Part 13 (1/2)

When, however, he found himself opposed by the criticis self-assertion and exalted personal clai his earlierof the teh it was no more than any prophet sure of his divine coe to the people to consider who he ho ventured thus to criticise the priestly ads with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman Jesus manifested a like readiness to draw attention to hi of the ospels represent hi his claims, with this difference, however, that in John it is the rule rather than the exception to find sayings siospels reaches its highest expression Although the method of Jesus varied at different times and in different localities, yet it is evident that he stood before the people froht to claiiance as no one of the prophets who preceded hi the course of his ministry Jesus used of himself, or suffered others to use with reference to him, many of the titles by which his people were accustomed to refer to the Messiah Thus he was named ”the Messiah” (Mark viii 29; xiv 61; John iv 26); ”the King of the Jews”

(Mark xv 2; John i 49; xviii 33, 36, 37); ”the Son of David” (Mark x

47, 48; Matt xv 22; xxi 9, 15); ”the Holy One of God” (John vi 69; compare Mark i 24); ”the Prophet” (John vi 14; vii 40) It is evident that none of these titles was common; they represent, rather, the bold venture of ent faith on the part of men ere impressed by hinificant of Jesus' thought about himself,--”the Son of God” and ”the Son of Man”

259 The latter of these titles is unique in the use JesusStephen's speech (Acts vii 56), it is found in the New Testanificance is still a subject of learned debate The expression is found in the Old Testament as a poetical equivalent for Man, usually with emphasis on huh sonity (Ps lxxx 17) Ezekiel was regularly addressed in his visions as Son of Man (Ezek ii 1 and often; see also Dan viii

17), probably in contrast with the divine majesty

260 In one of Daniel's visions (vii 1-14) the world-kingdoms which had oppressed God's people and were to be destroyed were syed lion, a bear, a four-headed winged leopard, and a terrible ten-horned beast; in contrast with these the kingdoh was represented by ”one like unto a son of man,” who cae is obviously poetic, and is used to suggest the unapproachable superiority of the kingdodoms of the world The expression ”one like unto a son ofreat influence over the author of the so-called Similitudes of Enoch (Book of Enoch, chapters xxxvii to lxxi) He, however, personified the ”one like unto a son of ave the title ”the Son of Man” to the heavenly s, seated on God's throne, to judge the world

This author used also the titles ”the Elect One” and ”the Righteous One”

(or ”the Holy One of God”), but ”the Son of Man” is the prevalent name for the Messiah in these Similitudes

261 The facts thus stated do not account for Jesus' use of the expression Many of his sayings undoubtedly suggest a develop that in the Similitudes This does not prove that Jesus or his disciples had read these writings, though it does suggest the possibility that they knew theave forhts that were s ever cae of Jesus and that found in the Similitudes may therefore prove no more than that the Daniel vision was more or less commonly interpreted of a personal Messiah in Jesus' day

262 Much of the use of the title by Jesus, however, is coested by Enoch and Daniel Besides apocalyptic sayings like those in Enoch (Mark viii 38 and often), the nas and death (Mark viii 31 and often), and in claims to extraordinary if not essentially divine authority (Mark ii 10, 28 and parallels); it is also used sometimes simply as an emphatic ”I”

(Matt xi 19 and often) Whatever relation Jesus bore to the Enoch writings, therefore, the name ”the Son of Man” as he used it was his own creation

263 Students of Aramaic have in recent years asserted that it was not customary in the dialect which Jesus spoke to make distinction between ”the son of man” and ”man,” since the expression commonly used for ”man”

would be literally translated ”son of ospels be read substituting ”man” for ”the Son of Man” wherever it appears, it will be found that eneral stateatives of man, while in other places the name stands simply as an emphatic substitute for the personal pronoun Thus, for instance, Jesus is found to assert that authority on earth to forgive sins belongs to man (Mark ii 10), and, toward the end of his course, to have taught si (Mark viii 31), and will coe the world (Mark viii 38) The proportion of cases in which the general reference is possible is, however, very small; and even if the equivalence of ”man” and ”son of man” should be established, ospels use the latter expression exhibit a conception of hi that which would be tolerated in any other e spoken by Jesus is not yet closed, however, and Dr Gustaf Dalued that the equivalence of the two expressions holds only in poetic passages, precisely as it does in Hebrew, and that our gospels represent correctly a distinction observed by Jesus when they report hi in one sentence, ”the Sabbath was made for man” (Mark ii 27), and in the next, ”the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath” The antecedent probability is so great that the dialect of Jesus' ti a distinction found in the Hebrew of the Old Testament and in the Syriac of the second-century version of the New Testaht

