Page images

into the righteousness which qualifies for admission into the kingdom.

The short parables of the Mustard Seed (1331-32) and of the Leaven (1383), another parable from the Logia, seem to illustrate the quick spreading and deeply penetrating influence of the doctrine of the kingdom.

Two other Logian parables, "the Hid Treasure" (1344) and "the Goodly Pear]” (1345-46), teach the lesson that a man must strain every nerve and give up all else that he may acquire the right to enter into the kingdom.

Lastly, the parable of the Drag Net (1347-50) describes the doctrine of the kingdom as a truth which attracts disciples of different qualities, some good, some bad. At the end of the age, when the kingdom is inaugurated, there will be a separation.

Besides these parables in ch. 13, there are seven others bearing upon the kingdom. 1823-35 (Logia) teaches the necessity of a forgiving spirit as a qualification of a disciple preparing for the kingdom (cf. 183 “Shall not enter”). 201-16 (Logia) seems to teach that in discipleship of the kingdom priority in date of admission to discipleship did not necessarily carry with it special privileges. All alike would receive eternal life when the kingdom came.

On the three parables, 2 1 28-32 (Logia) 2183-44 and 221-14 (Logia), see the notes.

It has been noticed above that the phrase η βασιλεία των oúpavớv occurs 17 times in passages which are peculiar to this Gospel, and which probably come from the Logia, viz. 510. 19 (2). 20 1324. 44. 45. 47. 62 1619 183. 4. 23 1912 201 222 25? It occurs, besides, 8 times in sayings which are paralleled in Lk., but which may also come from the Logia, viz. 53 721 107 1111. 12 1383 183 2313.

In passages of the first class we find also 812 1338 oi vioi rñs βασιλείας, 1311 της βασιλείας αυτού, 1343 της βασιλείας του πατρός αυτών, 2131 την βασιλείας του θεού, 2143 η βασιλεία του θεού, 2534 την ήτοιμασμένην υμίν βασιλείαν ; and in passages of the second class, 633 Tv Baoldelav aútoll. It seems not improbable, therefore, that this Jewish phrase was characteristic of the Matthæan Logia, and that the editor of the Gospel was strongly influenced by it. He has inserted it into matter parallel to Mk. in 32 181, and has substituted it in 417 1311. 31 1914. 23 for Mk.'s ń Baoulela toll 0600.

[ocr errors]


Mk. has this phrase 14 times. Mt. retains it in all these cases. 831 is not an exception; for though Mt. in the parallel to that verse, 1621, has αυτόν for τον υιόν του ανθρώπου, he has already inserted the latter phrase by anticipation in 1613. Mt. has the phrase in

[ocr errors]



times. The editor seems to have seen in the phrase two lines of signification. On the one hand, the phrase had previously been used in Messianic connections. The writer of Daniel had foretold the coming of "one like a Man or Son of Man," 713. And whatever may have been the precise meaning of the original writer, his phrase was soon taken up and used with Messianic significance. The Messiah regarded as “Son of Man" or “Man" was of mysterious origin. Already in the Book of Daniel the “ one like to a Man or Son of Man" comes “ with (Heb.) or upon (LXX) the clouds of heaven” (cf. Sib. Or 349.50 quoted on p. lxix and 652f. :

και τοτ' απ' ήελίοιο θεός πέμψει βασιλήα

ος πάσαν γαίαν παύσει πολέμοιο κακούο), and the phrase “Son of Man" is adopted by the writer of one section of the Book of Enoch to designate the supernatural Messiah ; cf. 462-4 482 62. In the same way the writer of 2 Es 13 describes the Messiah as coming from the midst of the sea “in the likeness of a man,” v.3 ; cf. v. 12 “the same man,” v.25“ a man coming up from the midst of the sea,” v.51 “the man coming up from the midst of the sea.” The motive power that gave rise to these conceptions was probably the desire to represent the coming Messiah as of divine origin. And yet, to fulfil His functions, He must be also man, or at least in the guise of man.

The editor of our Gospel clearly saw in the phrase thus put into the mouth of Christ in the sources which he was using, a proof that Christ would fulfil this anticipation of a supernatural Messiah. He was to come as Son of Man (1023) in the glory of His Father (1627) upon the clouds of heaven (2430). He would then send forth His angels and gather the elect (2431 : cf. 1341), and sit upon the throne of His glory (1928 2531). Then He would render to every man according to his deed (1627), and all nations would be gathered before Him (2531).

upon the clouds of heaven,” cf. Dn 713; for "render to every man according to his deed,” cf. Enoch 453 “On that day Mine Elect One will sit on the throne of glory, and make choice among their deeds”; 618 “He will weigh their deeds in the balance”; for the gathering the elect, cf. Enoch 512 “He will choose the righteous and holy from amongst them”; for the gathering of all nations before the throne of glory, cf. Enoch 623 “ There will stand up in that day all the kings, and the mighty, and the exalted, and those who hold the earth, and they will see and recognise Him, how He sits on the throne of His glory.”

But, secondly, if Christ had used the phrase “Son of Man" of Himself with reference to His future coming, He had also used the phrase in non-eschatological contexts. He was to come as Son of Man, but He also was the Son of Man during His life.

For "

[ocr errors]

This Sonship was not a prerogative to be bestowed upon Him in the future. It was a present possession. Of course, we might suppose that the editor thought that Christ had often used the phrase of Himself in an anticipatory sense. But there are features in the Gospel which make it rather probable that he believed Christ to be by nature “the Son of Man,” and regarded the phrase as illustrative of the mysteriousness of His person.

Christ was born of a virgin (118-25). He was in an unique sense Son of God (1127 2241-46). He had been chosen by God (317). What better phrase could be found to express the mysterious nature of such a personality than the “Son of Man," which was already in use to designate the supernatural Messiah? It emphasised His real humanity, it hinted at the mysterious nature of His birth, it drew attention to His Messianic office and functions, and it heralded His future glory.

It doe not lie within the scope of this Introduction to raise the question whether Christ did or did not use this phrase of Himself, or in the latter case why the Evangelists have attributed it to Him. Only two facts need here be noticed. First : the editor found the phrase so applied in both his main sources, Mk. and the Logia. It has therefore as much attestation as any phrase attributed to Christ. Second: the argument that the phrase “Son of Man” as a title is linguistically impossible in Aramaic, is unwarranted. “Son of Man” having already been used by the author of Daniel and converted into a semi-technical term by the writer of Enoch, it must have been as possible in Aramaic as in any other language to refer to it, and to say the Son of Man," or the 'man,'” or the whatever else may be the right equivalent of wax na in Daniel.”

In order to make the matter clearer, it may be well to add a few words on the origin of the phrase and its meaning. That “Son of Man" is a semi-technical description of the supernatural Messiah in Enoch and in 2 Esdras is clear. But whence did they derive it? Almost certainly from the wir 12 of Dn 713 Dalman is inclined to the view that will 70 was not in common use in early Palestinian Aramaic. Wix was employed to denote “a man," literary phrase formed by imitation of the rare and poetic 078 13, and means “one of the human species,” “one who had in himself the nature of a human being." But in the later Jewish Galilean dialects it came to be used in the sense of "a human being," "anyone.” If it were desired to express in Aramaic the wis 72,

This was the original of ó vios toù ăvOputov, and was the phrase used by Christ. The Greek expression is an intentionally over-literal translation, because the more idiomatic rendering ủvOpwmos would have introduced

[ocr errors]

on the other hand, was a ,בר אנש denote "men בני אנשא

,בר אנשא this phrase would become

inexplicable confusion into the Gospel narrative. From this point of view Christ borrowed the title from the Book of Daniel, and its use by Him was quite distinctive, since WIX 72 was not at that time in use to denote "anyone.”

On the other hand, it is urged by Wellhausen that XVIX 72 and WIX n3 can mean nothing but "man”; not an individual man, but man in general. Already in Daniel wir na means a man, a member of the human race.

