(4) When we turn to oar Lord's own testimony as to His Sonship toward God, we are at once lifted high above the raereljr official aspect of the designation. In the Synoptic Gospels He never uses the title ' Son of God ' ; but His filial relation toward God is not for a moment in question. A son's devotion to his father, a son's utter trust in his father, a son's joyful intercourse with his father — all these, raised to an immeasurable degree, are the characteristics of Jesus' bearing toward God. If the phrase had never occurred in the OT, or fallen from any human lips regarding Him, none the less would any sympathetic view of the Figure portrayed have yielded the inference : Here is a man who in very deed is Son of God, in a sense to which no other man ever attained or could attain. The unique Sonship which Jesus knew Himself to possess gains e.xpress utterance in three great say- ings (Mk 1332 nk [cf. Lk <23,^- "S] and Mt 1 1'"). The first of these sets the rank of the Son in a more conspicuous light, because Jesus is disclaiming a knowledge which, on the su|iiiii-i(ii)U that He was God's Son, it might li:ive linn .'xpeuted that He would possess. 'The MTdiil ninrils the mystery of the Passion, the piofniiiul .ureptance of tlie Father's purpose in the midst uf a suffering which the Father Himself appoints. The tliird, with its strongly Johannine pnrasing, brings Jesus and the F'ather together in unique mutual knowledge. The loftiest Christology lies implicit in these words ; and, in the consciousness which they express, the invitation which follows, addressed to all the weary and heavy laden, promising them rest, can alone find its warrant. In the Fourth Gospel Jesus is represented as using the exact phra.se, 'Son of God' (Jn 5^ O^^ 10*' 11^). In one of these passages, however, there is uncertainty as to the correct reading, and in the others the possibility that the author may have imported into the narra- tive phraseology of later date, may lie admitted. But the correlative terms 'the Father' and 'the Son ' abound ; and no reader of the Fourth Gospel, whatever his critical views or theological preju- dices may be, doubts that tlie deep consciousness of Jesus, revealed in such utterances (e.g. 5" 1030. 38 141. 1721)^ is that of a Sonshi]) toward God which belongs to Himself alone of all the human race. Few, also, will be found to deny that the representations of the Fourth Gospel are not in excess of the portraiture of the Synoptic Gospels.
(5) The Divine attestation. — At the Baptism and the Transfiguration God solemnly attested the Divine Sonship of .Jesus in words which reproduce the language of the OT (Ps 2', Is 42>). It is need- less to discuss the 'objective' aspect of the com- munication. In any case, the attestation was made direct to the consciousness of Jesus. The language is that of Mes.sianic prophecy ; but as it fell on Jesus' inward ear, it was not a mere certifi- cation of His Messi.aliship, but rather a gi-acious a.ssurance of that whi.li iiifiM]>roted for Him Messiah.ship, and m:\.\v ils itrhii-veiiient possible, viz. a relation toward tiuil which lay deep in His
being, and was the primarj' element in His self- knowledge.
How, then, are we to conceive the Sonship of Jesus toward God ? Let us avoid modem abstrac- tions, -which were certainly not present to the mind of our Lord, or to any of those who came under His influence and have recorded their convictions. In particular, let us not be coerced by the supposed contrast between ' ethical ' and ' metaphysical,' and by the alternative, which some writers would force upon us, of regarding the Divine Sonship of Jesus as being ethical merely, or of imputing to Him a metaphysical Sonship which is an importa- tion from Greek philosophy. Ethical the Sonship of Jesus undoubtedly was. It manifested itself in knowledge of God and love to God, together with trust and obedience and other lovely qualities and
experiences. The Sonship to wliieh believers in
Him are introduced is of this type
by the same characteristics. He Himself claims
lis type, and is marked
them as His brethren (Mk 3^). But does this mean that He and they are of one cla.ss? Does His Son- sliip ditler from theirs merely in degree? Is He unique only in the measure in which He realized the pri\'ileges of a filial standing, which, however, belongs to men simply as men ? Is this the utmost impres.sion that the whole portrait makes upon us ■; It certainly was not all that His Jewish auditors inferred fi-om His self- witness. They declared that He was making Himself equal to God, and they would have killed Him for His blasphemy ( Jn 5'* 859 1031-33). Were they mistaken ? He does not say so. His retort (lO*^''') is no earnest disclaimer ; rather is it a reassertion of His essential unity with God. Surely this Ls the impression we gain from the record, that along \nt\\ His intense near- ness to men, there is a note of aloofness from tliem as of a Being of another order. Surely there are qualities in His Sonship that are incommuni- cable to men, aspects of it wliich can never be found in theirs. Could any of them ever say, ' I and the Father are one ? ' Could it be said o'f any one of them, that ' to see him was to see the t'ather ' '; It is noteworthy, and ought to be final on this subject, that Jesus never classes Himself along witli His disciples as if He and they were alike children of the Heavenly Father. He distinguishes Him- self as tlic Son from all other sons of God (cf. Mt 632 1029 .jviti, 1835 20'^). They become sons. He is the Son. The correlation between 'the Father' and ' the Son ' is absolute, and excludes any other son of God from that imique and perfect fellowsliip. When we weigh these thinfjs, the distinction between ethical and metaphysical becomes mean- ingless. The Sonship of Jesus has an ethical uniqueness which carries with it essential relations to God. His self -witness cames us to (equality of being wth God. As 'Son of Man' means humanity in the broadest, truest sense, so ' Son of God ' means Divinity in the deepest signification of tlie term, whicli will require for its statement and defence the utmost range of reverent thought, wliile yet it cannot be comprehended or set forth in any formula.