* Jesu Predigt in ihrem Geffensatze zttm Judenthum, p. 112 f.
t Book of Enoch, Ayipendix B, p. 315 £f. ; cf. also Bartlet, Expositor, Dec. 1S92.
X Helioion cies Judenttims-, p. 305, footnote.
§ Bousset's Jesii.9 (Eng. ed.), p. ISS. Bousset thinks that it was not till the closing '^months of His ministry that this title was assumed ; ' in face of the threatening doom of final failure . . . only hriefly and sparingly did He adopt the name ' (p. 192 f.). Some colour is given to this view, that the Sjmoptic writers ha\ e frequently supplied the phrase in Christ's discourses, by comparing V»£«v iuot in Mt 510 with the parallel 'ixxa. re'C mZ toZ K^tipuTo-j in Lk &^. But in the extremely severe limitation im- posed by Bousset on Christ's employment of the term we are unable to concur.
Himself (Bousset).* It is easy to draw the neces- sarj- corollary. In the designation ' Son of Man ' applied bj- Jesus to Himself in an eschatological sense, there was involved the other conception which meets us in the Siuulitiidcs of the Book of Enoch, that of universal judge. t
But the eschatological side is not the onlj-, nor is it tiie most important, aspect of the conception of ' Son of Man ' in the mind of Jesus and the Syn- optic writers. Far greater, viewed from the ethical standjioint, was the human aspect of the lowly Sutlering Servant suggested by the Deutero- Isaiah. This certainly could never have been invented by the Synoptic writers. It is of the very essence of Christ's thought respecting Himself. It is never- theless remarkable that tiie locus classiciis of the NT writers who reflected on the mj-stery of tiie Messiah's crucifixion, viz. Is 53, was never, so far as we can gatlier from the Synoptic writers, quoted bj' Jesus Himself, with the doubtful exception of Lk 22*^. That this prophecj-, however, must have been in His mind, seems fairly clear from Mk 10** 12«-»^' ; cf. Jn 131--1" and Lk 24^- -*. Accordingly, the title ' Son of Man ' had a twofold significance. It is employed when Christ's claims to power and authority are asserted, both now and in His future Kingdom and glory. The ' Son of Man ' has power to forgive sins (^Ik 2^'^'). He is Lord over the Sab- bath (Mt 12*). He -w-ill appear dotiied in ])ower at the last day (Mk li^'-). But the title is also used in immediate connexion with His human nature, lowliness, poverty, suflering, and deatli. ' The Son of Man came eating and drinking ' (Mt 11'^, Lk 7**) ; ' the Son of Man hath not where to lay his head ' (Mt 8-% Lk 95*); 'is betrayed' (Mk 14;'); 'came not to be ministered unto but to minister ' (Mk 10-^) ; sutt'ers and is condemned (Mk 8^'). The paradox of this twofold antithetic significance is solved by the positive truth which underlies it. The peculiar and special function of dignity and privilege which belongs to the 'Son of Man' rests on an etliical basis. He that has come to serve, sutt'er, and give His life a ransom for many, will pass through agony and death to His place of exaltation in the clouds of heaven (cf. Ac 3i« 8*- 17^ 26-»). Upon this basis St. Paul and his successors have built. "We also are to sufl'er with Him, that we may share in His glory (Ro 8'"). Tiie Kenotic doctrine of Ph 2«- ' is reared on this foundation of the teachings of Jesus respecting Himself as ' Son of Man,' whereby we learn that He was ' made perfect through sutt'erings,' and became ' the leader of our salvation ' (He 2^- ^").
(d) 'Son of God' is a designation frequently applied to Jesus in the Gospels, and is applied by Jesus to Himself as the expression of His vivid consciousness of God's presence in His life, and the intimate bond that united Hun to the Eatlier (Mt 11-"). In His native Aramaic, Abba was the mode of address in prayer that came most naturallj- to His lips, and became a tradition in the worship of the early Christian Church (Ro S'*). That the re- lation claimed by Jesus was a special one, is indi- cated by His use of the expression ' my Father ' in Mt ir-^ IS** 20^, whereas in Mt 6^- 10^ God is spoken of to the audience "before Jesus as ' your Fatlier.' More significant still is the designation of Himself as 'beloved Son' in the parable of the "S'ineyard let out to Husbandmen (Mk 12«), and also by the voice which spoke to Him from heaven at His baptism (Mt 3'^- '% Mk V'- ", Lk 3->- --). Upon this unquestionable basis of language em- ployed by Jesus respecting Himself, the frequent application of this designation ' Son of God ' to
♦ Je^us, p. ITS. Bousset, however, refuses to include in Christ's conception of the title 'Son of Man' the idea of His own judgeship (p. 194).
f Cf. Mk 13-'« ■^, Mt 2531-32, 2 Co 510. See also Friedlander, Die religiosen Bewegungen innerhalb dev Judentums im Zeit- alUr Jesu, p. 325.
176
MESSIAH
MESSIAH
Christ in the Pauline Epistles, and of tlie same phrase with the epithet /jLovoyevTjs in the Johannine writings, was obviously founded. In the memor- able scene at Caesarea Philippi, when Jesus ques- tioned His discijjles as to their belief respecting Himself, Peter, according to the Matthew tradi- tion, replied, ' Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God' (Mt 16^"). This would seem to imply that the expression ' Son of God ' was a ]\Iessianic title. But in this connexion two things should be noted : (1) jNIk 8-^ gives Peter's reply in the briefer form ' Thou art the Messiah.' (2) There is scarcely any evidence in later Jewish literature to indicate that the phrase ' Son of God ' was used as a Messianic title.* This is the more remarkable when we remember Ps 2'' ' Jahweh hatli said unto me, Thou art my son, this day I have begotten thee,' and the old Semitic conceptions of divinity which attached to kingship, reflected in Assyrian inscriptions (see above, p. 171). Probably the stern monotheism of later post-exilic Judaism tended to suppress language which seemed to attribute Div- inity to an earthly human personality.