222 NAMES AND TITLES OF CHRIST
N^AMES AND TITLES OF CHEIST
Peter's boat after the second stilling of the storm on the lake (Mt 14^^). Again, as already noted, Peter confessed 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' To these may be added the testimony at the cross by the centurion and others (Mt 27^^), ' Truly this was the (a) son of God.' Of its use by Jesus Himself the Sj'noptists record no direct instance, though they record allusions in His parabolic teaching which clearly point to Him- self as the Son of the King (Mt 222"-) or of the Lord of the vineyard (Mt 2P^-s9 || Mk 12*'-s |! Lk 20i3-i3), and take note of His acceptance of the title as in- volved in His answer to the direct questions of the chief priests and scribes, ' Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed ? ' (Mk U^i) ; ' Art thou then the Son of God ? ' (Mt 26«3, of. Lk 226'- ™). Further, in the baptismal formula Jesus instructs tlie disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Mt 28^9).
In addition to the instances already cited in which He was called ' Son of God ' by others, there are those in which Jesus Avas challenged to prove Himself Son of God by coming down from the cross, though in the latter case the title is used in its purely Messianic sense as that was currently understood among the Jews (^It 27*).
In the Fourtli Gospel, on the other hand, con- siderable promineTice is given to our Lord's claim to be the Son of God. In the discourses of our Lord as recorded by St. John, Jesus clearly con- veys the impression that the Divine Sonship there spoken of means very much more than was in- volved in the popular Messianic use of the name. But even in that Gospel the actual use of the title is confined to a very few passages. Jesus applies it to Himself in the narrative of the man who was born blind (O^'"^^) ; again (10^'') where He says, 'I said, I am the Son of God'; justifying His claim to the title in that passage in which He says ' The Father loveth the Son,' etc. (Jn 5-") ; in His re- marks on the illness of Lazarus : ' This sickness is . . . for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby' (11'') ; and in the Inter- cessory Prayer (17'). Elsewhere He is acknow- ledged as the Son of God by Nathanael (l'*^) and by Martha (IP"). Among the charges brought against Him by His enemies this is specially emphasized, that ' He made himself the Son of God' (19^).
The couc]usi(m to which we are led by a careful consideration of sucli instances as we find in the Gospels of the use of the name ' Son of God ' is, that, as it had come to be employed by the Jews, it was at best a vague and indefinite term. It did not necessarily involve the conception of essential Deity, eternal participation in the attributes of Godliead. The object of the Gospels was to show how Jesus appeared as the Revealer of the Father, and that salvation could come only through One who was Himself equal with God assuming the nature of humanity, dwelling among men, and suffering in their place. Such a revelation so far transcended the current expectations of the people as to the nature and work of the promised Messiah, that the full realization of the significance of Christ's mission could not be attained until His work was completely accomplished and Jesus was revealed as the Son of God with power. This view of the history of the title ' Son of God ' is well illustrated l)y Wendt {The Teaching of Jesus, ii. p. 133) : ' According to the Jewish idea, the Messianic King was also Son of God ; according to Jesus' idea, the Son of God as such was the Messianic King.' Here as elsewhere Jesus sought to enlarge and elevate the current conception of the Messianic hope, and to show that the Redeemer of Israel and the Avorld was none else than tlie Son of God, by nature and essence equal with God, and not
in that secondary sense in which that name had hitherto been understood. Such a revelation could be made only gradually, hence the sparing use by Christ of the title ' Son of God.'
The Fourth Gospel gives special prominence to the doctrine of the essential Divine Sonship of Jesus. That indications of it are found in the Synoptists themselves is evident not only from the cases already cited, the testimony of the voice from heaven at the Baptism and at the Trans- figuration, and our Lord's argument from Ps 110^ that Christ must be more than Son of David since David himself calls Him Lord, but from such an utterance as this of our Lord Himself recorded by St. Matthew and St. Luke : ' All things are de- livered unto me of my Fatlier : and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father ; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom- soever the Son will reveal him' (Mt 11-' || Lk 10"). But our Lord's claim to be Son of God /car' e^oxv" is one of the central features of the Johan- nine discourses no less than of the teaching of St. John himself. . St. John identifies Christ with the Eternal Logos, and calls Him 'the only-begotten of the Father' (Jn 1'^) ; and Jesus apjjlies to Him- self the same expression (3'^- "^) in terms which distinctly assort His essential Sonship and His pre-existence, and declares that the unbelieving are ' condemned already ' because they have ' not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God' (3'^). Jesus associates His work with that of the Father (5'^), and that in such a Avay as at once to expose Himself to the charge of blasi^hemy. So .the Evangelist tells us that the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because ' He said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God ' (5^**), their interpretation of His words being justified by His language on other occasions, as when He said, ' Before Abraham was, I am ' (8'"*), an expression at once suggestive of the Tetra- grammaton, the sacred name Jehovah itself. And notwithstanding the fact that the Jews put such a construction upon His words, Jesus enlarged upon the theme, and claimed for Himself power and authority to give life to the dead and to execute judgment (5'"'^*'). In the same connexion He declares it to be the Father's will ' that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father ' (5'-^^) ; and in other places asserts His essential oneness with the Father (10^"), and claims to have shared His glory ' before the world was ' (17^). He claims, moreover, to have received from the Father 'power over all flesh,' to 'give eternal life to as many as ' the Father has ' given him ' (17'-) ; while in more than one passage emphasis is laid ujjon the fact that He came from God and should return to Him (13^ e^*- *«• «'2 7-'s. 33, se gu. le. is. 26. 42 IQ2S. 30) Again, while He teaches His disciples to regard God as their Father (so 20^'', wliere He says ' My Father and your Father '), and to pray to Him as such (as He does also in the Synoptic Gospels), ' He never places His filial relationship on a level with theirs' (Weiss). On the contrary. He speaks at times of the Fatherhood of God with exclusive reference to Himself, as, e.g., where He says (6'^^), ' Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father,' a passage which, as Holtzmann points out, ' shows clearly that there the historical apjjearance of the Son is connected with the supra-historical being of the pre-exist ent Logos.'