into being through the power of the Holy Gboat (L^ike I i, 36), because he is conceived by the power of the Holy I Ghost (Matt, i, 20), and so is from a divine essence, he has the name Son of God (Luke i, 86, 82) ; God teiih us (Matt.i,83); God has in him redeemed his people (Luke ii, 11), yea, all mankind (Luke ii, 14, 81). And it is nc^ one of the natures that has this name, but the entire person. But what this is by nature and in itself^ that must it become through a truly human development So &r as he verifies and morally realizes this natural divine Sonship, we have (2) the second meaning of the phrase '* Son of God," viz. the ethical sonship (Luke ii, 49, 52; iv, 8, 9). That he also, in this sense, per- fectly represented the Sonship of God was, for the time preceding this public manifestation, attested by the at- terance at his baptism (Matt, iii, 17). Without the physical sonship as a presupposition, the ethical would be impossible, whereby he is the Holy One of God, the sinless man, come to bring, personally in hlmsell^ the divine law into actual manifestation (Matt v, 17); but even on that account, in a perfectly human way, in a progressive manifestation, advancing through con- i fllct (Matt xix, 16, 17 ; Mark x, 18 ; Luke iv, 13 ; xiii, i 49, 50). So (3) without both the physical and the etb- I ical, the official sonship would be impossible ; which, conversely, is as natundly and necessarily the end of both the others as the ethical is of the physicaL This third meaning of the phrase is, indeed, that commonly attributed to it, as a designation of the Messiah, by hk contemporaries; but this will not justify ns in redu- cing the Christian idea of the divine Sonship within the meagre limits of the Jewish ideas of the Messiah" (Domer, vol. i, 52 sq.). See Mkbbtah ; Sok of God. (2.) Christ calls himself also, and most commonly, vib^ dvBpwirovi Son of Man (about eighty times in all the Gospels. See Englishman's Greek Concordaieej s. v.). .The use of this phrase clearly denotes his true and perfect manhood. **But why should Christ use it? Why call himself 'a man ?' Is it not because, in the mind of Christ, the sense of human sonship was secondary to that of the divine ? But why call himiylf not simply man, or the son of a man, but * the Son of Man ?' Is it not because he, being divine, could not be simply a man, like others, imperfect, or even sinful ? Does not the phrase, as thus used by Christ, indicate, not simply that there lies in him, of necessity, a perfect equality with others in what is essential to humanity, but also that, at the same time, he corresponds to the ideal conception of man ?" (Domer, L c). The ex- pression, the Son of Man, -while it places Christ, ^in one view, on common ground with us, as flesh of cor flesh and bone of our bone, already indicates, at Hae same time, that he is more than an ordinary individ- ual ; not merely a son of man, like all other descend- ants of Adam, but the Son of Man ; the Man, in the highest sense ; the ideal, the universal, the absohite Man ; the second Adam, descended from heaven ; the Head of a new and superior order of the race, the King of Israel, the Messiah' ' (Schaff, 1. c). So also Trench : *'He was ^Son qfMan,* as alone realizing all whkfa in the idea of man was contained, as the second Adam, the head and representative of the race— the one tme and perfect flower, which ever unfolded itself, of the root and stock of humanity. Claiming this title as his own, he witnessed against opposite poles of error con- cerning his person — ^the Ebionite, to which the exdn- sive use of the title, * Son of David,* might have led, and the Gnostic, m^hich denied the reality of the hnmaa nature that bore it" Notes on the Parables^ 9th Lond. ed. p. 84. (Matt ix, 27; xv, 22; xii, 23; ^irxi^ 9; xxii, 41 sq., etc.)
** The appellation the Son of Man does not express, then, as many suppose, the humiliation and conde- scension of Christ simply, but his elevation rather above the ordinary level, and the actualization, in hhn and through him, of the ideal standard o7 human na- ture under its moral and religious aspect, or in its re-
CHRISTOLOGT
279
CHRISTOLOGY
lation to God. This interpretation is suggested gram- xnaticallj by the use of the definite arUde, and histor- ically by the origin of the term in Dan. vii, 18, where it signifies the Messiah, as the head of a univerBal and eternal kingdom. It commends itself^ moreover, at once, as the most natural and significant, in such pas- sages as, * The Son of Man hath power to forgive sins' (Matt, ix, 6; Mark ii, 10); ' The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath day* (Matt, zii, 8; Mark ii, 28); ' The Son of Man shall come in the glory of liis Fa- ther ;' ' The Son of Man is come to save* (Matt xviii, U; comp. Lake six, 10). Even those passages which are quoted for the opposite view receive, in oar inter- pretation, a greater force and beaaty from the sublime contrast which places the voluntary condescension and homility of Christ in the most striking light, as when be says, * Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, bat the Son of Man hath not where to lay his head* (Luke ix, 58); or, 'Whosoever will be. chief among yon, let him be your servant ; even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to mini^ ter, and to g^ve his life a ransom for many* (Matt, xx, 27, 28). Thus the manhood of Christ, rising far a^ve all ordinary manhood, though freely coming down to its lowest ranks with the view to their elevation and redemption, is already the portal of his Godhead.'* (Scha^ PWMH of Chritt, 118 sq.). Christ also, in many passages, calls himself simply **The Son,*' who stands to the Father in relations so peculiar that he never calls God " Our Father," as he directs his follow- ers to do, but **My Father," from whom he received witness at the Transfiguration as the only and well-be- loved Son. Among the twU ascribed to Christ in the synoptical Gospels (leaving out his mhracles), one of the most significant is the forgiveness of sins, which he claims as his attribute as the " Son of Man" (Matt, ix, 2, 6; Luke, v, 20, 24); and which the Pharisees considered blasphemous, as well they might, if Christ had been simply man. In instituting the rite of bap- tism, he pats his own title, ** Son," along with that of the Father and of the Holy Ghost. Further, he as- cribes to himself a power infinitely beyond the human, and in this respect puts himself on an equality with God (Luke x, 22; Matt, xxviii, 18) (Domer, L c). See Son of Man.