i
I I I
Bt'atcssartca
PART VIII
"THE SON OF MAN
OR
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STUDY
OF THE
THOUGHTS OF JESUS
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
: FETTER LANE, E.G.
C. F. CLAY, MANAGER
100, PRINCES STREET
Berlin: A. ASHER AND CO.
leip>ig: F. A. BROCKHAUS
eto gork: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
anto Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.
All rights reserved
B\b\6
o<nvn"~v(>nr.)
(^ -Ljm-feee&rtcA , . tf. 8,
"THE SON OF MAN"
OR
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STUDY
\
OF THE
BY
EDWIN A. ABBOTT
He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. St John xiv. o.
fr
Cambridge
at the University Press
1910
PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
TO
THE SAINTS AND SEERS
TO WHOM IT WAS GIVEN TO PREPARE THE WAY
FOR THE VISION OF THE ANGELS OF GOD
ASCENDING AND DESCENDING
UPON
"THE SON OF MAN"
PRELIMINARY
THIS work is an investigation into the meaning or
perhaps we should rather say the meanings of Jesus
in calling Himself "the son of man." But it is also an
attempt to help Christians to study His thoughts as a whole,
so far as they may be inferred from classifications and com-
parisons of passages in the four gospels, illustrated from
Hebrew and Jewish literature, and from those very early
Christian commentators in whom we seem to find some still
lingering breath of the atmosphere of Galilee. Before pro-
ceeding to the special subject of the work, " the son of man,"
some preliminary remarks may be of use about it, in its wider
aspect, and about the fruit that may be reasonably anticipated
from an ample and searching examination of what may be
called " the fourfold gospel " as the record of the life of
a Jewish Messiah, we will not say by Greek writers, but, at
all events, in Greek.
The opinion is widely disseminated that the gospels are
historically untrustworthy, and that Christians really know
much less than they suppose themselves to know about what
Jesus said and did. In that opinion though not to the
extent to which some critics carry it I have been compelled
to share. And there is a consequent sense of loss. But there
is also a hope of compensation. We may be consoled for
having to give up our old confidence about the precise nature
of some things that Jesus is alleged to have said and done if
we can gain a new confidence about what Jesus thought.
Some of the reasons for entertaining the hope of such
a gain may be briefly stated as follows.
vii
PRELIMINARY
First, the divergences in the Synoptic gospels appear to
have mostly arisen not from editorial bias or partisanship
(often euphemistically called " tendency ") but from the
difficulty naturally experienced by the Christian apostles,
evangelists, missionaries, and catechists, of the first century,
in conveying to the Western Churches Greek interpretations
of Aramaic and Hebrew traditions about the acts and deeds
of one so immeasurably above these interpreters and conveyers
as Jesus Christ. A vast difference separates the results of such
a difficulty from the results of partisanship, or "tendency,"
or (in plain words) a proneness to falsify. Divergent falsi-
fications would throw little or no light on the truth falsified.
Divergent misinterpretations often throw a great deal of
light on the truth misinterpreted 1 .
Secondly, some of the most startling and difficult sayings
assigned to Christ (which, because of their difficulty, some
modern critics have asserted to be fictitious) can be shewn to
go straight back to those Hebrew "scriptures" to which (as all
our evangelists agree) Jesus was constantly referring. Yet,
though they go straight back, they go, so to speak, under-
ground. For example, whereas the Hebrew book of Isaiah
declares that the Servant of Jehovah "made intercession? our
Synoptic gospels contain nothing more than an obscure trace
of this in reiterated predictions that the Son of Man shall " be
delivered up'.' The reason for the change is, that although
the Hebrew of Isaiah says ""make intercession" the Greek
version of Isaiah, current in the first century, says "be delivered
up " ; and Paul accepts this rendering and applies it to Jesus.
The facts will be found to point to the conclusion that Jesus
did really utter this prediction as a quotation from Isaiah, but
that the three earliest evangelists not imitated by the fourth
recording the quotation in its current Greek form, if they did
1 For example, the divergent Greek misinterpretations of Hebrew
scripture throw much light on the meaning of the Hebrew. If the
Hebrew were lost, they would often help us to recover it.
viii
not themselves misunderstand, at all events led their readers
to misunderstand, the underlying Hebrew thought of mediation.
A third cause for hopefulness is to be found in the peculiar
character of the fourth gospel. It does not pretend to be,
like the three, a record of Christ's exact words. But this
absence of pretension will be found to make it, in some
respects, all the more valuable, when it intervenes, as it often
does not as regards the words, but as regards the thought,
of some of Christ's deepest doctrine to clear up difficulties
arising out of the Synoptists, and more especially to explain
those passages in Mark which Luke has either omitted or
altered 1 .
The testimony of the author of the fourth gospel,
commonly called John, to the fundamental truths of Christ's
doctrine, must surely seem to deserve increased attention and
respect even from those who are unable to believe that the
author was an apostle if it can be shewn that he comes as
a confirmatory witness, pointing to the same conclusions as
those to which we are led, first, doubtfully, by the obscure
and divergent testimony of the Synoptic texts, and secondly
by the illuminating testimony of those passages of Hebrew
scripture to which the Synoptists openly refer or latently
allude.
This third line of evidence, the Johannine, has hitherto
received, so far as I know, inadequate attention. Advanced
criticism has often been content to say that John idealised
Jesus, as also it sometimes asserts that Paul invented for Him
a new religion. There may be, and probably is, a grain of
truth in the first of these contentions. But it is also true that
a great spiritual genius like the unknown writer of the fourth
gospel, or like Paul, may often throw a flood of light on the
meanings and purposes of an infinitely greater Predecessor
1 For instances of such Johannine Intervention, see 3126 a, 3325 etc.
and the Index to Johannine Grammar under "John."
ix 05
PRELIMINARY
who could not be so adequately delineated by His immediate
followers.
