in
furthering
and
defending
His
own
lite
there
rose
temptations,
not
merely
at
the
outset
but
repeatedly
later,
which
involved
Him
in
a
real
conflict.
He
is
pictured
as
sharing
in
the
common
secular
beliefs
of
His
age
and
country.
Certainly
He
exhibits
at
times
an
extraordinary
degree
of
penetration
into
the
thoughts
of
men;
but
to
speak
of
Him
as
omniscient,
whether
in
regard
to
the
past
or
the
future,
is
simply
to
desert
our
sources
(Mk
IS^^).
He
asks
questions
to
elicit
information;
He
feels
and
expresses
surprise;
He
looks
to
find
fruit
upon
the
fig-tree,
and
there
is
none.
So
far
from
being
manifestations
of
omnipotence.
His
miracles
are
done
through
faith
in
the
power
of
God,
the
gift
of
which
is
sought
in
prayer
and
acknowledged
with
thankfulness
(Mk
7",
Mt
14").
Finally,
it
is
impossible
not
to
feel
that
most
theological
attempts
to
vindicate
for
the
Jesus
of
the
Gospels
a
'double
consciousness'
or
'double
will'
—
the
one
human
and
limited,
the
other
infinite
and
Divine
—
not
merely
destroy
the
unity
of
the
impression
He
makes
on
us,
but
are
really
due
to
a
tendency,
devout
but
mistaken,
to
cast
back
upon
those
earthly
years
the
glory
of
the
risen
Lord.
This
totally
ignores
the
difference
in
Jesus'
status
which
the
uniform
teaching
of
the
NT
considers
to
have
been
made
by
the
Resurrection,
while
it
also
obscures
the
fact
—
indicative
of
the
vast
redeeming
sacrifice
of
God
—
that
the
life
of
Jesus,
the
Son
Incarnate,
was
a
life
in
the
flesh,
a
distinctly
human
phenomenon
which
moved
within
the
normal
lines
of
a
human
mind
and
will.
2.
Messiah.
—
The
first
article
in
the
creed
of
the
Apostles
is
the
Messiahship
of
the
crucified
and
risen
Jesus
of
Nazareth.
Certain
scholars
have
recently
denied
that
our
Lord
claimed
this
title
for
Himself;
but
we
may
fairly
say
that
on
such
terms
the
Gospel
narrative
becomes
a
chaos.
The
title
Messiah
('
Christ
'),
familiar
to
Jewish
religion
from
Ps
2,
denotes
in
general
the
anointed
Head
of
the
Kingdom
of
God,
the
new
King
of
a
redeemed
people;
and
Jesus,
retaining
the
outline
of
the
traditional
idea,
infused
into
it
a
new
spiritual
meaning,
which,
as
applied
to
Himself,
signified
that
He
was
not
a
new
Teacher
or
Lawgiver
or
even
the
Founder
of
a
new
faith,
but
the
Bearer
and
Finisher
of
divinely
wrought
salvation.
Full
consciousness
of
His
Messianic
function
must
have
come
to
Him
not
later
than
His
baptism
—
the
manner
of
its
coming
is
for
us
inexplicable
—
and
at
that
crisis
a
wonderful
bestowal
of
the
Spirit
equipped
Him
with
the
knowl-edge
and
power
demanded
by
this
vocation.
His
self-avowal
as
Messiah
was,
however,
marked
by
a
singular
reserve.
It
followed
from
His
novel
view
of
the
Kingdom
of
God,
as
the
spiritual
reign
of
a
Father
over
His
children
(no
doubt
in
eschatological
perspective)
,
that
His
conception
of
His
own
Kingship
also
moved
on
novel
lines.
Hence
the
almost
insurmountable
difBculty
of
revealing
Himself
as
the
expected
Deliverer
without
fanning
into
flame
such
political
passions
as
would
have
made
men
deaf
to
His
gospel.
It
is
noticeable,
therefore,
that
at
Nazareth
He
announced
Himself
not
as
Messiah,
but
as
a
prophet
(Lk
4i8).
We
are
probably
right
in
saying
that
St.
Peter's
confession
at
Csesarea
Philippi
(Mt
16")
was
the
earliest
point
at
which
the
Messianic
dignity
of
Jesus
became
the
explicit
subject
of
conversation
between
the
Master
and
the
Twelve;
this
may
be
inferred
with
certainty
from
the
wording
of
His
question
and
the
joy
He
evinced
at
the
reply.
He
greets
St.
Peter's
answer
with
extraor-dinary
emotion,
as
seeing
in
it
a
proof
that
the
men
nearest
to
Him
had
gained
a
clear
religious
view
of
the
meaning
of
His
life;
while
He
is
able
to
check
any
secular
anticipations
they
might
also
form
by
at
once
adding
the
prediction
of
His
death.
To
the
world
at
large,
however.
He
first
declared
His
Messiahship
when
arraigned
before
Caiaphas.
Our
Lord's
reply-
to
the
Baptist's
message
from
prison
(Mt
11™-)
^ves
us,
perhaps,
our
clearest
look
at
His
own
conception
of
the
Messianic
oflSce.
But
it
is
to
be
observed
that
He
did
much
more
than
modify
the
ancient
idea
ethically;
He
superseded
it
by
un-heard-of
personal
claims.
