The Lord of Glory; Counterfeit Miracles; Revelation and Inspiration

The proper subject of the New Testament is Christ. Every page of it, or perhaps we might better say Pervasive every line of it, has its place in the por- Witness of N. T. trait which is drawn of Him by the to Christ whole. In forming an estimate of the conception of His person entertained by its writers, and by those represented by them, we cannot neglect any part of its contents. We can scarcely avoid distinguishing in it, to be sure, between what we may call the primary and the subsidiary evidence it bears to the nature of His personality, or at least the more direct and the more incidental evidence. It may very well be, however, that what we call the subsidiary or incidental evidence may be quite as convincing, if not quite as important, as the primary and direct evidence. The late Dr. R. W. Dale found the most impressive proofs that the Apostles themselves and the primitive Churches believed that Jesus was one with God, rather in the way this seems everywhere taken for granted, than in the texts in which it is definitely asserted. “ Such

texts,” he remarks, “ are but like the sparkling crystals which appear on the sand after the tide has retreated; these are not the strongest — though they may be the most apparent — proofs that the sea is salt: the salt is present in solution in every bucket of seawater. And so,” he applies his parable, “ the truth of our Lord’s divinity is present in solution in whole

pages of the Epistles, from which not a single text could be quoted that explicitly declares it.”^

We need offer no apology, therefore, for inviting somewhat extended attention to one of the subsidiary Scope of evidence of the estimate put of this upon our Lord’s person by the wTiters Discussion New Testament and by our Lord as reported by them. We certainly shall not, by so doing, obtain anything like a complete view of the New Testament’s evidence for the dignity of His person. But it may very well be that we shall obtain a convincing body of evidence for it. What we purpose to do is to attend with some closeness to the designations which the New Testament writers apply to our Lord as they currently speak of Him. These designations will be passed rapidly under our eye with a twofold end in view. On the one hand we shall hope, generally, to acquire a vivid sense of the attitude, intellectual and emotional, sustained by the sev- - eral writers of the New Testament, and by the New Testament as a whole, to our Lord’s person. On the other, we shall hope, particularly, to reach a clearer notion of the loftiness of the estimate placed upon His person by these writers, and by those whom they represent. We are entering, then, in part upon an exposition, in part upon an argument. We wish to learn, so far as the designations applied to our Lord in the New Testament are fitted to reveal that to us, how the writers of the New Testament were accustomed to think of Jesus; we wish to show that they thought of Him above everything else as a Divine Person. For the former purpose we desire to pass in review the whole body of designations employed in the New Testament of our Lord; for the latter purpose, in passing this material in review, we desire to order it in such a manner as to bring into clear relief its testimony to the profound conviction cherished by our Lord’s first followers that He was of divine origin and nature. In prosecuting our exposition we shall seek to run cursorily through the entire New Testament; in framing our argument we shall lay primary stress on the Gospels, or rather on the Synoptic Gospels, and adduce the remaining books chiefly as corroborative and elucidative testimony to what we shall find In the evangelical narratives. Thus we hope to take at once a wide or even a complete view of the whole field, and to throw into prominence the unitary presupposition by the entire New Testament of the deity of our Lord.

We turn, then, first to the Gospels, and in the first Instance to the Synoptic Gospels. We observe at once of Our Lord tions they apply to our Lord fall into in the three general classes. They seem to be Synoptic Gospels purely ilesign^tory, generally hon-

■Orific, or specifically Messianic. Of all purely designatory designations, the personal name is the most natural and direct. We can feel no surprise, therefore, to learn that our Lord is spoken of in the Gospels most commonly by the simple name of ‘ Jesus.’ Nor shall we feel surprise to learn that the simplest honorific titles are represented as those most frequently employed in addressing Him, — ‘ Ra_bbi,’ with its Greek renderings, * Teacher ’ and ‘ Master,’ and its Greek representative, ‘ Lord.’ No Messianic title again is more often met with In the narrative of the Gospels than the simple

‘ Christ,’ although on our Lord’s lips ‘ the Son of Man’ is constant. The general effect of the narrative on the reader, who passes rapidly through it, noting particularly the designations employed of our Lord, is a strong impression that (He is thought of by the V writers, and is represented by them as thought of by His vcontemporary followers and by Himself, as a person ' of high dignity and unquestionable authority; and that this dignity and authority were rooted, both in their and in His estimation, in His Messianic character. If we are to take the designations employed in the Gospel narratives as our guide, therefore, we should say that the fundamental general fact which they suggest is that Jesus was esteemed by His first followers as the promised Messiah, and was looked upon with reverence and accorded supreme authority as such. Whether this impression is fully justified by the evi- ' dence when it is narrowly scrutinized; and if so what the complete significance of the fact so established is; and whether more than appears upon the surface of it is really contained in the fact — these are matters which must be left to a closer examination of the details to determine.

In undertaking such a closer examination of the details, it will conduce not only to clearness of treatstarting ment, but also to surety of result, to Point of the take up the several Gospels separately. Survey perhaps it may be as well to begin with the Gospel of Mark. It is the briefest and in some respects the simplest and most direct narrative we have of the career of our Lord. It may be supposed, therefore, to present to us the elements of our problem in their least complicated shape.

In Mark what we may call the narrative designation of our Lord is uniformly the simple ‘ Jesus.’^ Mark

Narrative no Other designation In his

Designation entire narrative.* On the other hand, he places this desigoation, In Its simplicity, In the mouth of no one else.® In the heading of his Gospel he sets, It Is true, that “ solemn designation of the Messianic personality,” ‘ Jesus Christ.’ This Is a designation not only which occurs nowhere else In this Gospel,^ but which occurs elsewhere In the four Gospels only rarely and only In similar formal connections. It seems' already, here at least, to be occurs seventy-three times in Mark. In all these instances it has the article, except the first (i»), where the article is absent in accordance with the general rule that names of persons occur first without the article, and after that take it.

2 In “Jesus Christ” occurs, but this is not in the narrative but in the heading of the book. “Jesus the Nazarene,” not the lan- guage of Mark but of the people, repeated by him. “Lord Jesus,” 16^®, “Lord,” i620, are in the spurious closing paragraph.