It is historically and antecedently probable that Jesus in
His doctrine looked back, as a Jewish prophet of the highest
order would look back, to the call of Abraham before the
Law, and to the creation of Adam in God's image before the
Call of Abraham. It is also probable that He looked forward,
like that marvellously inspired prophet whose utterances are
contained in the composite " book of Isaiah," to the establish-
ment of God's universal Kingdom over all the sons of
Adam. Of this ample outlook into the past and the future of
humanity the Synoptic gospels give us but faint traces. Yet
traces there are ; and closer examination brings them out
more clearly. It will be maintained in this treatise that they
are faint because of the inadequacy of the record, and that
Paul and John, in deepening the traces, have but done justice
to the spiritual fact.
Such are the grounds on which a renewed and hopeful
attention is claimed for a broad study of the Fourfold Gospel
as a whole, concerning which study I will merely add that, in
spite of undeniable losses, it seems to me to result in a balance
of gain. Gain on the whole it must certainly be called by
those whom such a study has helped to realise how much
more Jesus deserves than they have hitherto given Him of
those deep feelings of love, trust, and awe, which (whether
men know it or not) are the three essential elements of true
and righteous worship, and how noble and helpful is that
conception of the One God which regards Him as being from
the beginning never alone, but always the Father, toward
whom the Son has been ever looking in the Spirit of eternal
Love.
So much for the purpose of this treatise as part of a study
of the thoughts of Jesus as a whole. We pass now to its
purpose as a study of a special subject.
PREFACE I (THE HYPOTHESIS)
Jesus is reported in all our gospels the fourth as
-*- well as the three to have frequently spoken of Himself
in the third person as the Son of Man is known to all. But
why He thus spoke, and in what sense He used the term, are
disputed questions. In the Greek of our gospels it is, literally,
" the son of the man." What it was in the Aramaic of Christ's
words critics are not agreed. Many maintain that He used it
as the title of a Messianic, or (which is not the same thing)
a supernatural, character. Some assert that He did not use it
at all.
Being therefore confessedly a subject of critical controversy,
the interpretation of Christ's title is liable to be put on one
side by some readers of the Gospel who, though careful
students of its thought, are not experts in the verbal criticism
bearing on it. They may be disposed to decide that about
the subject of so much discussion and divergent opinion it is
not their business to spend time, since there can be little fruit
for their labour. In arrest of this decision, the author ven-
tures to offer the following considerations.
In the first place our Lord's title or self-appellation, for
it is practically never given to Him except by Himself
seems to stand at the outset of His biographies as a kind of
guide-post to students of His life. The writing on the guide-
post is commonly read thus: "Keep constantly in view the
fact that, although I am a man, I am not a natural but a
supernatural man" But it may also be read thus : " Keep
constantly in view the fact that, although I have wonder-
working powers that might be regarded as above the level of
PREFACE I
man, and although the unclean spirits call me and call me
truly Son of God, yet, for all that, I am, in the most real
sense, matt" Surely we ought to try to ascertain which of
these meanings, or what other meaning, is the right one. It
may make all the difference in our progress. No doubt, men
may take different paths in this discussion and yet come to
the same conclusion, so far as concerns believing that Jesus of
Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God, incarnate under the
title Son of Man. Nevertheless there must be some difference
in the two views of the whole of Christ's life and doctrine
corresponding to the two above-mentioned views of the sense
He Himself attached to His self-appellation.
In the next place, the reader is invited to remember that,
even if the investigation should leave him finally doubtful as
to the precise meaning of "the son of man 1 " or disposed to
believe (as is not improbably the fact) that Jesus used the
term on different occasions with different shades of meaning
there still remains the possibility that his labours may have
resulted in giving him an increase of insight into Hebrew and
Jewish thought and doctrine concerning God and Man, and
concerning that mysterious evolution of the divine out of the
human, to which we give the name of Redemption, and
apart from which we cannot adequately understand either the
Old Testament or the New. Such increased knowledge of
the thoughts of Christ's countrymen could hardly fail to throw
light on the thoughts of Christ Himself, and on the meaning
and purpose of His whole life.
For example, trying to look at matters with a simple eye,
as Jews of the first century, and endeavouring to imagine how
we should be affected by hearing a new teacher speak of him-
self in the third person, we must realise that neither rabbi nor
prophet spoke in this way. Putting aside such introductory
sentences in the prophets as "the vision of Isaiah... which he
1 On the reasons for printing the title in this neutral form, see
3000 a-b.
xii
PREFACE I
saw," we may say this use of the third person is unknown
in Hebrew prophecy. The only prophet that uses it is not
Hebrew. It is Balaam the son of Beor 1 . He begins in the
first person, making a vain attempt to over-rule the will of
God by " enchantments." But " when he saw that it pleased
the Lord to bless Israel," this ceased, and " he went not, as at
the other times, to meet with [A.V. seek] enchantments."
The Spirit of God came upon him, " and he took up his
parable and said, Balaam the son of Beor saith, and the man
whose eye was closed saith ; he saith who heareth the words of
God, who seeth the vision of the Almighty, falling down and
having his eyes open."
The meaning of the story seems to be that this inspired
enemy of Israel an enemy and yet inspired began with a
will and purpose of his own, a wilful prophet, less prophet than
enchanter, one " whose eye was closed," though he was forced
to prophesy as though he saw. But afterwards, when the
Spirit fell on him, he ceased from enchantments and from
fighting against the truth. Then he dropped the "I" and the
" me " and became the instrument of the Almighty 1 .
Similarly, it will be found, later on, that the third person
was used in post-scriptural language, not merely in such
scriptural phrases as " thy servant " but in others also, to
imply self-subordination. And this is a reasonable, though of
course not a universal, sense.
In the next place let us imagine ourselves with Jesus in
the wilderness when the Tempter is tempting Him with an
" if" to turn stones into bread (" if thou art the Son of God ").
1 Numb, xxiii. 7 xxiv. 16. On 2 S. xxiii. i and Ezek. xxiv. 24, see
3068 (iii) foil. Those passages confirm the view here taken of the use of
the third person. The remarks made above apply to what is said by a
prophet in the course of his prophecy, and not to what may be called the
title of each prophecy at the beginning of the book, e.g. " the vision of
Isaiah.. .which he saw."
