Abbildungen der Seite

O. Holtzmann does,1 Es kam das Menschenkind, is to fail utterly to do justice to the 'I am he,' which as Harnack says underlies the passage throughout. Its interest, in relation to the purpose of this study, is that it reveals Jesus to us making (if we may put it so) in the most unassuming manner the most stupendous assumption— identifying Himself with men in all that is human, sharing with them in the humble common order of their life. in this world, yet representing for them at that level the supreme wisdom of God, and betraying the sense that the final triumph of humanity-that victory of the human over the brutal in which the Kingdom of God is announced to come-is a triumph identical with his own. It is not only in what have been regarded as properly eschatological passages that we have to think of this last aspect of the Son of Man: more or less it must reach the mind everywhere. Only because the final sovereignty and all that it involves is latent in the term can he who says with such genial humility, The Son of Man came eating and drinking, say at the same time, Blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in Me, or Whoso shall confess Me before men, him shall the Son of Man confess before the angels of God.

The second of our examples is found verbatim in Matt. 820, Luke 958: The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head. This is surely a self-authenticating word. To replace the Son of Man by the personal pronoun is to take the weight as well as the beauty of the saying away. Jesus does not speak to repel the person-a scribe, according to Matthew-who offered to follow Him wherever He went, but He invites him to count the cost. He does not speak as if such devotion were beyond what He could claim; on the contrary, the In his Leben Jesu, p. 129.

immediate context in both evangelists represents Him as demanding from an aspirant to discipleship that cruel sacrifice of natural affection which we have already discussed in principle: Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead. His claims cannot be put too high. What breaks through at this point in the use of the title Son of Man-a title so appropriate where Jesus finds that His humanity is literally all that He has in common with His kind, all properties and privileges of other men being denied Him-is this sense of the disparity between His present lot and that which is destined for Him. The pathos of His situation is not that of a poor man, but that of a disinherited King. He is the heir of all things, and when He calls Himself the Son of Man, He betrays that He thinks of Himself in that character; but He sees not yet all things put under Him. How much of the sense of this reached the mind of His hearers-how far, for example, the scribe here addressed felt that the coming King had an infinitely stronger claim on the loyalty of his followers just because He was homeless as yet in the realm which was truly His ownwe may not be able to tell. Sometimes a man, even in speaking to others, speaks half to himself, utters his mind heedless of whether it can all be apprehended or appreciated at the moment, because he is sure it will be afterwards. No one who heard this word could forget it. There is no reason to suppose that the authority on which Matthew and Luke are dependent made any mistake in recording it; and its whole meaning and power would be disclosed as other sides of what 'the Son of Man' meant were revealed in the teaching of Jesus.

Passing by the occurrence of the phrase in Matt. 121o, where we have an interpretation by the evangelist of a word of Jesus which is simply reported in Luke 11 30, we come to the last case in which it is used by both Matthew

and Luke, a case of peculiar difficulty: Matt. 12, Luke 12 10. Here blaspheming or speaking a word against the Son of Man is contrasted, as a pardonable sin, with blaspheming the Spirit, which is unpardonable. Such a contrast is only intelligible if the Son of Man is a person who suggests in the first instance the human rather than the divine, a person therefore with regard to whom misapprehension, contempt, and petulance are easy to understand and to condone. On the other hand, it is obvious that the title Son of Man must be significant here, and significant of something great: if it were merely a synonym for 'I,' and if the speaker were only an ordinary person like those to whom He spoke, what He says would be gratuitous and even profane. Who am I,' to say that whoever speaks a word against me it shall be forgiven him, and to compare, or if it be preferred, to contrast speaking against myself with speaking against the Holy Spirit? Even to contrast two things implies some sort of proportion between them, and it is inept to say that a sin is pardonable, unless there is a natural presumption that it is in itself a grave sin. This is the situation here. Jesus calls himself the Son of Man with the sense of what the term involves. The Son of Man is the destined King in the Kingdom of God, the glorious person who is to hold the sovereignty when the tyranny of Satan has been overthrown. It is this which makes speaking against Him alarming. In spite of His destined glory, however, He moves among men in a lowly guise and in familiar relations which expose Him to hasty and unworthy censures. It is such a censure that we find in the petulant outburst, 'He is beside himself'; but offensive as it is, the circumstances make it pardonable. Nevertheless, in the very fact that Jesus pronounces it to be pardonable, and that He names it in the same breath with the sin against the Spirit, which

He declares to be unpardonable, we see how seriously He regarded it, and how singularly therefore He thought of Himself. In its combination of self-abnegation and self-assertion, the passage is exactly parallel to that in which Jesus disclaims knowledge of 'that day or that hour,' while at the same time He assumes a place higher than men or angels, the place of One who is 'the Son' in the unqualified sense in which God is 'the Father' (Mark 1332). Schmiedel is probably right in holding that this saying about the pardonableness of speaking a word against the Son of Man is a genuine word of Jesus: it is certainly not likely to have been invented by people who worshipped Him. But even if he were wrong, and Wellhausen were right in his belief that the true form of Jesus' words is preserved in Mark, the result, so far as our argument is concerned, would hardly be affected. In Mark (3 28 ff.), there is no mention of the Son of Man, but all sins are said to be pardonable to the sons of men except that of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Now the sin of blaspheming the Spirit, as the context shows, is the sin of those who look at the works of redeeming love wrought by the Spirit of God in Jesus-for it is by the Spirit of God he casts out demons-and ascribe them to Beelzebub. In other words, it is by a sin committed against the person and work of Jesus that men involve themselves in unpardonable guilt. This puts Him even more unequivocally than the form of words common to Matthew and Luke into a place of peculiar greatness. It identifies Him with the cause of God in that absolute fashion of which we have already had illustrations, and it makes the destiny of men depend for ever on their attitude to Himself and His work.'

In the passages which have just been reviewed what is uppermost in the title Son of Man is the suggestion of 1 On this paragraph, see the author's article in The Expositor, Dec. 1907.

[ocr errors]

humanity-the lowliness of Jesus, His kinship with men, that in His aspect and circumstances which exposes Him to depreciation and misunderstanding. The other side of the meaning-that in which the glorious destiny of the Son of Man is involved-can never have been absent, though in these cases it is more or less latent. Matthew and Luke have, however, in common another series of passages in which the glorious destiny of the Son of Man is the very thing which is affirmed. They are to be found in Matt. 24 27. 37. 39. 44 ; 24, 26, 30 Luke 17 12 10. To these we should perhaps add Luke 12, though in the parallel in Matt. 10 the Son of Man is wanting, and is represented by 'I.' In all these passages the eschatological meaning is undoubted: Jesus speaks of Himself definitely as the person in whom the glorious prophecy of Dan. 7 13 ff. is to be suddenly and finally fulfilled. Hence there can be no question that Jesus Himself inspired the hope of His Return which fills the New Testament. If He renounced Messiahship in the political sense in which it was popular with the Jews, He claimed it in the supernatural sense which had gathered around it since Daniel. He identified Himself with the human form to which 'the kingdom' was to be given. Nothing isolates more conspicuously Jesus' sense of what He was in relation to God and to man. Nothing marks off His consciousness of Himself more distinctly from every form of prophetic consciousness than this, that whereas the prophets looked forward to the coming of another, what Jesus saw as the final and glorious consummation of God's purposes was His own coming again. It is not to the purpose to raise here the question how far the words of Jesus are to be taken literally, or how far they are merely symbolical-how far they have proved substantially true, or how far we must acknowledge in them that illusive element which is inseparable from predictive prophecy. When we consider

« ZurückWeiter »