2 Unless the order in which the words stand in « xhou Son of David, Jesus,” and in 146^^ “That Nazarene, Jesus,” be thought to constitute an exception. The designation, ‘Jesus,’ occurs on the lips of others in such combinations as: 1^*, “Jesus, thou Nazarene”; 5’’, “Jesus, Son of the Most High God ”; lo^^, “Jesus, the Son of David ”; and also again, “Jesus, the Nazarene”; 1467, “Jesus, the Nazarene”; 16®, “Jesus, the Nazarene.”

employed as a proper name.® But in the narrative itself, as we have intimated, Mark uses only the simple ‘ Jesus,’ which nevertheless he never represents as used by others either in speaking of or in speaking to Jesus.

The name by which Jesus was popularly known to His contemporaries, according to Mark, was apparently the fuller descriptive one of ‘ Jesus of Nazareth’ (lo^^ i6" 14"’').® On one occasion He is represented as addressed by this full name and on two others by the name ‘ Jesus,’ enlarged by a Messianic title (‘Jesus, Son of the Most High God’ 5”^, ‘Jesus, Son of David’ 10^^). The inference would seem to be that ‘ Jesus ’ was too common a name’ to be sufficiently designatory until our Lord’s person had loomed so large, at least in the circles to which the Gospels were addressed, as to put all other Jesuses out of mind when this name was mentioned. The employment of the simple ‘ Jesus ’ as the narrative name in this Gospel is, therefore, an outgrowth of, and a testimony to, the supreme position He occupied in the minds of Christians.

The formula by which Jesus is represented by Mark as ordinarily addressed is apparently the simple Jipnorific..title, ‘ Rabbi,’ by which in that age (Mt 23’) every professed teacher was courteously greeted.® The actual

® On the form NaXaprjv6<i see Swete, on Mark

Aramaic form ‘ Rabbi ’ occurs, however, but seldom in his narrative, and only on the lips of Jesus’ disciples (9^ ii^^; 14^^, Judas In betraying Him); although the parallel form ‘ RabbonI ’ occurs once on the lips of a petitioner for healing (10^^). In Its place stands customarily Its simplest and most usual Greek rendering, ‘Teacher’ {dc^daxah) The general synonomy of the forms of address, ‘ Teacher,’ ‘ Master,’ ‘Lord’ (dcddaxah, iTzcardra, x6p:s) ^ as all alike Greek representatives of ‘ Rabbi,’ is fully established by a comparison of the parallel passages in the Synoptics, as well as by such defining passages as Jno

What is to be noted here is that in his report of the forms of address employed by those conversing with Jesus, Mark confines himself among Greek formulas to ‘Teacher’ (diddaxah) as his standing representation of ‘ Rabbi.’ The use of ‘Lord’ (xupis) in 7“® is not strictly an exception to this, since the speaker on that occasion was a heathen, and ‘ Lord ’ {xupce') may be best viewed as Indicative of this fact. It Is the common Greek honorific address, equivalent In significance to the Jewish ‘ Rabbi ’ or ‘ Teacher.’^^

The address ‘Teacher’^** is used by Mark broadly, and Is put upon the lips both of our Lord’s disciples

Cf. Wellhausen, in loc.: “ The address xopis is found in Mark only in this passage, in the mouth of a heathen woman.” Swete goes astray here in paraphrasing, “ True, Rabbi,” — “ Rabbi ” is out of place.

The rendering of oidd<rxaho^ (after the Vulgate, M agister) by “Master” is, as Westcott remarks (on John 3^), “apt to suggest in their ordinary colloquy (4^® 9'^® 10^^ 13^)) obviously as their customary form of addressing Sigmficance^ Him; and of others who approached H im for every variety of reason (5^“ 9^”^ io17,2o ^ There does not necessarily lie in this mode of address, therefore, anything more than a general polite recognition of our Lord’s claim to be a teacher and leader of men, although of course this recognition may rise on occasion above mere courtesy and become the expression of real reverence and dependence and a recognition of His authority and sovereignty. When something like this was Insincerely or frivolously expressed, our Lord was offended by It, as in the case of the rich young ruler who addressed Him flatteringly as ‘Good Teacher’ (10^’^).^^ But when the expression was sincere It was received by Jesus In good part and the recognition of His authority involved In It welcomed and responded to, even when the authority suggested far exceeded that of an ordinary Rabbi and involved at least Messianic claims (io35 ^38 488^^ accept this designation; He even adopts It, instructing His disciples to speak of Him to others as ‘the Teacher’ (14^^), — and there Is Involved perhaps In this adoption of the title all that Is expressed in the declarations of Mt 23^'^^. Although not necessarily recognized as all that He was by every one who approached Him saying ‘ Teacher,’ yet under this designation He certainly is false associations.” Yet the implication of authority is present in it; and that might be missed in rendering it ‘Teacher’; cf. Schoettgen, Hor. Hebr. on Mt lo^®, Jno 15^% Gal

Dalman, p. 337: “This address was at variance with actual usage, and moreover in the mouth of the speaker, it was mere insolent flattery.” Cf. Swete in loc.: but see also Alexander and Weiss-Meyer.

recognized as claiming and certainly does claim an authority above that of those who shared the title of ‘Teacher’ with Him (1^2.27 etc.).

Similarly we are not quite at the end of the matter when we say that the heathen woman in addressing Him as ‘Lord’ (7-^) only makes use ^igmfica^ce common Greek honorific address.

When one comes to a religious teacher petitioning so great a benefit, the honorific title which is employed is apt to be charged with a far richer meaning than mere courtesy or respect. And Jesus received it in this case at its full value; in a sense bearing some relation to His own appellative use of the same term, ‘ Lord ’ ( x6pco(;), when He declared Himself ‘ Lord of the Sabbath ’ and ‘ David’s Lord ’ as well as his ‘ Son ’ (2^®. It is in this ^.pella- tive^use of the term ‘ Lord ’ by Jesus indeed that we may discover the deepest significance of the application of that title to Him (T 2^^ iT 12^®’^^ [12® 13^^])• is no doubt sometimes very difficult to determine whether in a given instance it refers to God or to Jesus^*, a fact which has its significance. But the certain cases will themselves carry us very far. When, for example, Jesus is quoted as declaring that “ the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath ” (or, perhaps, “ of the Sabbath, too”), the implication is that He is Lord of. much more than the Sabbath, and that this His Lordship is an appanage of His Messianic dignity.^® And i^This matter is carefully investigated by Sven Herner, Die Annuendung des JVortes xoptog im N. T., 1903, pp. 7-9, with the result that he assigns 2^8 728 n3 1288.37^ and also possibly but not probably 5I8, to Jesus.