2 On the later use of the third person for the first among the Jews, see
3068 (i)-(ii).
xiii
PREFACE I
His reply in the first utterance of His manhood recorded
jointly by Matthew and Luke is "Man shall not live by
bread alone."
This is a quotation from Deuteronomy, and one of the
Aramaic Targums has " the son of man " instead of " man."
That will be considered hereafter. But the point for us now
is, not that Jesus may have actually said " son of man," nor
even that He indirectly called Himself "man" or "son of
man " when the Tempter appealed to His consciousness that
He was Son of God, but rather that He indirectly spoke of
Himself in the third person and as the typical " man." He
did not do this with the sonorous directness of " Balaam the
son of Beor, the man whose eye was closed." It is not
"Jesus of Nazareth shall not live," still less, "Jesus of Nazareth
the Son of God," or, " Jesus who is in the bosom of the Father."
It is not " Jesus " at all. He mentions no name of His own.
He simply takes from scripture a saying about Man, that is to
say, man in his right relation to God, and assumes that it
applies to Himself, as if He said, " Homo sum, humani nihil a
me alienum puto," merging Himself in humanity.
We now come to the first instance in which the three
Synoptists agree that Jesus referred to Himself under the title
we are considering. He claimed, they say, that " the son of
man " had authority upon earth to forgive sins 1 , and He
1 Some deny that Jesus uttered these words. But there is no historical
basis for the denial, and it will be shewn that they are indirectly confirmed
by the fourth gospel. The spiritual originality of some of Christ's utter-
ances is too often held a sufficient reason for denying that He uttered
them. That is as absurd as it would be to deny that He uttered the eulogy
on the beauty of the lilies of the field and on their superiority to the raiment
of Solomon. Few modern readers probably have the least glimmering of
the fact that this saying is marvellously original. Learned men have
alleged no parallel to it in the history of human thought till the time of
Claudian who probably wrote under Christian influence (see 3565 b foil.).
If Jesus was original in His insight into the divine beauty of the flowers
of the field, is it not likely that He would be original in His insight into
the divine potentialities of men and women ?
xiv
PREFACE I
healed a paralytic in order that the Pharisees, who had
charged Him with blasphemy for pronouncing forgiveness,
might " know " the truth of the claim. According to Matthew,
as a result of the whole transaction, " the multitudes... glorified
God that had given such authority to men " not " to a new
prophet " nor " to the Messiah," but " to men!' According to
Mark and Luke, the Pharisees had previously asked " Who
can forgive sins except God?" meaning, in effect, "Men
cannot forgive sins." Jesus seems to reply, in effect, " Men
can forgive sins." It is true that He does not say " men" He
says " the son of man'' But He seems clearly to take " the
son of man " as meaning, in some sense, what Matthew calls
" men."
If we had been Jews in that assembly, we might possibly
have sided with the multitudes for Jesus ; more probably,
perhaps, we should have sided with the Pharisees against
Him ; but in either case it would seem that we should have
regarded the new teacher as ranking himself emphatically
among men, and putting forward a stupendous claim for poor
despised humanity under this humble title, in accordance with
the words of the Psalmist " What is man that thou art mindful
of him, and the son of man that thou visitest him ? " Thus
also, if we believed in Him, we should explain, as Jews, the
teacher's strange use of the third person : " He regards him-
self," we should say, " as the Servant of the Lord."
In England, the popular view is that " the son of man "
was a recognised Messianic title derived from a passage in
Daniel. Those who take this view appear bound to assert
that " the multitudes " were wrong : " What they ought to
have said was this, ' We glorify God for sending us the
Messiah prophesied by Daniel with authority to do things
impossible for men.' " But must they not also add " Matthew
was wrong too " ? For Matthew either endorses the view of
the multitudes, or at all events does not correct it. Moreover,
there is no suggestion in any of the gospels here that either
xv
PREFACE I
the Pharisees or the multitudes regarded Christ's self-appella-
tion as being " a Messianic title." Lastly, the " passage in
Daniel " does not mention " the son of man" It mentions
only one " like a son of man" that is, one like a human being.
In this crude form, the popular hypothesis is hardly worth
considering. But, in a corrected form, it can be so shaped as
to meet the last-mentioned objection as follows, " Daniel, it is
true, only spoke of one ' like a son of man/ but he prepared the
way for developments such as we find in the Book of Enoch.
That book speaks of ' tlie son of man,' and clearly regards the
character as supernatural. Borrowing the title from Enoch,
and claiming to be the Messiah, endowed with a supernatural
power to forgive, Jesus used this title here in order to assert
this claim, as much as to say, ' Keep constantly in view the
fact that I am a superhuman being endowed with superhuman
authority.' "
This correction, however, does not meet the other ob-
jections urged above. Moreover it will be shewn hereafter in
detail that it does not adequately represent the facts in Enoch.
It will also appear that " the son of man," so far from being
a recognised Messianic title, is not used thus in either of the
Talmuds or in any other early Jewish literature. Nevertheless
the popular view is likely to be popular for a long time to
come, partly because the derivation of the title from Daniel
and Enoch seems to afford a definite, intelligible, and compact
explanation, and partly because people do not see from what
other source it could be derived.
" A definite, intelligible, and compact explanation "
sounds well. But what should we say of " a definite, intelli-
gible, and compact explanation " of Christ's other title, " the
Son of God " ? To many students of the gospel it will seem
that "mysteries no less divine than those inherent in " the Son
of God," lie hid in Christ's title of " the son of man." If Jesus
had wished to label Himself Messiah by using a recognised
Messianic title, He could have publicly called Himself
xvi
PREFACE I
Messiah or Christ ; but we know that He never did this,
even in answer to the appeal " If thou art the Christ tell us
plainly." It was part of His mission to make war against
such theological labels. Absorbed in His consciousness of
union with the Father, as being Son of God, and in His zeal
for the redemption of all the sons of Adam or Man, as being
Himself a son of Adam or Man, He was not likely to select
for Himself a "recognised Messianic title" that had already
acquired a technical meaning. Whatever name He might
select would surely come to Him, not indeed apart from the
scriptures, but still from the primary source of an overflowing
zeal and love for God the Father, and for Man or Adam the
Child, made in the Father's image.