Hence it is impossible to express in Aramaic the Son of Man, because “son of Man" in that idiom means simply "man" collectively. Christ, therefore, could not have used the phrase "the Son of Man.” And ó viòs toll ävOputov was created by the Evangelists. For a discussion of the linguistic point, see Driver, DB iv. 579 ff

. So far as I can judge, the following points seem to be clear. (1) It has not yet been shown that XVIX 72 was in use in Aramaic of the first century to mean “man.” It is still, therefore, possible that Dalman is right in supposing that this phrase was used by Christ in the sense of the “Son of Man” of Daniel. (2) Wix na in Daniel means “a man,” i.e. "a member of the human race.” The subsequent use of “Son of Man” in Enoch, of “man” in 2 Esdras, and of the phrase underlying å viòs Toù ởv@pwmov in the New Testament, is due to reminiscence of Daniel. The later writers would have been linguistically more correct if they had spoken of the "man” of Daniel ; but their exact translation “Son of Man" seemed more appropriate, as retaining the outward form of the phrase to which they were referring, and as less likely to introduce confusion than the more accurate translation the “man.” (3) Christ adopted the semi-technical term already in use to designate the supernatural Messiah, and spoke of Himself as the “Son of Man," i.e. the “Son of Man" of whom Daniel and Enoch had spoken. That there was some way of giving expression to such a designation in the Aramaic which He spoke, cannot be doubted in the face of the evidence of the Gospels.

But this, of course, only carries us back to the Book of Daniel. It is often supposed that wmx 7.5=like a man, simply describes the Jewish nation as humane in comparison with the four empires which had preceded it in the sovereignty of the world. But it is doubtful whether such an interpretation really satisfies the terms of the vision. Rather those writers are moving in the right direction who see in the phrase as used in Daniel the adaptation to the Jewish Messiah of a term “man,” borrowed from an earlier eschatological tradition of "the man” who should form the meeting point between heaven and earth when the final act in the drama of the world's history was being played. The primitive unfallen Man of God's original creation should once again appear. (See Gressmann, Israelitisch-judischen Eschatologie, 334 ff.; Volz, Jüd. Eschat. p. 215; Gunkel, ZWT, 1899, 582-590.) If this be the case, then the conception of the "ideal” man had been for long a part of the pre-Christian Jewish Messianic theology. When the Lord used the term "the Son of Man”= the “Man," as a title for Himself, He thereby claimed for His own person such qualities as pre-existence (cf. Enoch 483), uniqueness as contrasted with other men, yet real humanity, and such prerogatives as election by God to fulfil Messianic functions and to receive Messianic glory.

Parallel to this conception of the Messiah as “the Man," runs the more fragmentarily illustrated conception of the Messiah as mysteriously born of the woman (cf. Is 714, and Gressmann, pp. 270 ff.). The fact that we get the two side by side in the first Gospel throws light upon the Evangelist's conception of the Person of Christ. He was born of a virgin (118-25). He was therefore God's Son (317). He had been elected to Messianic functions (327), and was the King Messiah, the Beloved (317). also "the Man," the meeting-point between the divine and the human, who should come, as Daniel had said, on the clouds of heaven to inaugurate the kingdom of heaven.

Cf. Driver, DB iv. 579 ff.; Dalman, Words, pp. 234 ff. ; Wellhausen, Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten, vi. 200 f., Einleitung, pp. 39f.; Drummond, JThS, April, July 1901; Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn, Leipzig, 1896; Gunkel, ZWT vii. ; Volz, Jüd. Eschat. pp. 214f.; Fiebig, Der Menschensohn, 1901; Gressmann, Isr. Jüd. Eschat. pp. 334 ff.; and the references in Driver's article.

He was



The Messiah had come. He had preached the coming of the kingdom. He had been put to death. He would come at the end of the age on the clouds of heaven. In the meantime His disciples were to preach the doctrine of the kingdom, and make disciples by baptism into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost (2819). The disciples constituted an ecclesia (1618 1817). They were to cultivate such qualities as humility (55 183-4), mercy (57), forgiveness (614-15 1815. 21-95), love (544); and to practise almsgiving (62), prayer (65-13 77-11), and obedience to Christ's commands (724-27). They were to be prepared to give up all things for Christ's sake, e.g. marriage (1912), property (1929), earthly relationships (1929 1037), even life itself (1039 1625-26). They were to rely upon God's providence, and to avoid the accumulation of riches (619-34). Wealth was a hindrance to admission into the kingdom (2023). Marriage was an ordinance of God (194-6); but divorce, except for topvela (532 19'), was an accommodation to human weakness (198)

« PreviousContinue »