So Weiss-Meyer: “The conclusion rests... on the vocation of the Son of Man, as bringing the highest blessing to man, to control when He is represented as arguing with the scribes over the significance of the title ‘ Son of David ’ ( 1 236,37)^ it cannot be doubted that He had Himself as the Messiah in mind; and, whatever else His words suggest, they certainly Intimate that He held Himself as the Messiah to be greater than David as truly as ^ He was greater than Solomon (Mt 12^^); that, in a word, David (as that prophetic monarch himself recognized) was no more His father by virtue of His descent from him, than he was His servant by virtue of his essential relation to HImd® He was at the very least, and was predicted by David himself as, David’s sovereign.

Such being the conception of His lordship which was In His mind, we must assume It was this lofty dignity which He claimed for Himself when He instructed His disciples, whom He sent to bring Him the ass’s colt which was to bear Him into Jerusalem, to tell those who might dispute their right to It, that “the Lord hath need of him” and this is borne out by the strongly Messianic character of the whole transaction (verses 9, 10, cf. Mt 2i^’^ Jno 1214,15) 17 ^j2d surely some such Implications attend everything that has been arranged for man’s blessedness, and therefore also the Sabbath.” Wellhausen perceives that the passage as it stands imports that such authority can be exercised only by the Messiah. Cf. Holtzmann.

Cf. Alexander, in loc.: “The person thus described, as the superior and sovereign of David and his house and of all Israel, could not ^ possibly be David himself, nor any of his sons and successors except one who by virtue of his twofold nature was at once his sovereign and his son.. also Meyer, in loc., whom, however, Weiss seeks

11' Wellhausen remarks in loc.: ** 6 xupto? is purposely meant to sound mvsterious! Tesus does not elsewhere so desie^nate Himself, nor

also the semi-parabolIc designation of Himself as the ‘ Lord of the House ’ whose coming Is to be watched for (13'"^^). And at least as much as this Is Involved when the evangelist Identifies Him with ‘ the Lord ’ wLose way was to be made ready for Him by the ministry of John the Baptist In fulfillment of the prophetic declarations of Isaiah and Malachl (i^); for the^lteratlons In the language of tKe~3Sa rations introduced by the evangelist make clear his purpose to apply these phrases directly to Jesusd®

It is not necessary to presuppose that ‘ Rabbi ’ underlies this appellative use of ‘ Lord ’ (xopcot;). In Mark 12^^ (and probably also i^) the underlying term is Adhojil, and elsewhere it Is doubtless Mar an, or Marana (or Mara^a)P In other words the Implications of the term in this application of it are those of supremacy and sovereignty. Whence it emerges that Jesus is represented as claiming for Himself (2^®

1335 recognized within His own circle as possessing (ii^), supreme sovereignty, — a sovereignty superior to that of the typical king himself is He so named by His disciples or by the narrator.” But this Is surely hypercritical in the presence of 2^8 and 12^®’^^.

Cf. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, p. 55: “Instead of auroDat the end there stands rdh dsoo ijiitov in the Lxx. The change shows that the evangelist, by the xupto? of the first member, wished not God but the Messiah to be understood.” See also Sven Herner, Die Arisendung des JVortes xonto<; im N. T., p. 7: “Nor can there be any doubt that the citation, already known from Mt. 3® — ‘ Prepare ye the way of the Lord ’ — refers to Christ.” Mark has, he tells us, quoted, immediately before, the words found also in Mt with alterations from the O. T. text such as show they are intended by him to refer to Christ: and the connection necessarily demands that these now before us should also be referred to Christ (cf., p. 4).

( 1, extending over the divinely ordained religious enactments of the chosen people (7^^ cf. and entitling Him to dispose of the possessions (ii^) and the very destinies of men (13^^). There is here asserted not only Messianic dignity and authority, but dignity and authority which transcend those ordinarily attributed even to the Messiah (12^®’^'^), and are comparable only to those of God Himself (i^).

The transition from such a designation of Jesus as ‘ Lord ’ to the designation of Him as ‘ Messiah,’ Is only a passage from the general to the Messianic particular. What is noteworthy Is, therefore, not that specifically Messianic titles are freely assigned to Jesus In the narrative, but that no other titles than Messianic ones seem to be employed of Him. There Is indication Indeed that our Lord was recognized as a prophet (6^^ 8“®); In point of fact, that He recognized Himself as a prophet (6^). It Is clear indeed that He was widely spoken of as a prophet and that He Himself accepted the designation as appropriate.^® But this Is little emphasized In this Gospel, and would form no exception to the rule that no designations are suggested for Jesus except Messianic titles. Neither can we consider the designations ‘Bridegroom’ and ‘Shepherd’

(14^^), which Jesus seems to have applied Incidentally to Himself, exceptions. In the former of these Jesus, discoursing of John the Baptist (2^^) doubtless with Intentional reference to a saying of his which is vt-

20 See Swete’s note on 6*: “ The Lord here assumes the role of the Prophet, which was generally conceded to Him (6^® 8^8, Mt Lk 24!^, Jno 4^9 6^^ 7^® 9^'^, Acts 3^2 737).” And compare Hastings’ Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, i, art. “ Foresight,” where the matter is examined.