This leads us to the hypothesis advocated in the following
pages, which is, that our Lord was not influenced by the
Book of Enoch, but by the scriptures and by the whole of the
scriptural conception of " man " and " the son of man," or, as
the Hebrew Bible would mostly put it, of " Adam " and " the
son of Adam," from Genesis to Malachi, not indeed ex-
cluding the vision of Daniel but including a great deal more.
In particular, it will be maintained that He had in view the
appellation of "son of Adam," given to Ezekiel, between
whom and Himself there will be shewn to be many remark-
able parallelisms. This appellation of Ezekiel is rendered
by our English Version "son of man," but by the Aramaic
Targum "son of Adam." If therefore Jesus derived His title
in part from the thought of Ezekiel, it seems reasonable to
suppose that He, speaking in Aramaic, followed the language
of the Aramaic Targum, and called Himself " son of Adam."
According to this hypothesis, we must first attempt to
think of man as a whole from the personal point of view
famrliar to us in Genesis and the Pauline Epistles as Adam,
or Man, not brought forth by the earth, like the other animals,
at God's command, but formed by the Lord God Himself from
the dust of the ground, inspired by Him with the breath of
XVII
PREFACE I
life, and commanded by Him to rule over the animal creation.
The book of Genesis dimly suggests, in the story of Adam's
fall, that some son of Adam is to bring about a compen-
sation. Afterwards, the story of Abraham suggests that the
compensation is to extend beyond Abraham's seed to all the
nations.
The Law and the Prophets, it is true, dwell for the most
part on the compensation as limited to the seed of Abraham,
and even limit this still further so as to exclude the sons of
Ishmael and those of Esau. But some of the later prophecies,
and in particular those in the composite book of Isaiah,
written after the captivity, take a wider range, and reveal the
prophet as one chastened by suffering, to whom it has been
revealed that his nation, too, must needs be similarly chastened,
so that through their humiliation and dispersion the blessing
of Abraham may spread outward to the Gentiles, that is to
say beyond the sons of Israel so as to include all the sons of
Adam.
The Apostle Paul has made us familiar with the thought
that He who was to extend the blessing on Abraham to all
the sons of Adam, must Himself be regarded as a kind
of Adam, being the incarnation of the real or ideal Man,
the Lord above, the perfect and heavenly pattern of the
earthy and imperfect Adam who fell. " It is written," he says,
" the first man Adam became a living soul ; the last Adam, a
life-giving spirit... The first man is of the earth, earthy; the
second man is of heaven." No one has been able to shew
that such language as this was used by any early Jewish
writers. But if it can be shewn to follow naturally from an
inspired insight into Christ's self-appellation of " the son of
Adam" inadequately represented in our Greek gospels by
" the son of the man " as including in its meanings the Son
and restorer of the house of Adam, then, the Pauline language
is vividly illuminated and explained. Paul, in that case, did
not invent this doctrine for Christ, but derived it from Christ.
xviii
PREFACE I
This view will not exclude the fulfilment of the vision of
Daniel, but it will include a great deal more. In particular,
it will include the much grander, more original and more
wide-reaching vision of Ezekiel, to which Daniel seems to
have given a special application. Ezekiel, writing in Hebrew,
sees one like " a man " near the throne in heaven ; Daniel,
writing in Aramaic, sees one like "a son of man 1 ." Both
prophets, alone among the prophets of Israel, are themselves
called (in Hebrew) "son of Adam 2 " (or, "son of man"),
Daniel only once, but Ezekiel nearly a hundred times. Both
also see in their visions four objects called " living creatures "
or " beasts " called " living creatures " in our English version
of Ezekiel and " beasts " in our English version of Daniel,
but the Hebrew is the same in both. Over these, in Ezekiel,
there dominates the human Person ; from these, in Daniel,
the human Person wrests dominion 3 .
One reason, it will be maintained, why Jesus called Himself
by the title given to Ezekiel and to Daniel was that He realised
the same visions, or the essence of the two visions, in one. He
identified the Spirit that had descended from heaven on
Himself with the Spirit of Humanity in heaven, controlling or
1 The portion of the book of Daniel containing the phrase " one like
a son of man" is written in Aramaic. In Aramaic, "son of man," mean-
ing " specimen of humanity," came to be regularly used in some senses or
forms of speech, for " man."
2 The portion of the book of Daniel in which the prophet is called
" son of man " is written in Hebrew, and the phrase is " son of adam "
which may mean either " son of man " or " son of Adam."
3 The Person in Ezekiel is called by Origen " the Charioteer." He
is probably alluding to the well-known Chariot of Man in Plato (Phae-
drus 25) in which the ruling power is said to be "the charioteer of a
pair of horses " of which one is good but the other evil. But Ezekiel's
"Chariot" was much better known, as such, among the Jews, than
Plato's Chariot among the Greeks. Jerome (on Ezekiel) refers to Plato's
Chariot. The writer of the early treatise entitled Justin's Exhortation
to the Greeks 31 says (no doubt erroneously) that Plato must have
borrowed from Ezekiel.
xix
PREFACE I
subjugating animate and inanimate nature for the purposes
of the divine order and for the conformation of Man to God.
Therefore, although the unclean spirits and devils repeatedly,
and correctly, called Him Son of God, He preferred to call
Himself Son of Man, as if to say " Keep constantly in view
my human nature, that you may perceive how divine a thing
human nature may be, and that you may be led through
the knowledge of the divinity of Man to the knowledge of
the humanity of God."
xx
PREFACE II (OBJECTIONS)
AGAINST the hypothesis above stated, expressed by me
-^~*- perhaps obscurely in The Message of the Son of Man,
a critic, to whom I think I had failed to make my meaning
clear, raised this objection : " The distinction in Greek
between ' man ' and ' son of man ' was one which it would
be impossible to express in Aramaic, so that on the lips of
Jesus it can only have meant ' man ' as such." In this
phrase, " the distinction in Greek between ' man ' and ' son of
man,'" there is an erroneous assumption to which attention
may be usefully directed.