264 Many of those who look for a distinct significance in the title ”the Son of Man,” find in it a claim by Jesus to be the ideal or typical hest expression It thus stands sharply in contrast with ”the Son of God,” which is held to express his claim to divinity So understood, the titles represent truth early recognized by the church in its thought about its Lord Yet it ed that the conception ”the ideal ht of those to whoested anything nity of hi like that found in the Si of the name appears in the perplexed question reported in John (xii 34): ”We have heard out of the law that the Messiah abideth forever; and how sayest thou, The Son of Man must be lifted up? who is this Son of Man?” Here the difficulty arose because the people identified the Son of Man with the Messiah, yet could not conceive how such a Messiah could die In fact, if the conception of the Son of Man which is found in Enoch had obtained any general currency a the people, either fron to the earthly condition and manner of life of the Galilean prophet, that it would not have occurred to his hearers to treat his use of the title as a Messianic claim until after that claim had been published in some other and more definite form Their Son of Man was to come with the clouds of heaven, seated on God's throne, to execute judgment on all sinners and apostates; the Nazarene fulfilled none of these conditions The nama to the people, at least until he openly declared its Messianic significance in his reply to the high-priest's question at his trial (Mark xiv 62), and gave the council the ground it desired for a charge of blasphenify to Jesus? His use of it alone can furnish answer, and in this the variety is so great that it causes perplexity

”The Son of Man ca” is his description of his own life in contrast with John the Baptist (Matt xi 18, 19) ”The Son of Man hath not where to lay his head” was his reply to one over-zealous follower (Matt viii 20) Unsee his disciples was rebuked by the reminder that ”even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister” (Mark x 42-45) When it beca death he taught thesand be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mark viii 31) On the other hand, the paralytic's cure was made to demonstrate that ”the Son of Man hath authority upon the earth to forgive sins” (Mark ii 10) Similarly it is the Son of Man who after his exaltation shall coels” (Mark viii 38) In these typical cases the title expresses Jesus'

consciousness of heavenly authority as well as self-sacrificingexaltation as well as present lowliness; and the suffering and death which were the common lot of other sons of men were appointed for this Son of Man by a divine necessity The name is, therefore, more than a substitute for the personal pronoun; it expresses Jesus' consciousness of a mission that set him apart from the rest of men

266 We do not kno Jesus came to adopt this title Its association with the predictions of his colory shows that he knew that in him the Daniel vision was to have fulfil and death, however, are co akin rather, as Professor Charles has suggested, to the prophecies of the suffering servant in the Book of Isaiah (Book of Enoch, p

314-317) Moreover, it may not be fanciful to find in his claihth Psalm, ”Thou madest him to have dos under his feet” (see Dalh the nanity, vicarious hts found in Daniel, Isaiah, and the Psalms, it was not deduced from these scriptures by any synthesis of diverse ideas It rather indicates that Jesus in his own nature realized a synthesis which no aested He drew his conception of hie, not from his Messianic meditations On his lips, then, ”the Son of Man” indicates that he knew himself to be the Man whom God had chosen to be Lord over all (compare Dalman as above) The lowly estate which contradicted the Daniel vision prevented Jesus' hearers fro in the title a Messianic claim; for him, however, it was the expression of the very heart of his Messianic consciousness

267 If Jesus gave expression to his official consciousness when he used the name ”the Son of Man,” the title ”the Son of God” ht about hi of this title to the contemporaries of Jesus and his own conception of it In the popular thought ”the Son of God” was the designation of that nity and power for the deliverance of his people Thisfollowed from the Messianic interpretation of the second Psal is called God's son (Ps ii 7) In another psalistrates and judges are called ”sons of the Most High” (lxxxii 6) Another Old Testanation of Israel as God's son, his firstborn (Ex iv 22; Hos i 10), hich may be compared a remarkable expression in the so-called Psalms of Solomon (xviii 4), ”Thy chastisement was upon us [that is, Israel] as upon a son, firstborn, only begotten” In all these passages that which constitutes a man the son of God is God's choice of him for a special work, while Israel collectively bears the title to suggest God's fatherly love for the people he had taken for his own The Messianic title, therefore, described not a metaphysical, but an official or ethical, relation to God It is certainly in this sense that the high-priest asked Jesus ”Art thou the Messiah the son of the Blessed?” (Mark xiv 61), and that the crowd about the cross flung their taunts at him (Matt, xxvii 43), and the dee of him (Mark iii 11; v 7) The name must be interpreted in this sense also in the confession of Nathanael (John i 49);of the na God” in Peter's confession that gave it its great significance for Jesus In all of these cases there is no evidence that there has been any advance over the theocratic significance whichfor the man chosen by God for the fulfilment of his promises

