PERSON
OF
CHRIST
In
asking
what
Jesus
meant
by
this
self-designation,
we
ought
to
remember
that
a
given
expression
may
have
one
meaning
for
the
spealser
and
another
for
his
audience.
Still,
one
or
two
things
are
clear.
It
is
quite
un-Biblical
to
interpret
the
title
as
equivalent
to
'the
Idea
of
man'
or
'the
ideal
man';
this
conception
Is
Hellenic
rather
than
Jewish,
and
though
it
is
em-
bodied
in
the
character
of
the
Son
of
Man
as
realized
in
Jesus,
it
is
not
strictly
present
in
the
name.
Again,
the
term
was
certainly
not
meant
by
Jesus
as
a
dogmatic
asser-tion
of
His
true
humanity;
for
of
that
no
one
was
in
doubt.
What
we
judge
to
have
really
happened
is
this:
taking
the
title
freely
as
given
in
Dn
7,
and
possibly
influenced
by
the
Similitudes
of
Enoch
or
kindred
ideas,
Jesus
began
by
using
it
to
mean
special
or
representative
humanity
as
appointed
to
transcendent
glory
and
dominion;
but
later
He
defined
and
enriched
this
meaning
in
a
singular
way
by
introducing
the
idea
of
suffering.
On
His
lips,
indeed,
the
name
always
had
an
educative
aim.
It
was,
as
it
were,
a
suggestive
mystery,
as
much
a
problem
as
a
disclosure.
The
title
was
traditional,
yet
it
awaited
final
interpretation;
and
this
Jesus
gave
by
stamping
on
it
the
impress
of
Himself.
Its
educative
value
lay
in
this,
that
while
in
no
sense
can
it
be
called
a
popular
or
transparent
designation
of
the
Messiah
—
otherwise
Jesus'
question
in
Mt
16"
is
meaningless—
it
yet
hinted
Messiahship
to
those
who
cared
to
search
deeper.
Thus,
breaking
the
bounds
of
the
past,
Jesus
poured
into
the
name
a
significance
of
His
own,
outstripping
all
previous
Messianic
ideals,
as,
e.g.,
when
He
claimed
that
the
Son
of
Man
had
power
on
earth
to
forgive
sins
(Mt
9«||).
It
is
a
title
wliich
denotes
the
vocation
rather
than
the
nature
of
Him
who
bears
it;
and
we
are
led
to
think
that
Jesus
chose
it
deliberately
in
order
to
veil,
for
a
time.
His
personal
claim
to
Messiahship.
As
used
by
our
Lord,
then,
the
name
'Son
of
Man'
is
intrinsically
a
paradox.
It
binds
Jesus
to
humanity,
yet
singles
Him
out
from
other
men.
It
predicates
of
Him
alike
supramundane
glory
and
earthly
humilia-tion.
It
unites
in
itself
the
contrast
of
anticipation
and
reality,
of
the
future
and
the
present.
Yet
this
seeming
contradiction,
far
from
being
fatal
to
the
internal
coherence
of
the
idea,
is
really
constitutive
of
it.
It
is
just
through
present
suffering
and
indignity
that
He
who
is
to
be
Saviour
and
Judge
passes
to
His
Kingdom.
'The
"
Son
of
Man,"
in
the
mature
mind
of
Jesus,
is
the
Person
who
unites
a
career
of
utmost
service
and
suffering
with
a
sure
prospect
of
tran-scendent
glory.
And
herein
we
touch
at
once
the
depth
and
height
of
His
originality'
(Muirhead).
He
trained
the
disciples
to
grasp
this
novel
view
of
what
it
meant
to
be
Messiah;
and
when
they
at
last
understood
Him,
what
their
minds
dwelt
on,
and
held
fast,
as
indicated
by
the
title
so
interpreted,
was
not
the
Divine
origin
of
Jesus;
it
was
rather
His
Divine
calling
and
the
Divine
destiny
that
awaited
Him.
For
them
'Son
of
Man'
pointed
to
the
future
more
than
to
the
past.
4.
Son
of
God.
—
There
are
several
occasions
in
the
Synoptic
narrative
on
which
this
title
is
addressed
to
Jesus
—
e.g.
by
the
possessed
(Mk
3"),
by
unbelieving
Jews
(Mt
27"),
by
the
centurion
(Mk
15"),
and
con-structively
by
Caiaphas
(Mt
26«')
—
where
it
cannot
have
anything
like
its
full
significance
for
a
Christian
mind.
It
is
at
most
only
a
synonym
of
Messiah.
Even
when
at
the
Baptism
a
Divine
voice
hails
Him
as
God's
beloved
Son,
the
words
denote
simply
His
definitive
consecration
to
the
Messianic
oflice,
as
is
shown
by
the
clear
echo
of
Ps
2'.
In
the
OT,
we
should
note,
the
title
'Son
of
God'
is
applied
to
the
chosen
people,
to
the
theocratic
king
who
rules
and
represents
it,
and
to
the
perfect
King
who
is
to
come.
The
outer
side
of
this
relation
to
God
consisted
in
the
possession
of
His
power
and
glory;
the
inner
side
was
the
enjoyment
of
His
love
as
its
chosen
object.
It
was
on
the
inner
side
of
this
relation
that
the
mind
of
Jesus
dwelt.