The truth is that, " in Greek " properly so called, the gospel
phrase (" the son of the man ") is non-existent in any possible
gospel sense. "In Greek," it could only mean either (i) "the
son of the [above-mentioned] man," or (2) "the son of the
[creature called] man " as one speaks of " the young of the
[creature called] lion, tiger etc. 1 " Neither of these can be the
meaning in the gospels. " The Greek " appears to have gone
wrong in an attempt to render literally some Aramaic expres-
sion that cannot be rendered rightly if literally. Therefore the
question for us ought to be, not as to the impossibility of
expressing in Aramaic some distinction in Greek, but as to
the impossibility, or at least the difficulty, of expressing in
Greek some phrase, probably scriptural in thought though
Aramaic in word, bearing on man and man's nature, likely
to be selected for Himself by such a one as Jesus, who felt
Himself sent to draw man into communion with God.
1 For the Greek phrase see 3032 (ii) a b and 307581.
A. s. xxi b
PREFACE II
Such a title would be the one mentioned above as being
applied in some hundred instances to the prophet Ezekiel in
Hebrew, ben adam. This might mean either " son of man " or
"son of Adam" for in Hebrew adam has these two meanings.
The LXX and our English version render it " son of man''
But the Aramaic Targum renders it bar adam, which since
in Aramaic adam does not mean " man " but is confined to the
meaning of the Patriarch we must render " son of Adam."
If we are to take any single Aramaic phrase as the basis
of a working hypothesis, this appears to have the first
claim 1 .
When the first Christian missionaries began to preach
Christ to the multitudes in the Greek cities they would
naturally avoid the term "son of Adam." Many Greeks
would not know what it meant. Others would be repelled by
it as meaning " son of the earthborn," " son of the fallen one,"
" son of the causer of human sin." It was a title applied to
Jesus by Himself, not to be applied to Him by others. Later
on, when it became necessary to use this title, or some
1 For details bearing on Aramaic usage of the term " son of man "
the reader will be referred in the following pages to Prof. Driver's
exposition of the subject. References will also be made to the author's
Notes on New Testament Criticism, A. and C. Black, 1907, where more
than a hundred pages are devoted to the discussion of the original Greek
and Hebrew passages bearing on " the son of man." It is there shewn
that Targumistic interpretations of the same Hebrew expressions are
occasionally different. Moreover the Targums are inconsistent with
themselves, besides differing from one another, in their interpretations
of the Hebrew word meaning Adam or Man ; and modern authorities
differ as to the interpretation of the Targums. The conclusion left on
the author's mind is that, in view of all this undoubted confusion, and
of the influence of scriptural Hebrew on Targumistic Aramaic some
centuries after the time of Christ, it is hopeless to attempt to ascertain,
from Aramaic evidence alone, the exact words of Christ's original phrase
or phrases. But there is much other evidence, direct and indirect, both
as to word and as to thought ; and often we must be guided by evidence
as to thought, no less than or perhaps more than by evidence as to
word.
xxii
PREFACE II
equivalent of it in Greek, because the time had come to
write down, in His own words as far as possible, what He
had taught about Himself, and especially the mysterious
predictions of His Passion, then it was natural for Greek
evangelists like Mark to follow the Greek translators of
o
Ezekiel in rendering "son of adam" by "son of man." At
the same time, they would know that the meaning was not
" son of a man," which would be a platitude. Probably they
would have some sense, however vague (whether derived or
not from the Aramaic bar adam}, that there was an allusion, if
not to Adam, at all events to the human race from the begin-
ning and as a whole " the Creature, or Person, called man."
Perhaps also they might feel that Jesus was in a special sense
" the son " not " a son " who was to rescue Humanity from
ruin. To express this altogether new thought they might
resort to an altogether new phrase new at least in the
sense in which they henceforth employed it "the son of
the man."
It will be contended that the evangelists, if this was their
meaning, approximated to Christ's meaning. On the suppo-
sition that Jesus called Himself by Ezekiel's title, it will be
maintained that He had a twofold object, not only teaching
that He was a son of Adam, and, as such, in sympathy with
all the sons of Adam, but also preparing the way for the belief
that He was the Son of Adam, just as the Jewish Messiah,
according to popular belief, was to be tlie Son of David. The
popular conception about the Jewish Messiah was that he
should raise up the fallen tabernacle of the house of David,
and, along with it, the whole of Israel. But Christ's con-
ception of the Son of Man would seem to have been that
He should ultimately restore the status of the whole human
race.
The objection that this is a modern and cosmopolitan
thought, which could not have been entertained by a Jewish
Messiah or Prophet, at the beginning of the first century,
xxiii b 2
PREFACE II
might be refuted from the Testaments of the Twelve Patri-
archs. But apart from that work, it has been already met 1
by a reference to the later prophecies in the composite book
of Isaiah, below the level of which such a spirit as that of
Jesus could surely not fall. Even non-Christians ought
reasonably to recognise this. Christians might reasonably
be expected to go further and to recognise that Jesus would
soar high above that level, into a region where the redemp-
tion of the sons of Abraham was seen to be destined to be
ultimately merged in the redemption of all the sons of
Adam.
If it should be objected that this notion is altogether
Pauline, and beyond the horizon of Jesus, the objector may
be fairly asked to explain from what quarter Paul derived
this strange doctrine of a " last Adam " undoing the mischief
of the first. It has been pointed out above that, apart from
Jesus, no Jewish source is known whence this thought could
have sprung. But it might well suggest itself to a mystically
minded Christian such as Paul a fervent student of the
scriptures, ready to see types of the Gospel everywhere latent
under the Law, and to discern the Redemption foreordained
before the Creation if he ascertained that his Master, during
His life, predicted His sufferings as destined to fall on Himself,
not exactly in the character of " the son of the man " as the
Greek gospels expressed it, but in the character of " the son
of Adam."