corded for us only in John (3^®), identified Himself on the one hand with the ' Bridegroom ’ of Old Testament prophecy (cf. Hos 2^^), and set Himself forth on the other as the HeacL-of- the people of God now to be gathered into the promised kingdom: In other words, the designation Is_,M£SsianIc to the cgre.^^ And certainly not less Is to be said of His Identification of Himself with the mysterious ' Shepherd ' of Zech 13^ who Is the fellow of the Lord of Hosts (14^^ II Mt 26^L* and cf. 6^^ |I Mt 9^®; and see Mt 25^^ eschatologlcally; and Jno lo^). By the side of these It may also be necessary to recognize as a Messianic designation, the epithet ‘ Beloved,’ which Is applied to Him In the divine commendations of the Son — “ Thou art my Son, the Beloved, In whom I am well pleased,” “This is my Son, the Beloved” 9'^).^^ But apart from these more unusual designations none are applied to Jesus In the whole course of the narrative by any of the characters Introduced, Including Jesus In His own person, but familiar Messianic titles. These occur In considerable variety, and Include not only the simple ‘ Chnst ’ with Its equivalents, ‘ the King of Israel ’ or ‘ of the Jews,’ and ‘ the Son of David,’ but also the

21 Cf. Swete, in loc.: “ So the Lord identifies Himself with the Bride- groom of O. T. prophecy (Hos. 2-^, etc.), i.e. God in His covenant relation to Israel, a metaphor in the N. T. applied to the Christ (Mt 25^, Jno Eph 528 sg, Apoc 19"^, etc.).” Christ is set forth Mes- sianically under the name of the Bridegroom in N. T. only in Mk 219,19,20^ Mt 9I®, Lk 5^^, Jno 32^; and in the Parable of the Ten Virgins, Mt The thing occurs oftener.

22 Cf. J. Armitage Robinson, in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, ii, 501 (art. “Isaiah, Ascension of,” cf. Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah, I. 4), and St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, 229-247 (Note on “'The Beloved’ as a Messianic title”). Dr. Robinson, however, does not assert that the title occurs in Mark, though he finds it in the parallel passages in the other Synoptics.

more significant ones of ‘the Holy One of God ’ and ‘ the Son of God/ — varied to ‘ the Son of the Most High God,’ and ‘ the Son of the Blessed,’ — and Jesus’ own chosen self-designation, ‘ the Son of Man.’

The evangelist himself nowhere in the course of his narrative speaks of Jesus by one of these titles. As we have seen, his narrative name of our Lord is exclusively the simple ‘ Jesus.’ No reader will doubt, however, that he considered all of them applicable to Jesus; and he announces his book, in the heading he has prefixed to it, as intended to recount the origins of “ the Gospel of Jesus Christ ” — possibly adding also the further Messianic designation of “ the Son of God.” This compound name ‘ Jesus Christ ’ occurs extremely rarely in the Gospels, ‘Jesus Christ’ and never except in the most formal and cerernonious circums^nces.^® It appears, indeed, to be reserved as an august name, weighted with the implication of the entire content of Jesus’ claims, and therefore suitable only for setting at the head of documents designed to exhibit His life and work, or at the opening of accounts of significant periods or acts of His career. It is very fairly described by Holtzmann, therefore, as “ the solemn designation of the Messianic personality.”^^ Although in it the

It appears only in the headings of Mt (i^) and Mk (i"^) and at the starting point of the narrative of Mt (i^®) and the new beginning made at Mt i6-^: and similarly in John only at the first mention of Jesus w'hich may be accounted the beginning of his narrative, and at the opening of the great sacerdotal prayer (17^)- It begins to be frequent in Acts {2^^ 3« 410 gi^dsT] lose io4S „i7 1526 1518 20-^ 28^^); and in Paul it is very frequent. The contrary combination, ‘Christ Jesus,’ does not occur at all in the Gospels: but appears occasionally in Acts (3-® [17^ 24-^) and in Paul very often.

term ‘ Christ ’ has ceased to be an appellation and become a portion of a proper name,^® its use as such bears all the stronger testimony to the ascription of the Messiahship to Jesus. Other Messiah than He had ceased to be contemplated as conceivable, and the very appellation ‘ Messiah ’ had become His distinguishing name.

Although this compound name occurs nowhere else In Mark, and the reverse combination, ‘ Christ Jesus,’ which is also in use in Acts and

‘ The Christ ’ Paul, never, the simple ‘ Christ ’ appears in his narrative with sufficient frequency to evince that it was a favorite designation of the Messiah (8“^ 12^^ 13"^ 14^^ 15^-), applied as such to Jesus (8“^ 14^^ 15^-) in order to mark Him out as the Messiah; and accepted as such by Jesus, who thus asserts Himself to be the Messiah (8^^ 14^“?

13“^). Its significance, as the simplest of all Messianic titles. Is well brought out by the synonyms with which it Is coupled. When Peter assigned it to our Lord in his great confession (8~^), our Lord at once takes it up as the equivalent of His own favorite self-designation of ‘ the Son of Man.’^® When our Lord would instruct the scribes with respect to the real dignity of the Messiah, He asks them how they can speak of the Christ as ^ the Son of David,’ when David himself already become a part of a personal name and has therefore lost the article, — like Adam, Gen 5I.” Holtzmann, as cited: “The nomen propr’ium ’Itj(7ou<s J(pi<7To^... in which the personal name Jesus... appears as the fore-name, the official name XpLGro<i as the sec- calls Him his ‘ Lord ’ When the high-priest at His trial adjured Him to say whether He was ‘ the Christ, the Son of the Blessed,’ in His assenting reply He calls Himself the ‘ Son of Man ’ ( 14^-’®^). And in like manner the scoffing Jews mockingly addressed Him as He hung on the cross as ‘ the Christ, the King of Israel’ (15^^). In all these instances the term is obviously used as an appellation, and has no different content from the general one common to all the designations which impute Messiahship. It is the complete synonym of ‘the King of Israel’ (15^“), ‘the Son of David’ (12^^), ‘the Son of the Blessed’ (14®^), ‘the Son of Man’ (8^^ 14^^)- In a word it is the general title of the Messianic Sovereign, whom Jesus claims to be in His acceptance of this designation, and whom He is asserted to be by its application to Him by His followers.

