ivill VL rfL"''''?' T'^J"> "','' ""''^ °' humiliation are achieVed: will be demonstrated in the face of the universe. Together
?.hlT^'„. ■ •Ft',,'' ^'K"^ ''"^"'^ ""<! Buffering, and a death which has in It the quality of an atonement, a Messiah whose faithfulness to His vocation will be crowned ^th royal honours! -, ^^^ ^I't'^'t Che., He reveal as to His own Person in i<.?-The interpretation of the title as 'representa-
tive or ideal man is surely too modern to be an accurate reflexion of Jesus' own mode of thinking We shall not be in error, however, if we read in tlie title Jesus' identification of Himself with men His profound insight into their condition and His acceptance of it as His own, His taking upon Him- self the griefs from which they sufler, and His achieving, in the depths of His suflering, their deliverance. The titfe, accordingly, sums%p the elations m which Jesus stands to men. He touches human nature at every point. It is true He IS sinless; but this fact, so far fi-om hinder ingHis perfect. sympathy with men, is its neces-
HR^iJ""t''(?' f'*'°"- • i*^""^ ''•''■''"^e He is sinless. His identification with men can be complete, and He can be to men what no other can be He can do for men what not one of themselves can do. The fulne.S3 of His humanity distinguishes Him from all individual members of the race. He is not a man ; He is ' the Son of Man,' the kinsman of
^:f^.T'.\"l" H"^^ ^"'1 King of redeemed and reconstituted humanity.
Here is a gracious tact, verifiable in the experi- ence of evei-y man who will yield his heart to this Saviour and Lor<l. This very fact, however, opens depths of mystery within itself. Who is He who IS perfect man ? What is the basis of this human sonship ? It cannot be a Personality, limited as ours IS, needing, as ours does, some bond beyond itself to connect it with God. He who can stlnd in this unique relation to men must stand also in a unique relation to God. See also art. Son of Man
2. The Son of God.-This title, as Jesus used it or accepted it is plainly derived from the OT, where it is applied to the theocratic people (Ex i^ Hos 111), to the theocratic King (2 S 7" Ps SQ^"- '") and to the Messiah (Ps 2'). The OT usage evi- dently IS not barely official, but shows a growth in spirituality of connotation and in definiteness of application. It would be too much to suppose that any OT prophet clearly discerned the I)ivinity of the Messiah ; but at least the prophetic vision catches sight of One who should stand in a spiritual relation to God clo.ser than that whicli can possibly be occupied by any member of the theocracy. Ihe title, accordingly, as it applies to the Messiali, does not express barely His office, but rather some quality of His person wliich is superhuman, and is the source of reverent awe in the minds of those who contemplate the thought of Him. There is a vagueness in it wliich excludes either a dogmatic definition of His Divinity, or a merely humani- tarian view of His person. When it occurs in the JN 1 , we cannot get rid of it by pointing out that it simply means ' the Messiah.' No doubt it means t fie Messiah ; but it connotes that in the man who claims to be the Messiah which lifts Him above the level of mankind.
(1) We cannot draw any definite inference from the use of it bt/demmiiacs, or by Satan in the Temptation narrative. Pro- bably, however, as the idea of the 'subliminal' sphere which
r conscious life makes its way into psycho"
hkely to give weight to narratives which i
'esus there existe
them a peculiar and direct
their lips would certainly
He possessed. ' di^-it-V and power which
(2) Neither can we base a doctrinal proposition on the ex- pression l«ed by the high priest (SIk 14«i, Mt '2663), for the charge of claiming to be 'the Christ' did not earn- with it the verdict of capital punishment. The addition '.Son of God 'or f /oLL^^^'l'!'"'^''' '°°'''* ^''"' " <^''"""'- In St. Luke's narra- tive (2266-71) the question, 'If thou art the Christ' (v. 67) i, separated from the second, 'Art 'thou then the Son of God?' ;^;y' ^^ ■Ju™^ "''"'V ^° I''^'""= honom-s (v.69). The impression made by the scene is that our Lord's judges understood Him to be claiming superhuman dignity. This claim thev regarded as blasphemous, and it formed ipso facto the warrant of the death sentence.
(3) Peter's ascription in Mt 1616 has some doubt thrown on it by the absence of the clause 'the Son of the living God' from the parallel passages in Mark and Luke. Vet an argument
hology, r 3 imply t
IXCARXATION
INCARNATION
based on omissions is precarious. St. Matthew had access to special sources. His version has the ring of genuineness ; and it is to be noted that the benediction upon Peter is not found in Mark and Luke, where the ascription of Sonship is also awanting. If, then, we may accept the genuineness of the say- ing, we cannot, indeed, attribute to Peter a doctrine of his Master's person which he could reach only through experience of the risen Christ ; but, certainly, we note that he is far in advance of the momentary impression of Mt 14^. He cannot mean less than that He to whom he speaks is the Son of Je- hovah, havinjj an intimacy with Him possessed by no other man, revealing Him as no other can, not even the greatest of the prophets. Peter knows nothinj^ of dogma, but he has flung the plummet of his faith far into the depths of his Master's being. In that moment of supreme spiritual uplift a revelation has been made to him which will carry him far in after days, of which the opening verses in Hebrews and the proloi^ue to the Fourth Gospel will be no more than the adequate expression.