But the mention of Jesus as predicting His sufferings leads
us to reflect that it is in such predictions that the self-appella-
tion most frequently occurs. It is rarely or never used in the
Sermon on the Mount. In contrast with " Balaam the son of
Beor saith," we note the utter absence of "Jesus the son of
man saith." The expression is most prominent where Jesus
is describing a kind of destiny of suffering suffering to be
1 See p. xviii.
xxiv
PREFACE II
endured, and to be conquered, and to result in further conquest,
and all this in connection with " scriptures " or " fulfilments "
of that which is " written " or " decreed." " Now where," it
may be objected, " can the scriptures be shewn to present this
thought in such a form as to make ' the son of man ' or ' the
o
son of Adam ' a fit title for the sufferer ? "
" In all those passages " such will be the reply " which
directly or indirectly teach that, from Adam onwards, suffering
has been the badge of men, and that a pre-eminent son of Adam
must have been a pre-eminent sufferer. Not indeed that there
is anything essentially ennobling or exalting in merely being
pained. But the Hebrews believed that, through pain, human
nobility and authority come from the divine hand, when men
respond in faith and trust to the chastening touch of God
purging the foolish and fleshly insolence of their untutored
nature. Those thus responsive are called in Hebrew by one
word. But it is rendered in English by many words :
" poor," " meek," " afflicted," " humble," " needy." Sometimes
perhaps it might be better rendered " chastened." Such was
Abraham, though not expressly so called the first to be
" tempted," or " tried " by God. Such, expressly, was Moses,
" meek above all mankind." Such, too, was David called
" the afflicted one " in the Psalms, and by afflictions prepared
to become the shepherd of Israel. Such also was to be the
King of Sion predicted by Zechariah, " meek and riding upon
an ass." Lastly, such was the Suffering Servant in Isaiah
" afflicted," " humbled," " a man of sorrows," whose " visage
and form " were to be " marred " more than " the sons of
man."
Even where we may fail at first to perceive in the scriptures
the Hebrew suggestion of God's chastening as the cause of
man's exaltation, it may be none the less present, as, for
example, in the eighth Psalm, " What is man that thou art
mindful of him, and the son of man that thou visitest him ? "
That this "visiting" may imply "trying" we learn from Job,
XXV
PREFACE II
who shrinks from the pain of it and would fain be " let alone,"
although he knows that it is a part of God's plan for " magni-
fying " him : " What is man that thou shouldest magnify him,
and that thou shouldest set thy heart upon him, and that thou
shouldest visit him every morning and try him every moment 1 ?"
The eighth Psalm also implies that those exalted by God are
" babes and sucklings," and another Psalm represents David
as protesting that he is " not high-minded " but as " a weaned
child."
The legends and fairy stories of many literatures have
made us familiar with the thought of a " little one," like
David, an unnoticed younger son, keeping the flock in the
field and forgotten in the home, but called from the flock to
the throne to do great things for his people ; but the thought
of such a one as being chastened by God, so as to look up like
"a little one" to God, is peculiarly prominent in Hebrew
literature. In the shape in which the eighth Psalm presents
it, the vision of ben adam t " the son of man," exalted by the
visitation of God, who has set His glory upon the heavens,
may well have been one of the causes of Christ's peculiar self-
appellation, besides preparing the way for His general doctrine
about the kingdom of " the little ones," and about the blessed-
ness of "the meek," and about the necessity that He Himself
the " meek and lowly of heart " should " suffer many
things."
This last phrase brings us to another objection : " You
wish us to believe that our Lord's sayings about ' the son of
man ' were mostly based on scripture and on scriptural
sayings (for the most part of a general nature) about the
redemption of Israel or of all mankind. That would be all
very well if He had said simply ' The son of man must suffer
many things ' ; but He predicted that He was to be ' delivered
up,' and ' killed,' and ' raised up on the third day.' These
1 Job vii. 17.
xxvi
PREFACE II
predictions are not in any particular passages of scripture, and
cannot be conceived of as being derived from general views or
combinations of scripture, or from anything but supernatural
foresight."
This objection can be met by facts. First, as to the phrase
" delivered up," it has been stated above, and will be shewn
hereafter in detail, that Isaiah's description of the " afflicted
one," in its current Greek version, speaks of him as being
" delivered up " for transgressors, and that Paul quotes this as
applying to Christ 1 .
In the next place, as regards the words " killed " and
"raised up on the third day," we have to remember that,
if Jesus really regarded Isaiah's Servant of Jehovah, the
" smitten " and " afflicted " one, as pointing out the path to be
taken by Himself, then, like that Servant, He must have in
some sense identified Himself with the sinful Israel for whose
sake He was to be thus " smitten " and " afflicted," and whom
He was to " heal " with His stripes. Now it will be shewn
that concerning this same Israel, sinful but repentant, Hosea
writes, describing it as having been "smitten" but as destined
to be " raised up" and that, too, " on ttie third day." It will
also appear that the Hebrew word in Hosea rendered, and
there rightly rendered, " smitten" may mean, and is repeatedly
taken by the LXX as meaning, "smitten to death" so that
they render it " killed."
In view of these facts, it is not only conceivable but highly
probable, that Jesus would apply to His vicarious sufferings
for the raising up of Israel Hosea's prophetic utterance about
1 The right interpretation of the " delivering up" of Christ is of such
great importance that two chapters are expressly devoted to it in this book
(3253 61 and 3535 44). These chapters are themselves but a condensa-
tion of a volume of Diatessarica entitled Paradosis, i.e. "Delivering up,"
written by the author in the belief, which has been greatly strengthened
by subsequent study, that to miss the suggestion of sacrifice in Christ's
predictions of being " delivered up " is to miss the full meaning of much
else that is most important in the gospels.
xxvii
PREFACE II
being " smitten and raised up on the third day." We are not
necessarily to suppose that Jesus, when first using this pro-
phecy, regarded it as certain that the " smiting " would be " to
death." Facts indeed are against this. But Christian evan-
gelists, at a very early period, looking back to the event, and
finding that " smitten " had actually turned out to be " smitten
to death," or " killed," would take it as having been meant in
that sense, and would record, in all good faith, that Jesus had
predicted concerning Himself that He would not only be
" delivered up " but also " be killed and raised up on the
third day 1 ."
1 Some may object that evangelists, so far from ignoring the scriptures
or missing scriptural allusions, have often introduced passages from the
scriptures into their gospels so as to prove that Christ "fulfilled" them.