In the remarkable passage, 9^^ alone does ‘ Christ ’ appear without the article. And therefore it has been frequently supposed to be employed there not as an appellation but as a proper name, and therefore again to be out of place on Jesus’ lips and to be accordingly an intrusion into the text from the later point of view of His followers.^"^ There seems to be no reason, however, why ‘Christ’ ^^en without the article may not be taken appellatively^® (cf. Lk 23^);

27 Dalman, Words, 305-6, explains the words “ that ye are Christ’s ” as an intrusion; on the ground that they are an unnecessary explanation of a [lou which is not genuine. Even Swete, in loc., following Hawkins, Hor. Syn., p. 122, is inclined to see here “ a later writer’s hand,” and Keil, like Dalman, affirms boldly that “ ort ^ptffroo iffri is an explanatory statement adjoined by Mark to dvopart fiou.”

2® It is so understood here e.g. by Fritzsche and Meyer; and Delitzsch points out that sometimes ‘ Messiah ’ is used among the Jews them- and in that case, no reason why our Lord may not have told His followers that no one who should do them a benefit “ in the name that they are the Christ’s,” i. e., on the ground that they are the servants of the Messiah, should lose his appropriate reward. In this view our Lord would no doubt be once again claiming for Himself the Messianic dignity; but He would not be doing it in language inappropriate upon His lips, especially at a period in His ministry subsequent to the great confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi (8^^^), after which, we are expressly told Jesus began to teach both formally and quite openly what and who He was and what was to befall Him in the prosecution of His mission. The thought thus brought out differs in nothing from that of Mt 10^^ and the mode of expressing the thought is equally appropriate with that recorded there, on the lips of One who knew Himself to be Teacher and Lord only because He was the Christ. At the same time it must not be too easily assumed that our Lord could not speak of Himself as ‘ Christ ’ taken even as a proper, or quasi-proper, name, although we need not dwell upon this at this point.^® It was because He announced Himself as the ‘ Christ ’ and was widely understood to possess claims upon that dignity that, when He was arraigned before Pilate, it was precisely upon His pretensions to be ‘ the King of the Jews ’ that He was interrogated ( i. On Jewish lips this title naturally was corrected to ‘ the selves without the article — according to Dalman, however, only in the Babylonian Talmud {Words, p. 292). Dalman, loc. cit., says that anarthrous Xpiaror: occurs in the Synoptics only in the phrases ‘ Jesus Christ’ (Mt Mk 1^), ‘Jesus surnamed Christ’ (Mt

King of Israel’ (15^'), which again is identified with * the appellation ‘ the Christ ’ (15^^). ' In this form also Jesus was far from repelling the Messianic ascription, but on the contrary expressly allows it (15^). To all appearance, however, neither ‘ the Christ,’ nor ‘ the King of Israel,’ was more current as a Messianic designation than the kindred form ‘ the Son of David ’ (i2^^ cf. though this title appears in Mark’s narrative only once as actually applied to Jesus (io47,48)^ The blind man at the gates of Jericho, hearing that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by, and wishing to ask a favor at His hands as the expected King of Israel, knew no better name by which to address Him than ‘ Son of David.’ It was the faith thus expressed which Jesus commended in him when He responded to his appeal, — thus accepting this Messianic title also ( cf. It is quite unten- able, therefore, to suppose that Jesus wished to repel this designation®^ in the question He put as He taught in the temple (12®^), “How say the scribes that the ^ Christ is the son of David,” when “ David himself ” (and speaking “in the Holy Spirit”) “calls Him rather Lord? ” He does not deny that He is David’s

Holtzmann, N. T. Theologie, I. 243, speaks of It as “the most popular and comprehensive of all the Messianic titles,” and supposes that the underlying Jewish feeling of Matthew shows Itself in the important role which he makes this folk-cry play in his Gospel (Mt 9^7 12-^

31 So e.g. Wellhausen (as before him Strauss, Schenkel and others): “ Jesus represents it as merely a notion of the scribes that the Messiah is the son of David, and refutes it by a statement of David’s own which proves the contrary. An incitement to enter upon this question He had only in case it concerned Himself. He held Himself for the Messiah, though He was not the son of David,” etc. Cf. on the contrary the remarks in Dalman, Words, p. 286: also Meyer’s good note.

son; He asserts that He is David’s Lord. It seems, therefore, not quite exact even to say that He wishes to suggest that His sonship derives from a higher source than David: that He is, in a word, the Son of God rather than of David.®^ But it seems clear that He desires to intimate that as Lord of David He was something far m.ore than was conveyed by the accustomed— and so far acceptable^^ — title of ‘ Son of David ’ and something of this higher dignity than mere kingship belonging to Him Is doubtless inherent In this, therefore, higher Messianic title of ‘ Son of God.’ This higher title, if It Is not applied to Jesus by Mark himself in the heading of his Gospel (i^). Is at least In the course of the narrative repeatedly represented as applied to Him by others, and Is expressly approved as so applied not only by the evangelist (3^^), but by our Lord Himself (14®^). The form of the title varies from the simple ‘Son of God’ ([i^] 3^^, cf. 15^'^^) to the ‘Son of the Blessed’ (14®^) and the ‘Son of the Most High God’ (5^). It Is, In the Instances recited by Mark, found chiefly on the lips of the unclean spirits whom Jesus cast out (3^^ 5^); though It Is employed also, apparently as a culminating Messianic title, by the high priest at His trial,

34 Dalman, arguing that what Jesus wished to suggest was that He was Son of God, not of David, goes on to urge that this implies a supernatural birth, and (though not the doctrine of the two natures) a nature which though “ appearing in human weakness, is yet a perfect revelation of God,” and fits Him for future rulership over the world. Swete remarks: “The title does not involve divine sovereignty; yet it was a natural inference that a descendant who was David’s Lord was also David’s God.”

seeking to obtain from Jesus an acknowledgment of His great pretensions (14®^), and was frankly accepted by our Lord as fairly setting these pretensions forth (14®^). As a Messianic title it differs from^hose which have been heretofore engaging our attention, in emphasizing, as they do not, the supernatural side of the office and functions of the Messiah: He comes as the representative of God to do God’s will in the world. From this point of view another Messianic title applied to Him b_y a demoniac — ‘ the Holy One of God ’ (i24),35 — ranges with it: and the employment by the unclean spirits of this class of titles only (cf. 3^^ and may be due to the fact that they were voices from the spiritual world and were as such less concerned than the people of the land with national hopes or earthly developments.^®