268 The case is different with the name by which Jesus was called at his baptism (Mark i 11) The difference here, however, arises not fro in the name as used on this occasion, but froed and accepted the title With Jesus the consciousness that God was his Father preceded the knowledge that as ”his Son” he was to undertake the work of the Messiah The force of the call at the baptisave to the word ”Thou art my Son” The nature of that response is seen in his habitual reference to God as in a peculiar sense _his_ Father The na, and there is no evidence that he or any of his hearers regarded it as a novelty Psalm ciii 13 and Isaiah lxiii 16 indicate that the conception was natural to Jewish thinking The unique feature in Jesus' usage is his careful distinction between the general references to ”your Father” and his constant personal allusions to ”my Father” Witness the reply to his mother in the temple (Luke ii 49); his word to Peter, ”Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (Matt xvi 17), his sole, ”Not every one that saith unto dom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt vii

21), and the promise, ”Every one who shall confess me before menhim will I also confess before ospel the same intimate reference is common: so, for example, the temple is ”my Father's house” (ii 16), the Sabbath cure is defended because ”my Father worketh even until now” (v 17), the cures are done ”in My Father's name”

(x 25), ”I am the vine, and my Father is the husbandman” (xv 1) This mode of expression discloses a consciousness of unique filial relation to God which is independent of, even as it was antecedent to, the consciousness of official relation

269 The full name ”the Son of God” was seldom applied by Jesus to hiospel (v

25; ix 35?; x 36; xi 4) He frequently acquiesced in the use of the title by others in addressing him (for example, John i 49; Matt xvi 16; xxvi 63f; Mark xiv 61f; Luke xxii 70); but for himself he preferred the simpler phrase ”the Son” This mode of expression occurs often in John, and is found also in the two passages, already noticed, in which the other gospels give clearest expression to the extraordinary self-assertion of Jesus (Matt xi 27; Luke x 22; and Mark xiii 32) In the first of them his claim to be the only one who can adequately reveal God is founded on the consciousness that the relation between himself and God is so intimate that God alone adequately knows hiht, and he alone knows God This relation, in which he and God stand together in contrast with all other men, is expressed by the unqualified nae Jesus confessed the liain in such a way as to set himself and God in contrast not only with els in heaven” Such assertions as these indicate that he who, knowing his full humanity, chose the title ”the Son of Man” to express his consciousness that he had been appointed by God to be the Messiah, was yet aware in his inner heart that his relation to God was even closer than that in which he stood to oes beyond the two self-declarations of Jesus which crown the record of the other evangelists, yet in the fourth gospel the same claim to unique relation to God is more frequently and frankly avowed The most unqualified assertion of intimacy--”I and the Father are one” (x 30)--states what is clearly iospel (so xiv 6-11; xvi 25; and particularly xvii 21, ”that they may be one, even as we are one”) It has often been said, and truly, that this clainifies no more than perfect spiritual and ethical harmony with God Yet when the words are considered in their connection, and more particularly when the two supreospels are associated with them, they express a sense of relation to God so utterly unique, so strongly contrasting the Father and the Son with all others, that we cannot conceive of any otherlike words upon his lips

271 These titles in which Jesus gave expression to his official and his personal consciousness present clearly the probleht Jesus stands before us in the gospels as a man aware of completest kinshi+p with his brethren, yet conscious at the sa nearer to God than he does to ospel which records most fully the claim of Jesus to be more closely related to God than he was to ment of dependence on his Father, and of that Father's supre of himself” (John v 19), ”I speak not froreater than all” (x 29), ”the Father is greater than I” (xiv 28),--these confessions join with the common reference to God as ”hi voice to his own spirit of reverence It appears as clearly in his habitual submission to his Father's will,--”My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to accomplish his work” (John iv 34); ”I am come down from heaven, not to do mine oill, but the will of him that sent me” (John vi 38) This submission reached its fulness in the prayer of Gethses are possible unto thee; remove this cup from me: howbeit not what I will, but what thou wilt” (Mark xiv

36) Jesus was a hout his ht his Father in that coth for life's duty