Matthew, for example, to illustrate his story of the Return from Egypt,
quotes, from Hosea, " Out of Egypt have I called my son."
But we are not dealing with the accounts of Christ's acts, but with
those of His words. A distinction must be drawn between the two.
In the former, the earliest evangelists might naturally and without
irreverence shape their own language according to prophecy, or occasion-
ally transfer to the text from the margin a form of some O.T. passage, e.g.
" upon my raiment they cast lots," in the belief that what was thus
" written " must have actually occurred.
In recording the utterances of Christ, reverence would make the
Synoptists who attempted to give the exact words much less likely to
insert anything of their own, except for the purpose of explaining
obscurity or removing difficulty. Their whole narrative indicates that
Jesus quoted scripture on His own account, in a manner sometimes
perplexing to His disciples at the time and to His biographers after-
wards. At every step of His life He kept "the scriptures," as well as
facts, in view "the scriptures," for example, predicting the sufferings
of Jehovah's "servant" in Isaiah, as well as the fact that John the
Baptist had actually thus suffered.
In this respect, the temptation of the earliest evangelists would be
occasionally to minimise the extent to which Jesus quoted difficult
passages of scripture, or to modify a quotation where it became a hard
saying. Thus Luke (partly perhaps for this, and partly for other reasons)
omits Christ's prediction about the "smiting" of the shepherd recorded
by Mark and Matthew ; and Matthew, in one version of a prophecy of
Isaiah, substitutes "because seeing they see not" for "/ order that... \
may not see."
xxviii
PREFACE II
" But all this theory of a prophet's self-identification with
a nation, and these expressions about vicarious ' stripes/ and
about being ' smitten ' and ' raised up on the third day ' in
a metaphorical sense, all this" it may be objected "is
poetry. But Jesus talked prose." This objection will have
no force for those who seriously consider the nature of poetry
"simple, sensuous, and passionate" and who realise the
unique combination of spiritual simplicity, vivid appeal to
the senses, and passionate zeal for humanity and divinity,
which is to be found in all His utterances. It is scarcely an
exaggeration to say that they are almost always metaphorical,
and always imbued with the consciousness that things seen
have no reality except so far as they help us to open our eyes
to things unseen. The poetic insight of Jesus underlies all
His teaching. It helps us to understand how He taught
" with authority and not as the scribes." He had " authority"
because He saw, and He saw because He was a Seer, who
could not but express Himself in language that dealt with
invisible things.
That Jesus taught after this manner is but what we might
expect from the analogy of His predecessors the Hebrew
Prophets and Psalmists. They often spoke poetically, and, as
we should now say, mystically. So did the historical Jesus.
When we find it otherwise in the earliest gospels, we have
occasionally to ask whether the explanation may not be that
Mark, often followed by Matthew and Luke, has reduced
Christ's poetry to prose. And this is one of several reasons
why it may be sometimes easier to approximate to the
thoughts of Jesus than to His words, and why the indirect
evidence of the Old Testament may be of greater value than
the direct evidence of the New, because the former indicates
what Jesus must have thought, whereas the latter too often
seems only to shew us how the Greek evangelists may have
divergently distorted sometimes by literalising, sometimes
by paraphrasing what He actually said.
XXIX
PREFACE II
This appreciation of Jesus as a poetic and mystical
Teacher has a bearing (at least in the author's judgment) on
the appreciation of the fourth gospel. For that work, too,
appears to be the work of a poet and a mystic. And, on that
very account, it often throws light (not thrown by the
Synoptists) on some of our Lord's deepest thoughts. It
will be admitted, for example, in the following pages, that
the Johannine sayings of Christ not only do not represent,
but do not even attempt to represent, His exact words.
They sometimes appear to deviate deliberately from the style
and vocabulary of the Synoptic sayings, as though not to
enter into competition or comparison with the latter. But
still it will be maintained that the fourth gospel is often more
true to the historical fact than the three, because we can trace
in it a historical continuity (not to be traced so clearly in the
three) between some of the thoughts of the Old Testament
and some of the most startling thoughts of the New for
example, between the Suffering Servant in Isaiah and the
Good Shepherd, who might be called the Martyr-Shepherd,
in John.
In the Johannine writer, whoever he may have been, we
seem to find something that is closer to Christ than anything
to be found in a Clement, an Ignatius, or a Barnabas.
Alexandrian though he probably was, and not exempt from
some of the defects of the Philonian system of allegory, he
seems to have been in intimate communion with that practical
yet mystical Spirit which said to Peter " What God hath
cleansed, that call not thou common," and to Paul, "My grace
is sufficient for thee, for my power is made perfect in weak-
ness." To such a writer, permeated by the personality of
" the beloved disciple," who himself was permeated by the
prophecies of Ezekiel between whom again and Jesus we
shall have frequent occasion to note most remarkable
parallelisms it may well have been given to teach the world
much that was essentially and practically true though not
XXX
PREFACE II
pretending to be true in letter, concerning the Giver of that
purifying and transmuting Power or Personality the advent
of which was expressly predicted by Ezekiel, and by no other
prophet of Israel, under the title of " a new spirit."
In conclusion let it be permitted to repeat that controversial
theology will not enter into the following discussion. Those
who believe (as the author does) that Jesus was the incarnation
of the Eternal Logos or Son, will admit that, in theory, Jesus
might have begun by calling Himself Son of Man in some
special and technical sense, as much as to say, " Bear in mind
that I am a supernatural character." But all the facts seem
against it the facts of the Old Testament, the facts of the
New, the facts of the Talmud and all Jewish literature and,
perhaps we may add, the facts of human nature. It may
seem at first sight a paradox, but on reflection it will perhaps
be perceived to be true, that in calling Himself Son of Man,
Jesus was partly influenced by the intensity of His conviction
that He was Son of God.