35 Westcott (on Jno 6®^) remarks: “The knowledge of the demoniacs reached to the essential nature of the Lord ” (comparing Rev 3“^, I Jno 2-^; and Jno and 6^'^). The expression, however, (which occurs only in Mk Lk 4^^, Jno 6®^) need not in itself, as Hahn (Lk 4^4) puts it, “refer to the moral purity of Jesus (Keil); but may express rather His Messianic dignity, designating Him as God’s consecrated, dedicated One (cf. Jno Hahn adds that though the demon knows of the humble human origin of Jesus {Na^aprjvi) he nevertheless knows also of His divine appointment. Holtzmann (p. 76) accords in general with Hahn, and points out that the demon speaks for his class (“us”). Wellhausen supposes this title to have been formed by transference to the Messiah of epithets at first appropriated to Israel: “ Israel originally is both the Son of God and the Holy One of the Highest” (on Mk It seems, however, a little difficult to understand how the demons were supposed to recognize at sight (“as soon as ever they saw him”) an official appointment. Does it not seem that there must have been supposed to be something about Jesus which betrayed to an eye which saw beneath the surface His superhuman nature — whether this were thought of as His supreme holiness or as His unapproachable majesty?

From his own point of view Wellhausen speaks (on i25.26) of “the popular belief that the spirits have for the supersensual other

By the side of the passages in which the precise title ‘ Son of God ’ is employed, there stands another series in which Jesus speaks of Himself, or ‘The Son* is represented as spoken of by God, simply as ‘the Son’ (13^^, cf. 12®;

9*^), used obviously in a very pregnant sense and these naturally suggest their correlatives in which He speaks of God as His ‘ Father ’ in the same pregnant manner (8^^, cf. 13^^ 14^^) • The uniqueness of the relation intended to be intimated by this mode of speech is sharply thrust forward in the parable recorded in Mark 12. There were many slaves who were sent eyes than flesh and blood,” and that these eyes were sharpened in the present case by their danger. This remark seems to imply that in the popular view “ the Holy One of God ” imported something more than divine appointment — something of superhuman nature or character. The sharpest eyes could scarcely discern appointment.

37 On the strength of the difference between the precise phrase ‘ the Son of God’ and these phrases where Jesus is called God’s ‘Son’ or speaks of Himself as ‘ Son,’ it has become common to say Jesus does not use the title ‘Son of God.’ Thus e.g. Shailer Mathews, The Messianic Hope in the N. T., 1905, pp. 106-7: “Jesus Himself does

not use the expression, although others use it with reference to Him. It is of course true that Jesus frequently speaks of God as ‘Father’

and of Himself as ‘ the Son,’ but this is quite another matter from

speaking of Himself as 6 uid? too 6eou.... That Jesus spoke of

God as His Father in some unique sense cannot be denied, but such

sayings as imply this do not employ either 6 olds' too Oeoo or olds

Dr. Mathews in a note refers to Jno lo^® ii^, but hesitates to speak of these as exceptions because of the possibility that John may have substituted here “ a term expressive of his own estimate of Jesus for the word which Jesus used Himself.” He might have pointed also not only to the general implication of Jesus’ acceptance of the title when applied to Him by the demons and others, but to His express acceptance of it at Mk 14®^, and we may add at Mt i67®, though Dr. Mathews would not allow this instance. Nor is it so very clear that the ‘ Son of God,’ ‘ God’s Son,’ ‘ the Son,’ are not closely related to one another as Messianic titles.

one after the other to the rebellious husbandmen; but only one son — who is called “ the beloved one,” a term which is not so much designatory of affection as of that on which special affection is grounded, and is therefore practically equivalent to “ only begotten,” or “ unique.”^® It is possible that it is by this epithet that God designates this His Son on both of the occasions when He spoke from heaven in order to point Him out and mark Him as His own 9^) — “ This is my beloved Son.” The meaning is that the Son stands out among all others who may be called sons as in a unique and unapproached sense the Son of God. Of course it is possible to represent this as importing nothing more than that the person so designated is the Messiah, singled out to be the vice-gerent of God on earth; and it is noticeable that it is as the Messiah that Jesus calls God appropriatingly ‘His Father’ when He declares that the Son of Man is to come in the glory of Flis Father with the holy angels (8^®), and certainly it was in lowly subjection to the will of God that He prayed at Gethsemane, “ Abba, Father, remove this cup from me ” (14^^). But this explanation seems scarcely adequate; in any case there is intimated in this usage a closeness as well as a uniqueness of relays Cf. Swete on Mk and also Wellhausen on these passages. “ ‘0 ofo? fiou 6 dyanrjrdf:” says the latter on 1^% “for the Semites means, not ‘ my dear Son,’ but ‘ my unique Son.’ ” For a careful discussion of all the involved conceptions see J. Armitage Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 1903, pp. 229-233, on ‘“The Beloved’ as a Messianic Title.” Dr. Robinson seems to suppose that “ beloved Son ” in Mark — not elsewhere — means simply “ dear Son.” But this is scarcely conceivable. In point of fact, in 12® the meaning seems to be, “sole, unique. Son”; while 1^1 9'^ either bear that same meaning or else must be taken, like their parallels, as uniting to the ascription of Sonship an additional Messianic title — “ the Beloved.”

tlon existing between Jesus and God, which raises Jesus far beyond comparison with any other son of man. And that remarkable passage, I3^^ In which Jesus declares His Ignorance, though He be the Son, of the day of His advent, exalts Him apparently above not nfien only, but angels as well, next to the Father Himself, with whom rather than with the angels He seems to be classed.^®

All these Messianic designations are represented as not only ascribed to Jesus but accepted by Him. They Our Lord’s own are not, however, currently employed by

Testimony to Him; as reported In this narrative. He His Messiahship Joes Indeed make occasional use of them — ‘the Christ’ (9^h cf. 8^® 12^^ 13^^), the ‘Son of David’ (12^^), the ‘Son [of God] ’ (I3^^ cf. 12^) — but only exceptionally. The Messianic designation which He Is represented as constantly applying to Hlm-

