In the Fourth Gospel there is another judgment, one which belong to the present time, and is carried out throujrh the presence or the word of Christ (Jn 3"-21 12'"- «). This, how- ever, is not inconsistent with a final judirment, but is rather its precursor ; while the final judgrnent itself is not absent from the representations of the Fourth Gospel (Jn 12** 627. 28 ; cf. 1 Jn 22s 4").
Here, then, is the climax of our Lord's self- assertion. There is manifest in this claim a con- sciousness which we should pronounce insane were it not that of the humblest and .sanest man the world ever saw. Nothing can warrant siuli a claim, nothing justify such a consciousness. pa\e tlic hypothesis that Jesus had a higluT lieiii^' tliaii appertains to men, and that, as arising from this constitution of His person. He had universal func- tions which none other than Himself could exercise.
ii. His sf.lf - designations. — The claims of Jesus, accordingly, direct us to conclude that He
INCARNATION
INCARNATION
803
believed Himself to be human indeed, yet at the same time One who was related to God, in the ground and origin of His being, as no other man could be. From this consciousness the functions He claimed relative to humanity must have been derived. It must have been on the ground of what He \yas, and knew Himself to be, in the inherent quality of His being, that He set Himself forth as called and enabled to do certain acts in and for mankind.
It was impossible for men to listen to His claims without inquiring as to His person. Nay, He Himself stimulated the inquiry, and displayed, if one may so say, an anxiety to know what men were thinking of Him. What help, if any, does He give us in seeking for an answer? It is certain that He will not give us definitions after the style of the creeds, or analytic descriptions in the manner of a modern handbook of psychologT I he most, and the best, He can do for us, is to grSnt such unveilings of what was and must remain His secret, as shall enable us, under the requisite spiritual conditions, to know Him and to trust Him. Christ IS not a proposition to be proved, or an obj ect to be dissected. He is a Person to be known. By what names, then, does He will to be known' Among the titles or descriptive phrases by which He designates Himself, two are of .supreme im- portance. The discussions regarding their meaning torm a kind of register of tTie historv of modern Christology. If the Person of Christ be the centre of the Church s faith, and the appreliension of it be the note of the Church's growth, these dis- cussions cannot be e.xpected to reach scientific hnality. 1 he titles stand for aU tliat Christ means in the experience of His disciples, and their wealth . 'n t^"^"? ^?' *'ierefore, too rich for our exegetical skill to tabulate.
1. The Son of Man.— Three questions are perti- nent to our present purpose.
(1) Whence did Jesus derive the title .'—It would not have been necessary to ask this question— the title might have been at once accepted as invented by Jesus Himself-were it not that a phrase, suggestive of it, occurs both in the later apocalyptic literature and in the OT, in unmistakably Messianic con- nexions It is inconceivable that .lesus should have adopted this title, and jio( have meant it to designate Himself, as the personal reahzation of what was but vaguelv suggested in the mdefinite phrase of Dn T", We infer, therefore? that the title >«il.- ,,.'•"^•1'°.'?* "" ^f""^' "P^ »» equivalent to the title Mess ah, which He would not use unless and until His use of It could not be misapprehended.
The title, moreover, is not arbitrary or empty. It suggests the type of Messiah which Jesus believed Himself to be, an3 the kind of actions through which He intended to fulfil His Messi- anic vocation. The passage in Daniel, taken as a whole, turns i»"„™ ™"'™' between two kinds of sovereignty— that which 3 won by brute force, and that which belongs to a being not l'."^!! M« ■ u^L"""'"- ^"' '^■'■^ ■' precisely Jesus' conception of H,s Messiahship, VIZ. a sovereignty to be won through service! passage which ought not to be forgotten when lources of Jesus' idea of the Son of Man viz B too much to say that Jesus intended 'Son
"" for 'Servant of the Lord," though His
■ •" But it is certain that He
e contents of that other
There is anothe
Is .'J3. It may be too of Man ■ to be a svnony use of the title in Mk9i: ...„,„ filled the phrase ' Son of Man conception, and meant hv '."^
suffering fo gCy. ' '" "' "'■°'''''" "''""'' ""^^^^ '"'■""^'^ betore^Tif,'k?o„."?f n-~^.' "'^--^'fiy^ P'^sages be placed .s,™^^,"^' "^ J "f"^ '" I'"^'"' s Kreat art.i' Son of Man • in Hast- ings' DB, and at once a twofold use reveals itself One claa^ of passages describes the work. which Messiahship'entai?s upon whoni It IS done. It is a redemptive work ; t is performed in lowliest service and profoundest suffering ; its motive "sdeeo true sympathy with men in their ..<.«.).. "-. ,.i.ii._ -t,u . ',v> class contains references to the hidden by the lowliness, though in