Literature. — Works quoted ; Martin Crugott, Der Christ in der Eivsamkeit (1761) ; I. G. Zimmermann, Die Einsamkeit (1784); 'R. \Y. Y.mer8on, Society and Solitude {1%&1); P. Zingerle, Meden des hi. Ephraem iiber Selbstverleugnung und einsame Lehensweise, aus dein. Syr. uhersetzt. (1871) ; H. D. Thoreau, Walden (repr. 1886) ; T. T. Lynch, Letters to the Scattered, 522 ; F. W. Robertson, Serm. i. 220; Martineau, Endeavours, 159; Rendel Harris, Memor. Sacra, 135. J. O. HANNAY.
SOLOMON. — Jesus makes two references to Solomon, speaking on one occasion of his ' glory,' and on another of his 'wisdom.' In Mt 6"^^ = Lk 12^^ He places the jjure natural beauty of the lilies above the consummate type of artificial splendour, and uses tlie contrast to point the lesson of trustful dependence upon God, the Giver of all that is necessary for the body as well as for the spirit. In Mt 12^^ = Lk IP^ the eagerness of Solomon's contemporaries to hear his words of worldly wisdom is contrasted with the indifference and spiritual blindness of the men of Jesus' own day, who failed to understand and appreciate the truer wisdom of a greater teacher.
For ' Solomon's Porch ' see Temple.
C. H. Thomson.
SON, SONSHIP.—
uii;, which definiteIy = 'son,' is of commonest occurrence in the Gospels, though the more indefinite rixvov is also frequently used interchangeably with vUs. The use of rixvov in the vocative as an affectionate form of address (' child,' ' my child ') is specially noticeable (see, e.g., Mk 25, Lk 248 1531, Mt 2128). The latter term is several times rendered ' son ' in EV without discrimination. RV, indeed, usuallj' indicates 'child' in mg. as the exact equivalent, but this is not always the case (see Mt 2128 rixvx).
1. The duties and privileges of the filial relation find frequent incidental illustration in the Gospels. The son has a natural claim on parental bounty (Mt 7^) ; he is the object of deep parental love and solicitude (Mt lO^'^ 20'^'"-). (A peculiar appeal to such .solicitude is made in Lk 14^, if we are to follow the best attested reading (see RVm) ; though the collocation of vids and /3o0s is so odd that it is a temptation to defy the canons of textual criticism, and, following rather the analogy of kindred pas- sages (13l^ Mt 12"), still read 6pos). By con- sequence, strife between father and son is a most painful form of estrangement (Lk 12^^), whilst the restoration of a happy relationship between those who have been so estranged calls for the highest rejoicing (Lk 15^'^"^). The natural heirship of the son appears in Mk 12" (and parallels) and in Lk 15^2^ where the technical term {to ^Tri/3dXXoi' fi^pos) for the heir's portion occurs (see Deissmann, Bible Studies, Eng. tr. p. 230). In the former instance— the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen _ — the position of an onlj^ son as carrying with it sole heirship is emphasized. The 6 vibs 6 dyaTryirbs of Lk 20^^, in this connexion, appears to be tanta- mount to 6 w6s 6 ixovoyfV7}s (Jn S'"), as denoting an only son (cf. also Mt 3" H^ etc.). In the latter case (Lk 15^^) we have a son claiming and obtaining his inheritance during his father's lifetime. This
serves the purpose of the parable ; but it may be doubted whether such an occurrence was common in actual life. The counsels of ancient Jewish prudence (Sir 33^"*-) were, at any rate, dead against it. The more usual course is exemplified in the case of the elder son, whose share in the patrimony was still in his father's hands (Lk IS^^), but was fully assured to him in spite of his complaint in v.^" (6 Karafpaydii' aov rbv ^lov). A special instance of a son's privilege is made use of in Mt H^''*- ; the sons of ' the kings of the earth ' are exempt (iXevdepoi) from the tribute exacted from their sub- jects.
On the other hand, the duty of sons to render obedience, service and help to parents similarly appears. The parable of the Two Sons (Mt 2\-^«'-) thus illustrates filial dutifulness and undutifulness. The significance of our Lord's words, ' Behold thy son,' in Jn 19^^, is at once understood as securing loving care and provision for His mother (v.-'). Christ's interpretation of the Fifth Commandment as involving the duty of helping and supporting parents in case of need, is accompanied by a biting denunciation of the PharLsaic ruling that such duty could be nullified by a vow (Mk 7^"*" Corban).
It is clear that Jesus found in sonship an instru- ment of prime importance for the illustration and enforcement of His teaching. It is certain His exemplification of the filial relationship in His own life was perfect. The scanty hints of Lk 2^"'^^ (in such striking contrast to the volubility of the Apocryphal narratives) may be accepted as witness- ing to such a fulfilment of filial duties during the long years of silence as makes Him the very ' flower and pattern ' of all good sons. Mary's surprised expostulation in v.'*^ suggests the perfect dutiful- ness of His childhood's years ; and we may be sure the child was ' father of the man,' as to what He was in the after-time as (probably) the mainstay and head of the home at Nazareth on the death of Joseph. Yet the day also came when He illustrated in His own experience His own exacting demand (Mt 10^^), and showed how filial regard must yield to higher claims, summing all up in the impressive logion of Mk 3^'*f- ( = Mt 12*8^-, cf. Lk S^i). Lk Ips embodies a similar sentiment.