39 “Note,” says Meyer, “the climax — the angels, the Son, the Father.” A. J. Mason {Conditions of our Lord’s Life on Earth, 120), on the other hand, thinks “there is no express triple ascent, from men to angels, from angels to the Son ” — but the oud'e — ohdi is in a sort par-

enthetical: “ None knoweth — no not the angels In heaven, nor yet the Son— except the Father.” “ All the same,” he adds, “ the sentence is a climax, and a pointed one. Our Lord does not say (what would have been good Greek) oo8k ol ayysXoi ours 6 wfop, as if the Son were in the same class of beings with the angels in heaven, only the highest of them. He says oudk — obdi] as if to say, ‘You might suppose that the secret was only a secret from those on earth; but it is kept a secret even from those in heaven. You might suppose that the secret was only a secret for created beings, but it is a secret for the uncreated Son Himself. The Father alone knows it.’” Cf. Swete: “No one...

poses that the closing words, “nor the Son but the Father only,” may be an accretion, while Zeller (Z. fiir oo. Th., 1865, p. 308), on the ground of this ascription to Christ of a superangelic nature wishes to assign Mark to the second century (see Meyer’s reply, Mk. and Lk., E. T., I, 205 note). From all which it is at least clear that the passage confessedly assigns a superhuman nature to Jesus.

self is also one peculiar to Himself — ‘ the Son of Man.’^° That this designation is actually employed as a Messianic title, is apparent not only from its obvious origin in the vision of Daniel 7^^, to which reference is repeatedly made (8^® 13^® 14^“),*^ but also from the easy passage which is made, in the course of the conversations reported, from one of the other designations to this, whereby they are evinced as its synonyms. Thus in 8^^ in sequence to Peter’s confession of Him as ‘ the Christ,’ we are told that Jesus began to teach that “ the Son of Man must suffer many things.” Similarly in 13^® our Lord notifies us that although many “ false Christs ” shall arise who may deceive men, yet when certain signs occur, “ then shall they see the Son of Man coming.” Again when exhorted to declare whether He is “ the Christ, the Son of the Blessed” (14®^), He responds in the affirmative and adds: “ And ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power.” Evidently if we are to ask, ‘ Who is this Son of Man,’ we must give answer,

The reference to Daniel seems indisputable. But it is in somewhat wide circles not allowed. Even conservative writers are occasionally found seeking another explanation of the phrase, although this involves treating the passages mentioned as unhistorical. Examples may be found in Volkmar Fritzsche, Das Berufsbenuusstsein Jesu, 1905, pp. 17 sq.; Siegfried Goebel, Die Reden unseres Herrn nach Johannes, 1906, (following his note on Jno; and Zahn in his Commentary on Matthew. (Zahn is directly refuted by Fritz Tillmann in the Biblische Zeitschrift, 1907, vol. i., 348 seg.). Critics like Wellhausen and N. Schmidt, of course, assume that ‘ Son of Man ’ is merely Aramaic for “ Man,” and deny all reference to Daniel. What may be made of the term, and of the Danielic passage itself, from this point of view may be conveniently read in Dr. Cheyne’s Bible Problems, 1904; or with a great display of hypothetical learning in Hugo Gressmann’s Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jiidischen Eschatologie, 1905.

shortly, ‘ The Christ of God.’ And it lies in the evidence not only that this was the underlying conception of our Lord as reported in this Gospel but also that it was — however dimly — apprehended by those He addressed. There is perhaps no single passage in Mark so clear to this effect as John 12^^, where the multitude are represented as puzzled by our Lord’s teaching that the “ Son of Man must be lifted up,” in view of their conviction that “the Christ abideth forever.” “We have heard out of the law,” they say, “ that the Christ abideth forever: and how sayest thou that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man? ” This is as much as to say that that ‘ Son of Man ’ who is the Messiah is known to them and is known to them as the eternal King: but no other ‘Son of Man’ is known to them — who is to be “ lifted up ” from the earth that He may draw all men unto Him. The same implication is latent, however, in the instances reported by Mark, the conversations recorded in which would have been unintelligible had there not been in the hearers’ minds some intelligence of the phrase ‘ Son of Man ’ as a Messianic title, although it was apparently not a Messianic title either in such current use that it came naturally to their lips or so unambiguous as to be easily comprehended by them in all the implications which our Lord compressed into it.

The difficulty created by our Lord’s use of this phrase seems, indeed, as represented by Mark, not so much to have lain in apprehending that it involved a claim to Messianic dignity, as in comprehending the character of the Messianic conception which He expressed by it. The constant employment of this designation of Himself by our Lord^^ in preference to the more current ones, such as, say, ‘ Son of David ’ or ‘ King of Israel,’ appears to mark in effect an attempt on our Lord’s part, in claiming for Himself the Messianic dignity, at the same time to fill the conception itself with a new import. The nature of the revolution which He would work in the Messianic ideal current among the people, in other words, is signalized by His avoidance of the current designations of the Messiah and His choice for His constant use of a more or less unwonted one which would direct their attention to a different region of Old Testament prophecy. He says, in effect. In the conception you are cherishing of the Messianic king, you are neglecting whole regions^ of^, prophecy, and are forming most mistaken expectations regarding Him: it is from the Son of Man of Daniel rather than from the Son of David of the Psalms and Samuel that you should take your starting point. No single title, of course, sums up the entirety of our Lord’s conception of the.Messianic function: there are elements of it adumbrated in very different sections of Old Testament prediction. But

42 Cf. Dalman, Words, p. 259; “As for the evangelists themselves they take the view that Jesus called Himself the ‘ Son of Man ’ at all times and before any company.” Nevertheless Dalman himself supposes He probably did not actually use the title before Peter’s confession (Mk 8^®); and Bousset {Jesus, 194) is sure that it was only towards the close of His life as death loomed before Him that He applied the Danielic prophecy of the Son of Man to Himself, and that He never adopted the title in its full content, including the ideas of preexistence and of His own judgeship of the world — the ascription of these to Him by the evangelists being only an instance of the faith of the community working on the tradition (“ it is inconceivable that Jesus should have arrogated to Himself the judgeship of the world in place of God,” pp. 203-5).

He elected, apparently, to point to the picture which Daniel draws of the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth as furnishing a starting point for a revision of the Messianic ideal current among those to whom His preaching was in the first instance addressed.

