2. Divine designations applied to Christ. — Of the names implying distinctiveness of nature assiuueJ to Christ in the Gospels and Epistles, tliere ,iic four of supreme import : (a) ' Son of Man.' wlji. li stands by itself ; (6) ' Son of God,' with which may be set as allied in significance, ' Son of the Highest,' ' Only - begotten Son,' ' My beloved Son ' (or ' My Son, my Chosen '), and ' The Son ' ; (c) • Christ ' ; (rf) ' Lord.' Others are the ' Word of God ' and ' the Word ' ; ' Son of David,' ■with which may be placed ' Koot and offspring of Da«d,' and perhaps ' Prince of life' and ' Prince ' ; ' Saviour ' ; ' Image of God ' ; ' Second Adam ' ; ' First and Last ' ; ' The Holy, Just One.'
Son of Man. — To this title there attaches a peculiar interest, which is reflected in the amount of discussion it has excited. Controversy circles round its use, its source, its meaning. It occurs in all the four Gospels. It is the one name Christ is represented as reserving; for His exclusive use. That He dill mi i, |.lainl\ iini.lied in the narratives.
His u<ii- of it ! I f. Bruno Bauer, Volknwr,
Oort, Liulzm.iiin, , <. :ii,. most capable
, the ten Him but I
the Christian community, an.l caine into use in the followini; manner. The early Christians believed that Jesus had pro- phesied His Parousia. They hesitated to make Him say so outrigrht, and hence represented Him as sa>int; only that the * Man ' of Daniel should appear with the clouds of heaven. He could say that without meanins: Himself. But the Christian interpretation soon read Him into the announcement, then used the title in the prophecies of the Passion and Resurrection,
this and other forms, fails to ('0 tlie term is not found in almost solelv on the lips of re Jn 12-^, Ac l'^') ; (b) if a denoting p portray
St. Paul or elsewluri- in Jesus (instances ta tip i coinage of the Early CI lowliness — hanuonize \vi a glorified Christ ? The expression occurs in previous Hebrew and Aramaic literature. The references of importance are in Ezekiel, Daniel (7^^), and Enocli, in all of whicli the Messianic significance is not indisput- able (see Schmidt, art. 'Son of Man' in Enci/r. BibL, who inclines to refer even Dn 7'-' to Michael, not Messiah). In what sense is it to be under- stood? Tlie commonly accepted view (e.g. Bey- schlag-Wendt) may be thus stated : Christ was desirous of being reco<piized as the Messiah. He was not desirous of fulfilling the current expecta- tions of what the Messiah should be and do. He therefore did not apply the current designations of Me.ssiah to Himself, but, finding one term, ' Son of Man' (in Daniel), employed it as expressing (1) Messianic diaracter, and (2) much more than the expected Messianic character, viz. the generically human character.
Dolman (^Words of JesttJt) has adduced grave considerations against this view. It is a view, he holds, started by the Greek in primitive Christian thought. He ipted il from Dii Tl-^, and used it of ii was not widely .h. There 'the " ith the winged ad. the fourth
divines, and has maintains that C Himself in its oi prevalent in Hi^ i emphasis rather 1
■ith
that <"!od has given him to be what he is. The expression in- innaii > li-s his human nature than his Dirine. 'Son of Man' ari,..a - • tliat member of the human race, in his own nature ii<:| i«tr)ii, whom God will make Lord of the world.'
To indicate results, it may be taken that there is a fair consensus of agreement on the following jioints : (a) that the use of the title as applicable to HiiuseU is due to Christ ; (6) that a wider source than the passage in Daniel is probable ; (c) that in meaning it embodies a composite conception, com- bining various OT suggestions, and these the most rich and salient ; the seed of the woman, the one like a son of man, the suliering Servant of Jehovah, tlie ideal people, the recipient of special privilege, tlie apportioner of judgment, of celestial origin. In wealth of content the expression stands alone. It was thus peculiarly appropriate as a self- designation of Christ. In it there met the two divisions of Messianic reference, those pointing to the glory and those pointing to the humiliation of the Messiah, comprising elements seemingly incongruous and irreconcilable, yet in essentiak capable of being unified in a single character. In the course of His ministry He was to manifest Him- self as the conqueror of Satan, as perfect man, as concentrating His race in an intense personal life, as conscious of a special mission from God, of abso- lutely intimate relation to God, of perfect depen- dence upon God, and as sharing with God in the judgment of the world, characteristics all of them ilessianic, and impossible to be included in any of the terms of Messianic intention more fully than in this, the 'Son of Man.' Its meaning on His lips ooes further than even the fulness of Messianic intention ; so that it is not at once intelligible ('mystifying title' of "Weisse and others is not justified), a feature it shares with Him whom it designates and the hopes it unified. In it these features find place : much contemporary Me.ssianic belief of a familiar kind ; less prominent ideas that liad before this time pas.sed into the background ; novel functions in Christ's conception, such as the life of the Son of Man as a life of service, and His death as nece.ssary to redeem men ; and the com- bination of all these in a new synthesis which was not simply a mosaic of old data or gatliering up of the disparate details of earlier expectation, but which was reached by the entrance of a new thing that made the fulfilment infinitely more glorious than the promise might have seemed to warrant (cf. art. Sox OF MAN).