In
the
Synoptic
records
He
does
not
PERSON
OF
CHRIST
Himself
use
the
full
title
'Son
of
God';
probably
because
It
was
too
familiar
as
a
designation
of
the
Messiah.
But
there
are
indications
that
the
name
which
He
chose
to
express
His
own
view
of
His
Person
is
simply
'the
Son.'
Not
only
does
this
form
occur
in
three
important
passages
(Mt
11",
Mk
IZ'',
and
possibly
Mt
28i»),
certain
pieces
of
indirect
evidence
also
bear
on
the
point,
such
as
His
veiled
reference
to
His
Sonship
in
the
parable
of
the
Vineyard,
His
question
to
St.
Peter
as
to
the
taxing
of
kings'
sons,
and
His
conversation
with
the
scribes
about
David's
Son
and
David's
Lord.
Much
more
significant,
however,
is
His
habit
of
naming
God
'my
Father'
(Mt
7«
lO^^
125»
etc.
and
||),
a
phrase
which,
beyond
all
serious
doubt,
puts
His
relation
to
God
in
a
place
distinctly
by
itself.
St.
Luke
represents
the
dawning
consciousness
of
this
unique
Sonship
as
already
present
at
the
age
of
twelve
(2").
The
classical
passage
bearing
on
this
point
is
Mt
ll^':
'
All
things
are
delivered
unto
me
of
my
Father:
and
no
man
knoweth
the
Son,
but
the
Father;
neither
knoweth
any
man
the
Father,
but
the
Son,
and
he
to
whomsoever
the
Son
willeth
to
reveal
him.'
Here
we
ought
to
note
distinctly
the
unqualified
assertion
that
the
mutual
rela-tion
existing
between
Father
and
Son
is
a
perfect
one.
Not
only
is
the
Father's
nature
open
to
Jesus,
without
that
sense
of
mystery
of
which
prophets
and
saints
have
always
been
conscious,
not
only
is
the
knowledge
which
Jesus
has
of
God
complete,
final,
and
unattainable
by
others
except
as
mediated
through
Him;
but
in
like
manner
Jesus'
nature
is
open
to
the
Father,
and
to
Him
alone.
He
stands
to
God
in
a
relation
of
intimacy
such
as
no
other
can
share,
since
even
those
who
become
the
sons
of
God
through
Him
are
sons
only
in
a
secondary
and
derivative
sense.
God
and
Jesus
belong
together
in
a
fashion
transcending
man's
intelligence;
their
personal
life
is
one;
and
it
is
constituted
by
a
reciprocal
fellowship
in
which
Fatherhood
and
Sonship
are
uniquely
perfect.
This
is
not
merely
a
new
idea;
the
new
idea
is
the
expression
of
a
new
fact.
What
has
been
said
is
enough
to
cast
some
doubt
on
the
correctness
of
Harnack's
finding.
'The
conscious-ness,'
he
writes,
'which
Jesus
possessed
of
being
the
Son
of
God
is,
therefore,
nothing
but
the
practical
consequence
of
knowing
God
as
the
Father
and
as
His
Father.
Rightly
understood,
the
name
of
Son
means
nothing
but
the
knowledge
of
God'
(What
is
Christianityf
p.
131).
But
we
are
not
justified
in
confining
the
relation
of
Sonship
to
the
sphere
of
special
knowledge;
a
unity
which
is
nothing
if
not
personal
is
not
thus
to
be
lowered
to
the
plane
of
mere
cognition.
We
are
aware
that
there
was
a
time
when
our
knowledge
began
to
be;
but
Jesus'
filial
relation
to
God,
so
far
at
least
as
His
own
words
suggest,
had
no
beginning,
none
at
all
events
of
which
He
was
conscious.
In
Dalman's
words,
it
seems
'to
be
naturally
bound
up
with
His
person;
for,
in
distinction
from
every
one
else,
just
as
it
is
by
birth
that
a
son
becomes
heir,
so
the
prospect
of
universal
rule
and
the
possession
of
immediate
knowledge
of
God
were
His.'
For
Jesus'
mind,
as
we
can
study
it
in
the
Synoptics,
the
secret
and
origin
of
His
own
Person
lay
hid
in
God's
creative
love.
So
far,
alike
in
His
self-disclosure
and
in
the
estimate
of
disciples,
we
have
no
sign
of
a
strict
doctrine
of
incarna-tion
or
of
two
natures
united
in
one
person;
what
we
do
have
is
the
subduing
delineation
of
One
who,
in
virtue
of
a
career
of
patient
service
and
of
suffering
unto
death,
is
the
perfect
Revealer
of
God
and
the
destined
Ruler
of
the
world.
But
it
is
made
undeniably
plain
that
His
Sonship
lifts
Him
out
of
the
context
of
sinful
humanity,
and
puts
Him
in
a
relation
to
God
which
cannot
be
fully
interpreted
by
any
of
the
general
cate-gories
of
human
life.
By
calling
Himself
'Son'
He
describes
what
He
is
for
God;
but
He
does
so
without
giving
any
explanation
of
it,
or
explicitly
following
it
backwards
or
forwards
in
its
eternal
relations.
Not
that
these
relations
are
thereby
denied,
or
made
of
no
account
in
the
interpretation
of
the
name.
All
that
the
