Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 does 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

[ocr errors]

.in Daniel בַּר אֱנָשׁ

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 N of Dn 713. Dalman is inclined to the view that s was not in common use in early Palestinian Aramaic. I was employed to denote "a man," NN to denote "men." IN 2, on the other hand, was a literary phrase formed by imitation of the rare and poetic D 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 WIN 11, This was the original of

בר אנשא this phrase would become

¿ viòs Tоû ävОрwжоv, and was the phrase used by Christ. The Greek expression is an intentionally over-literal translation, because the more idiomatic rendering & av poros would have introduced

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 I time in use to denote "anyone."

[ocr errors]

was not at that

and

On the other hand, it is urged by Wellhausen that I can mean nothing but "man"; not an individual man, but man in general. Already in Daniel N 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 å viòs toû äv◊pwπoV 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 NN 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) N 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 Esdras, and of the phrase underlying ô viòs Tоù aveржTоv 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.

2

But this, of course, only carries us back to the Book of Daniel. It is often supposed that 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 488), 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 (317), and was the King Messiah, the Beloved (317). He was 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. 39 f.; 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.

D. THE CHURCH.

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. 21-35), 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 Topveía (532 199), was an accommodation to human weakness (198).

The righteousness to be aimed at by them was to be based on right motive rather than observance of rules, upon the spirit rather than the letter of the law (521-48 151-20).

All the disciples were brethren, having one Father, God, and one Master and teacher, Christ (238-10). As such they constituted the ecclesia (1817), and possessed common authority to legislate for the Church's needs (1818). Wherever two or three met for prayer, Christ would be with them (1819). (Cf. 2820.)

As in the Jewish Church so in the Christian, there would be prophets (1041 2334), wise men (2334), and scribes (1352 2334).

But from among the disciples twelve in particular were commissioned to preach and to baptize (105 2819). Amongst these Peter was pre-eminent (cf. 102 πрτоя) It was he to whom first was revealed the true nature of the Christ which was to be the foundation rock of the Church (1617). He was to have administrative and legislative power within the kingdom (1618-19). But in that kingdom all twelve would sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (1928).

E. JEWISH CHRISTIAN CHARACTER OF THE LOGIA. The probability that these sayings were collected and preserved by the early Church in Palestine is suggested by the following considerations:

(a) The title and conception of the kingdom of the heavens as found in these sayings is Jewish in character. See above.

(b) The interest shown in S. Peter, and the prominent position attributed to him, points in the same direction.

(c) The mission of the Messiah and of His Apostles is limited to the Jewish nation.

Cf. 1524 "I was not sent save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

106 1023

"Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
"Ye shall not exhaust the cities of Israel till the Son
of Man come."

1928 "Ye shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve
tribes of Israel."

7o See note.

(811. 12, though in its present position it seems to express a forecast of the admission of Gentiles into the kingdom, would not necessarily convey this meaning to a Jewish Christian society. Nor need the parables 2128-32. 33-46 221-14 have seemed to such a community to bear this meaning.)

The editor of the Gospel has preserved these sayings in spite of the fact that he himself clearly believed that the good news of

the kingdom was intended for Gentiles. For he inserts 85-13, adding to it from the Logia vv.11. 12, the result being that the admission of Gentiles is clearly alluded to. And the three parables 2128-2214 in their present position in the Gospel seem to suggest the same lesson. Compare also his insertion of 2531-46, possibly a Christian homily, of 2414 from Mk.; and of 2816-20, especially v.19, which is probably also derived from Mk.'s lost ending.

There is, however, nothing in these passages as recorded by Mt. which takes us outside the Jewish Christian point of view of the early Church at Jerusalem as described in Ac 1-15. In that Church reluctance to the admission of the Gentiles into the Church was at length so far worn down, that it was admitted that the Gospel should be preached to the Gentiles. But the standpoint adopted was somewhat similar to that of the canonical prophets, who advocated the view that the Jewish religion was destined to attract to itself all nations, but who never seem to have doubted that the result would be the submission of the Gentiles to the privileges of Judaism rather than the complete supersession of Judaism by a new religion. In the same way there is nothing in the first Gospel which is not consistent with a conception of Christianity as a purified Judaism which was destined to absorb within itself disciples (proselytes) from all nations.

Of course, Christ's sayings contain within themselves a wider and freer spirit than this, but the Jewish Christian Church of Palestine may well have failed to see the ultimate goal of universalism towards which this teaching inevitably tended.

(d) The insistence on the permanent validity of the Mosaic law.

Cf. 517-20 1816 233. 23 Tavтa de edel Tonorat. Cf. 712b, and especially the law of divorce for unchastity, 532.

=

This has so far influenced the editor, that he inserts a similar saying into Mk.'s narrative 102-12 Mt 193-10, where it is certainly out of place. See notes on Mt 19. Cf. also the insertion of the words unde oaßßár in 2420, the omission of Mk 227, and the emphasis on the fulfilment of prophecy.

(e) The Jewish phraseology of the sayings. Cf. especially:

ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν.

ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐν (τοῖς) οὐρανοῖς.

ὁ πατὴρ ὁ οὐράνιος.

πατὴρ ὑμῶν, ἡμῶν, σου, αὐτῶν,

on which see above. And

518 ἰῶτα ἐν ἢ μία κεραία.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »