mk S-<' = Lk ll''* (' the foxes have holes,' etc.). As Sclimiedel remarks (p. 2'J3), Mej'er's ' a man ' {i.e. Jesus) t is exegetically impossible ; Lietz- mann's ' man ' (generally) J is out of the question. The contrast is evidently between the external lowliness and the inlierent dignity of Uim who in a special sense was the ' Son of man.'
i. Mt !)''=Mk 2'» = Lk 5". There is no neces- sity, for the purpose of understanding this passage, to sujipose that the title was a Mess. one. Jesus, in order to meet the objection, ' Who can forgive sins, but God only'/' heals the paralytic, thereby showing that He holds an extraordinary coninus- sion from God upon earth sullicient to satisfy the Jews tliat He is justified in claiming also to possess autliurity to forgive sins. The jia-s.^age, it is irue, is one in which an Aram, original ' that a ni.an hath authority on earth to forgive 8ins'§ would be (juite possible, and yield a suitable sense, — the word, though in form general, being meant to be limited to Jesus Himself ; but, if ' the Son of man ' be admitted as a title of Jesus elsewhere, there is, of course, no necessity for having recourse to the supposition here.
c. Mt 1'2» = Mk 2^= Lk 6». Here in Mk we read : ' (v.") And he said unto them, The sabbath is
• For (} 11) it is only here (and not in Daniel) that the ' son of man ' appears as judge.
t P. 96 t. (cf. al)ovc, ; 8. 4).
t P. 90 (but allowing that, in Its present connexion, only Jesui can be meant : so Well. p. 2U6),
S Meyer, p. 94 (cf, S 3. 4) ; Lletzm. p. 89 ; WeUb. p. 208.
588
SON OF MAX
SOX OF MAX
made for man, and not man for the sabbath : (v.^) so that tlie son of man is lord even of the sabbath,' — the statement that the son of man is lord of the sabbath bein^' based upon tlie prcmist'S contained in v.-''. But in the premise, ' the sabbath is made for man,' ' man ' is evidentlj' meant gener- ally, so that thr only logical conclusion from it is, not that a particular man, but that man gener- ally,—or, at least (since, from the nature of the case, the worldly, unspiritual man would not be thought of), the religious man, who weighed reasons, and could judge how to use rightly what was instituted for the benelit of man, — is 'lord of the sabbath'; .lesus. by His argument, though He would include Himself, would not delude others. And such a conclusion Avould be in agree- ment not only with the general teaching of Christ, but with the context, which shows that Jesus is defending not His own action, but that of His disriples. Hence, as Schmiedel also allows, the supposition that ' the son of man ' has arisen out of a misinterpretation, or false limitation, of the Aram, barndsliii* is here certainly plausible. At the same time, it is possible that tlie argument is, ' The sabbath was made for man ; and therefore the Son of man, as holding a unique position among men, and knowing what their welfare requires, may, for a suHicient reason, dispense with the obligation to observe the sabbath' (cf. Stanton, 247 f . ). It must, however, then be sup- posed that the action of the disciples in plucking the ears of corn had been implicitly authorized by Jesus.
between Himself and the Holy Spirit), has, upon intrinsic grounds, a far higher (daim to originality than the renuirk of the narrator in Mk 3** (which makes blasjihcmy against Jesus tantamount to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) ; while the declaration that blasphemy against Himself was pardonable is one which no evangelist would h ivt ventured to place in Jesus' mouth, had He lot reallv uttered it. Mt 12'- is not necessarily a parallel recension of 12", or superlluous beside it ; it would be perfectly in place if it stated with explicit reference to the ' Son of man ' what is inaeed implicit in v.", but is not there e.xpressed explicitly. Mark ' may have liad before him, not indeed our Matthew, but Mt 12"'- in a similar form, and have re-cast v.^-', on account of its seem- ing inconsistency with reverence for Jesus, in a form influenced by the phraseology of v.".' But the correctness of the comment in Mk 3** must, upon this view, be given up ; and indeed (Schmiedel) it is not certain that Mk S^s'- ( = Mt 12'") is his- torically connected with the preceding narrative ; the parallel in Lk (12'") stands in a very ditVer- ent connexion. The impossibility of questioning the originality of Mt VS-'- = Lk 12'" thus consti- tutes to Schmiedel a conclusive argument against' explaining the variations between the Synoptists here by means of the Aramaic.
23. In the Fourth Gospel the title is still found only in our Lord's mouth ; but it is lifted into a higher plane, and, in agreement with St. John's predominant point of view, is used commonly in more distinct connexion with His Divine nature.