suggested the answer to His question in asking it. r of fact, however, the answer is not given in terms . In the Synoptic Gospels the title ' Son of Man ' is
Sadducees for a sign from heaven, with its evident Messianic implication, warns His disciples against the leaven of tlie Pharisees and Sadducees (so Mt 16"; Mk 8'^ lias 'Pharisees and Herod'), heals a blind man near Bethsaida (Mk S-"), and retires from Galilee for the second time, coming with His disciples into the region of Cisesarea Philipipi.
The key to the situation at Cjesarea, its con- trolling iilea, is to be sought neither in the con- fession of Peter nor in the promise to Peter, but in Jesus' announcement of His approaching Pas- sion. To this Peter's confession leads up ; around it Jesus' instruction of the disciples regarding Himself and the conditions of discipleship centres. The theme, moreover, becomes characteristic of His subsequent teaching (Mk 9i--" 10^'- 12' 14' etc.).
St. Luke tells us that Jesus had been praying alone (9"*, cf. 3-'), and that His disciples were with Him. St. Mark vividly locates the question that Jesus put to His disciples, as ' in the way ' (S-'). St. Mark and St. Luke agree in the form of the question, ' Who do men (Mk. oi S.vdponroi, Lk. ol iixXoi) say that I am?' St. Matthew, however, gives it in the third person, and introduces the title ' Son of Man ' — ' Who do men say that the Son of man is ? ' * In either form the question is a striking one, by reason of the prominence it gives to Jesus' person. Emphasis until now had been placed by Him on His message and on His works of mercy, thougli both had stood in intimate relation to His person. He desires to know now what men think of the messenger.
The form given to Jesus' question in Mt. has been regarded as secondary, on the ground that by calling Himself the Son of Man, Jesussi • ■ •• - — --> ■ .:- - .^
of this title. In the Synoptic Gospels
always a self-designation of Jesus. Even where it appears in the Fourth Gospel in the mouth of others, this is in evident dependence on its use by Jesus (Jn 12W). St. Stephen's use of it also looks back to Jesus' words (Ac 756, cf. Lk 2269), and the usage of the Apocalj-pse is probably to be explained by the influence of Dn 713 (cf. Rev l" 14IJ). There can, moreover, be no doubt that Jesus so designated Himself during the conversa- tion with the disciples at Cassarea Phihppi The phrase occurs in Mk 8^1 and Lk 9-, but it is neither more adequately motived than in Mt., nor is it explained Tht disLiples must have been familiar with it as a self designation of Jesus c\en if thci did not understand its full signihcanLC The »t\ in \\i li it is introduced both in Mt. and Mk-Lk makes it 1 I I think that it was now used for the first tinu I I
Gospelsdo indeed give earlier instances of its (11
SUI) 9G 1023 111a 128. 32. 40 13 7 41 Lk J ^ I " ' I I
tions this order, regarding it as improl al I 11 t 1 Hi
Himself Son of Man at an earlier time (I) ' / 1 1 ) nd Holtzniann holds that if Jesus did so it w is in a I tl 1 lit sense (A'-i' T/lco?. i. pp. 257, 263) The S\noi tio IC] 1 ill I n is self consistent, however, in presupposin„ its ivil r us and this we must accept even while admitting that tl 1 iin.cof the tcTiu cannot be fully determined apart ficiii its usi here and siihscciufiitly, where it isassociated with Jesus sutl iiii„ resui
111 answer to Jesus' question, the disciples report the opinions current among the people concerning Him. The report must have been discouraging. Not only was tliere variety of opinion, some think- ing that He was John the Baptist (cf. Mk 6"), others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah (Mt 16") or one of the prophets; but in the midst of this variety there was general agreement that Jesus, whoever else H& might be, was not the Messiah. A forerunner of the Messianic Kingdom He might be, but not the INIessianic King. His activity in proclaiming the Kingdom, whatever Messianic expectations it may have aroused, had resulted only in the popular recognition of His prophetic character, and in His association with the Mes- sianic Kingdom in some preparatory sense. Mani- festly Jesus was not the popular Messiah. His
* In Mt 1013 ^1 before My""'" i" «ie TR is to lie omitted with N B c vg cop syrhr (cf. also Mt 103=, Lk 12»f.. Mk S3S, Lk ^, Mt 51>, Lk 022, Mt 1021, Mk S31, Lk 922).
248
CiESAEEA PHILIPPI
C^SAEEA PHILIPPI
work, directed as it was towards spiritual ends, did not accord with the popular conception of tlie Messianic Kingdom. Moreover, Jesus had not spoken plainly in Galilee of His Messiahship. He had not assumed a popular Messianic title, and when individuals had recognized in Him the Messiah, He had commanded silence. His work, however, like that of Jolin the Baptist, had ex- cited interest, and called forth opinions which associated Him with the coming Messianic King- dom. The report of the disciples so accurately describes the situation and so faithfully represents the tenor of popular opinion, that it cannot be regarded merely as the background sketched by the Evangelists for the purpose of bringing into sharp relief the confession of Peter.