' The idea of Sonship, which in Paul ig carefully subordinated to a strict monotheism, is accepted in its full extent. In the generation succeeding Paul the name " Son of God " had gradu- ally assumed the more definite meaning which the Greek language and forms of thought attached to it. The Fourth Evangelist employs it deliberately in the sense which it would convey to the ordinary Greek mind. Jesus as the Son was Himself of the same nature as the Father. All the divine powers and attributes devolved on Him in virtue of His inherent birthright as Son of God ' (E. F. Scott, The Fourth Gospel, 1906, p. 194).
As Son, Christ is now in heaven, whither He has ascended (3^=*) ; He is ' in the bosom of the Father ' {V% But He is also with and in the Church on earth. He has returned, in a very real sense, though not ' with the clouds of heaven.' And the story of His life on earth is written from the point of view of those who know Him to be, and to liave been all along, the Son of God from heaven (3"- ^^ etc.). He has been recognized as Divine, and Divine in such a sense that even in His human manifestation He retained attributes of Godhead. Omniscience is not obscurely claimed for Him (1^^ 2-^ 417. 39) ; and His miracles are not so much Avorks of mercy as signs [arifie'la) of supernatural power.
The miracles are specially represented as attest- ing His claim to be Messiah (W% And that claim IS made for Him (p'-'JS) fi-om the very outset of His Ministry, and by Himself {^-^ lO^^), in the plainest terms ; while belief that He is the Messiah is re- presented as the condition of salvation (8^*; cf. 10^5). _ From the beginning also He exercises His Messianic authority {e.g. in the cleansing of the Temple, 2^3-n)^ ^nd ' reveals his [divine] glory ' (2"). The Baptist points to the descent of the Spirit ' as a dove from heaven' (132.34) ^s the proof of His Messiahship, not as the occasion of its inauguration.
The title 'Son of Man' also reappears in the Fourth Gospel (12 times), and still as the self- designation of Jesus. It retains what is probably the most significant feature of its use in the Synoptic Gospels, viz. the suggestion of contrast ; but whereas in the Synoptic Gospels the contrast may be either between the real glory of the Messiah and the lowliness of His appearance or betMeen the real lowliness of Jesus and the glory of His future, here it is uniformly the latter (1" 'Hereafter ye .shall see heaven opened and the angels of God ascend- ing and descending on the Son of man'; \^^ IS'^' ' Now is the Son of man glorified '). Tliis is still tlie case in tlie three instances which refer to tlie hftmg up of Christ (3'^ 8^^ 12'*^), where the ' lifting
up' involves not the Crucifixion alone but the Crucifixion as the preliminary to power and glory. "Viewed as one factor in the Johannine conception of Christ, the title lays stress on the weakness, humil- ity, and obscurity of His earthly manifestation.
But the Messiahship itself is looked at through the e.xperience of intervening years. The trans- mutation of eschatology has already been accom- plished. The Kingdom of God is such that it can be seen, and entered, only by those who have been 'born again,' those who are 'spirit' (3=*-^). It follows that the function of the Messiah in relation to that Kingdom is differently conceived. It is to declare the Father (V^), to give that knowledge of God which itself ' is life eternal ' (17^).
To Christ is assigned here also tlie function of Judge ; but it is no longer that of iudcx futurus. His presence in the world acts already as a Kpiffi^ (317-iy 522 939) , gygjj when He waives the function, it is because the words He has spoken have judg- ment-force (12'*0. It is to save the world that He has come, the Life, the Light, the Truth, or, in one chosen name, the Word of God.
This ' Logos-conception ' is neither the dominat- ing conception which has given shape to the con- tents of the Gospel, nor is it an after-thought. The Evangelist comes to that conception with his belief in Christ as the Divine Son of God already complete, with the various aspects of His nature and function already correlated and harmonized under that idea ; and adopts as a means of relating his central conception to contemporary Hellenistic thought the description of Logos for the Son of God.
' The Johannine Logos shows nothing of the fluctuating am- biguity which forms the characteristic quality of the Philonic. He is Personality through and through, and (what for Philo is an impossible thought) has entered on the closest union with the aap^, the anti-Divine principle' (Bauer, 'ad Jn I'.'in Hand- buch zum XT, 1912, p. 7 ; cf. also Bousset, Eyrios Christos, 1913, p. 187 note).
It would be the direct converse of that method, to begin with the conception of the Logos as current in Hellenistic speculation, and, having analyzed its contents, proceed to fit into harmony with its several elements the records of the life of Jesus which were relevant to liis purpose. He introduces the Logos as a term already familiar to his readers ; he reminds them of the nature, the prerogatives, the activity of the Logos, His sharing in the nature of God, His timeless being, His part in the work of creation ; and then says in ettect, ' This Logos is our Christ ; He became flesh ; and vve beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten of the Father.' And throughout the subsequent relation of His acts and words, that glory is allowed to shine.