It may be difficult, in view of the varied elements which entered into His Messianic conception, to infer with confidence from the substance of the sayings in which Jesus refers to Himself as the ‘ Son of Man,’ precisely the Messianic conception He understood to be covered by that designation.^® And much less can we suppose that His whole Messianic idea is embedded in these sayings. He refers to Himself by this designation in only a portion of the sayings which must be utilized in an attempt to determine His Messianic conception; and there is no reason to suppose that He always uses this designation when giving utterance to conceptions which He subsumed under it. Nevertheless, having guarded ourselves against rashness of inference and undue narrowness of view by reminding ourselves of these obvious facts, we must certainly, in an attempt to discover the significance of the designation ‘ of Man ’ in the Gospel of Mark, begin by observing the actual connections in which Jesus is represented in that Gospel as employing it, with a view to discovering, as far as possible, from the substance of these sayings the actual implications which it embodied for Him, and through Him for the writer of this Gospel who reports just these sayings from His lips.

Cf. the opening sentence of Dalman in his discussion of this subject {Words, 256).

From these sayings, then, we learn that the life of the ‘ Son of Man ’ on earth is essentially a lowly one: He came not to be ministered unto, but ‘SonT^M^’ minister (lo^^). Suffering belongs therefore to the very essence of His mission (8^^ 10^^ 14“^’^^) and has accordingly been pre-announced for Him in the Scriptures (9^^ 14^^). But this suffering is not in His own behalf, but for others, the form of His ministry to whom is “to give His life a ransom for many” (10^®). But just because His death is a sufficing ransom, death cannot be all: having given His life as a ransom for many the ‘ Son of Man ’ shall rise again (8^^ 9^’^^ 10^^). Nor is this vindication by resurrection all. He is to “rise again” after three days (8^^ 9^^ 10^^), but is to “ come ” again “ in clouds with great glory and power” (13^®, cf. 14®^) at some more remote, undesignated time (13^^), to establish the Kingdom in which He shall sit at the right hand of power (14®^). At this His coming He “ shall send forth the angels and gather together His elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven ” (13“^); and shall show Himself ashamed of all who shall have been ashamed of Him and of His words in the adulterous generation with which He dwelt on earth (8^^). It is clearly the judgment scene that is here brought before us, and the eternal destinies of men are represented as lying in the hands of the ‘ Son of Man.’ “ His elect,” “ those whom He has chosen,” are gathered into the Kingdom; His enemies, those who have rejected Him, are left without. Accordingly it is not surprising that He who came to give His life a ransom for many (10^^) and who is to come again in order to distribute to men their final destinies should have authority given Him even while on earth to order the religious observances by which men are trained in the life which looks beyond the limits of earth (2“®) and even to forgive sins (2^^). Perhaps in the light of 8^® 13% in the phrase “ on earth ” we may see a contrast not so much with the “power” of God to forgive sins “in heaven” (cf. verse 7), as with the authority to award the destinies of all flesh (13^^ “His elect”; 8^® those that are ashamed of Him) hereafter to be exercised in the heavenly kingdom by the ‘ Son of Man ’ Himself.

What perhaps most strikes us in this series of utterances is its prevailing soteriological, or perhaps we should say soteriologico-eschatological, *S^n^oT\lan' christological bearing. To

Mark the ‘ Son of Man,’ as reflected In the sayings he cites from the lips of the Lord, Is the divinely sent Redeemer, come to minister to men and to give His life a ransom for many, who as Redeemer brings His chosen ones to glory and, holding the destinies of men In His hands, casts out those who have rejected Him — even while yet on earth preadumbrat- Ing the final issue by exercising His authority over religious ordinances and the forgiveness of sins. Little is said directly of the person of this Redeemer. It is a human figure, ministering, suffering, dying, — though clothed already with authority in the midst of Its humility (or should we not rather say. Its humiliation?)— which moves before us In Its earthly career: it Is a superhuman figure which is to return, clothed in glory — “ sitting at the right hand of power ” and coming with the clouds of heaven (14^'), or “ coming In clouds with great power and glory” (13“^) — i^^ the glory of His Father with the holy angels” (8^^), those holy angels who are sent forth by Him to do His bidding, that they may gather to Him His chosen ones (13“^). Although there are intermingled traits derived from other lines of prophecy, the reference to the great vision of Daniel In these utterances

Is express and pervasive, and we cannot go astray In assuming that Jesus Is represented as, in adopting the title of ‘ Son of Man ’ for His constant designation of Himself, intending to Identify Himself with that heavenly figure of Daniel’s vision, who Is described as “ like to a son of man ” In contrast with the bestial figures of the preceding context, and as having committed to Him by God a universal and eternal dominion. Primarily His purpose seems to have been to represent Himself as the introducer of the Kingdom of God; and in doing so, to emphasize on the one hand the humiliation of His earthly lot as the founder of the kingdom in His blood, and on the other the glory of His real station as exhibited in His consummation of the kingdom with power. So conceived, this designation takes its place at the head of all the Messianic designations, and involves a conception of the Messianic function and personality alike which removes it as far as possible from that of a purely earthly monarchy, administered by an earth-born king. Under this conception the Messianic person is conceived as a heavenly being, who comes to earth with a divinely given mission; His work on earth is conceived as purely spiritual and as carried out in a state of humiliation; while His glory is postponed to a future manifestation which is identified with the judgment day and the end of the world. In the figure of the ‘ Son of Man,’ in a word, we have the spiritual and supernatural Messiah by way of eminence.^^

The whole subject has recently been excellently reviewed by a Roman Catholic scholar, F. Tillmann, Der Menschensohn, 1907. He

sums up as follows: “The result of our investigation Is in brief this: The designation ‘the Son of Man’ is a title of the Messiah just as truly as the designation ‘ Son of David,’ ‘ the Anointed,’ and the like. Jesus adopted this designation because it corresponded best to His nature and His purposes, and gave least occasion for the political, national hopes which His people connected with the person of the Messiah. If we inquire further into the specific content of this Messianic designation, the key is supplied by the reference embodied in it to the prophecy of Daniel: the Son of Man is the Divine-human inaugurator of the Messianic salvation predicted by the prophets. He with whom the reign of God on earth takes its start” (pp. 175-6).