'Jesus
was
condemned
by
His
heathen
judge
as
a
usurper
of
the
throne,
by
the
Jewish
tribunal
as
One
who
pretended
to
such
a
dignity
as
had
never
been
conceded
even
to
the
Messiah'
(Dalman).
He
was
all
that
the
prophets
had
spoken,
and
much
more.
But
although
He
put
into
the
title
an
immensity
of
meaning
which
burst
its
real
limits,
and
in
a
sense
antiquated
it,
yet
the
historic
name
remains
to
teach
that
the
hopes
of
men
towards
Godhavenotbeen
vain,
and
that
it
is
through
a
personal
Deliverer
that
God's
redemption
comes.
Furthermore,
while
the
idea
of
a
suffering
Messiah
may
not
have
been
altogether
un-known
to
Rabbinical
theology,
it
was
Jesus
who
first
made
it
current
spiritual
coin.
Brooding
meditation
on
the
Suffering
Servant
of
Is
53
may
well
have
re-vealed
Him
to
Himself.
It
was
in
this
mode
—
■
through
the
felt
need
and
reality
of
saving
vicarious
sorrow
—
that
the
conception
of
Israel's
Messiah
was
so
glorified
as
to
pass
into
that
of
the
Redeemer
of
the
world.
But,
even
apart
from
this,
a
straight
line
can
be
drawn
from
the
Messianic
claim
of
Jesus
to
the
later
Christology
of
the
Apostles.
'With
the
recognition
of
Jesus
as
the
Messiah
the
closest
possible
connexion
was
established,
for
every
devout
Jew,
between
Jesus'
message
and
His
person,
for
it
is
in
the
Messiah's
activity
that
God
Himself
comes
to
His
people,
and
the
Messiah
who
does
God's
work
and
sits
at
His
right
hand
has
a
right
to
be
worshipped'
(Harnack).
3.
Son
of
Man.
—
This
title
is
used
only
by
Jesus,
and
applied
to
Himself
alone;
the
earliest
mention
of
it
in
the
Synoptic
narrative
being
Mk
2">-
'".
It
is
scarcely
probable,
as
Dalman
inclines
to
think,
that
Jesus
employed
it
for
the
first
time
after
St.
Peter's
con-fession;
yet
at
least
that
crisis
does
mark
an
incipient
understanding
of
its
significance
on
the
disciples'
part.
But
it
was
only
at
His
trial
(Mk
14®)
that
its
mean-ing
dawned
on
the
general
mind.
Its
absence
from
NT
writings
other
than
the
Gospels
(except
Ac
7'«)
is
intelli-gible
if
we
consider
that
ho
huios
tou
anthrSpou
is
a
phrase
which,
to
any
one
but
a
Jew,
would
require
too
much
explanation
for
convenience.
The
virtual
disappearance
of
the
title,
however,
proves
conclusively
that
it
was
no
invention
of
the
primitive
Christian
Society.
In
the
Synoptics
the
name
is
found
on
Jesus'
lips
about
40
times.
Various
writers
have
noted
that
the
passages
where
it
occurs
naturally
divide
into
two
groups,
as
they
refer
(o)
to
Jesus'
work
on
earth,
and
particularly
His
passion,
or
(6)
to
the
final
glory
of
His
Parousia.
It
is
observable
that
the
ratio
of
apocalyptic
passages
is
greater
in
the
closing
than
in
the
earlier
sections
of
the
narrative.
The
ultimate
source
of
the
title
is
not
a
question
of
first-
rate
importance,
and
anyhow
it
is
insoluolej
but
we
are
justified
in
regarding
Dn
7'^
as
at
all
events
its
proximate
source,
since
Jesus
obviously
refers
to
this
passage
in
His
self-avowal
before
the
Sanhedrin.
We
must
also
be
pre-pared
to
allow
for
the
influence
of
Ps
8
and
perhaps
Ezk
2"".
Whether
in
Dn
7^^
'one
like
unto
a
son
of
man'
denotes
the
ideal
Israel
or
an
idealized
person,
it
is
hard
to
say,
but
the
exegetical
probabilities
are
decidedly
in
favour
of
the
former
explanation.
Later
Jewish
thought,
however,
read
the
passage
in
a
Messianic
sense;
and
m
the
Similitudes
of
the
Book
of
Enoch
(probably
B.C.
96-64)
the
Son
of
Man
is
a
supernatural
person,
pre-existeot,
and(perhaps)identified
with
the
Isaianic
Servant
of
the
Lord.
Nothing
can
be
more
likely
than
that
Jesus
was
familiar
with
this
circle
of
ideas;
and
in
practically
every
case
His
use
of
the
title
is
intelligil^le
only
if
it
denotes
an
mdividual.
Recently
the
argument
has
been
used
that
the
distinction
existing
in
Greek
between
'man'
and
'son
of
man'
could
not
have
been
expressed
in
Aramaic,
and
that
we
are
consequently
debarred
from
supposing
that
by
the
expression
Jesus
meant
more
than
simply
'man'
as
such;
_
but
Dalman,
followed
by
Driver,
has
put
forward
convincing
reasons
for
denying
this
.
Hence
we
may
reasonably
assume
both
that
Jesus
called
Himself
'
the
Son
of
Man,'
and
that
He
did
so
frequently.