The admiration freely expressed in these pages for Hebrew
theology at its best and purest will not lead any careful reader
to suppose that the author regards the belief in the One God
of Israel as other than a preparation for the belief in what we
may call, by analogy, the God of Adam, the God never alone
not alone on the day when He said " Let us make adam in
our image," nor alone in the beginning of beginnings, being,
from the first, the Eternal Love. But we may admire all the
more both the best Hebrew theology and the best Jewish
interpretation of it when we perceive its preparatory fitness,
and recognise how the best of the prophets were led, by
chastening, from the thought of Israel the Chosen to the
thought of Israel the Child. A Chosen People, a favourite of
God, God might at some time discard ; but a Child, never.
Thus amid crushing disaster and ruin they were forced, if
they were to retain any hope, to cling to God by a new name,
" Doubtless, thou art our Father? Then there sprang up
xxxi
PREFACE II
a sense that this God or Father abode not only in heaven
above but also in the heart of the meek on earth ; and then
the thought of a new spirit and a new heart fit to be His
abiding-place. The next step would have been to perceive
that the " new heart " was not confined to Israel and did not
require the fulfilment of the Law. Struggling for national
existence, the masses of Israel could not rise to this per-
ception. Yet there remained, in the Prophets, the record
of a faith for the sons of Israel that was capable of being
developed into a faith for all the sons of Adam, if only a true
son of Adam could arise to inspire it.
Such a son of Adam our gospels appear to describe, an
Israelite indeed and a patriot, like all the prophets, yet with
a patriotism that took a wider range than that of any of the
prophets because He excelled them all in His consciousness
of God as being Father, and especially Father of " the poor,"
Father of all those who were always hungering and thirsting
after righteousness and looking up to heaven because they
could not receive " their good things " on earth. To preach
the gospel to these, Jesus, we are told, was specially anointed
with the Holy Spirit from heaven ; and this Spirit, we believe,
He imparted to His disciples so that they should impart it to
others, making them " little children," born again into a new
world, the world of that new love with which He loved them.
This new world may be called by various metaphors, the
Spirit of God, or the Bosom of God, or the Family of God
where God is the Father and all men are brethren. Adopting
the first of these, we may say that the Spirit is more often
regarded as in man, than man in the Spirit, and that Ezekiel
appears to have contemplated this spiritual indwelling when
he saw his vision of Israel revivified by the "new spirit."
The successes and failures of Christianity, and our study of
human nature as well as our study of the Bible, confirm the
conclusion that what Ezekiel saw in a vision, Jesus wrought, in
fact ; and that the great work of His life was, if we may so say,
xxxii
PREFACE II
to die, bequeathing to us that Spirit of Humanity in virtue of
which He had called Himself the Son of Man, or Son of Adam.
A few words are due to the reader in explanation of the
repetitions, and, still more, of the very numerous collateral
subjects introduced in the course of the work.
First, as regards repetitions. Some passages, those, for
example, that illustrate the Hebrew conception of God as
a Nursing Father, will be found not only in that portion of
the work which deals with pre-Christian evidence, but also
repeated later on in those chapters which treat of the Synoptic
and the Johannine passages based on that conception, and
which compare the Synoptic with the Johannine view. As to
these my attitude cannot be one of unmixed apology'. One
reason for the comparatively slow progress in New Testament
research appears to be this, that writers have too often sacri-
ficed to secondary considerations the primary thing needful
a plain, full, and impartial statement of verified facts. There
has often been evidence really sufficient to justify a definite
conclusion, but it has not seemed to be sufficient because
it has not been sufficiently classified. Consequently, while
regretting many blemishes and deficiencies of which I am
painfully conscious and which I have not leisure or ability to
remove, I find myself unable to apologize for twice-repeated
or even thrice-repeated quotations of one and the same
passage, or statements of one and the same fact, in different
classifications, where the repetition appears to tend to
clearness.
As regards thecollateral subjects, I would urge that although
verbally standing apart from the main subject they are spiritu-
ally and really closely akin to it. Such, as we have seen, are
Christ's thoughts about " the meek," " the babes and sucklings,"
" the little ones." Such, too whatever view we may take of
the verbal original of " the son of man " must be Christ's
thoughts about the relation of man to God, and about the fit
XXXlll
PREFACE II
titles by which man should speak of God in doctrine, or appeal
to Him in prayer whether Jehovah, or God, or Father, or
Father in Heaven, or the Most High, or all of these and perhaps
others on suitable occasions.
If we pass from man in general to Israel in particular, and
to the part played by Israel in bringing man near to God,
then we have to ask what Jesus with His apparent habit of
going back to that which was " from the beginning " is likely
to have thought about man, from Adam to Abraham, and
from Abraham to Moses, and about Abraham and Moses
themselves. Attention is especially due to the Jewish con-
ception of Abraham, whose " bosom " a Lucan parable mentions
as the home of Lazarus after death ; and whose name is
prominently connected by Matthew and Luke with the Feast
of the Kingdom, and by all the Synoptists with that appella-
tion of God which Jesus is said to have quoted as a proof of
the resurrection.
Of less but still of great importance are other questions
bearing on Christ's attitude to the Gentiles, such as the
command " Go not into the way of the Gentiles." There is
also the story about the Syrophoenician woman in which
Jesus is apparently described as classing her with " the dogs."
Another important question bears on the compatibility of the
saying "the kingdom of God is within you" with other
sayings that seem to predict an external catastrophe to be
accomplished before the passing away of what Jesus called
" this generation."
In these and in other separate investigations the con-
clusion generally arrived at is that Jesus was led on, and
desired to be led on, step by step, to the accomplishment of
the Father's will, knowing indeed very much more than we
realise about eternal laws, and about the certainty of invisible
fulfilments, but also sometimes knowing much less than we
suppose of that which was to happen visibly a few days
hence. Indirectly, many of these investigations may throw
xxxiv
PREFACE II
light on what Jesus meant when He predicted that "the son
of man " would be " raised up on the third day."
A list of these collateral subjects will be found under the
head of Longer Footnotes on p. xlviii of the Contents. It must
be frankly confessed that a detailed study of each of these in
turn would break the consecutiveness of the study of the main
subject. But a glance may sometimes suffice to shew that
a particular note affords a sufficient basis for the statements
in the text. Afterwards the student can return to it if he
wishes to study it by itself, or with other kindred notes. And
here it is hoped that he will derive help from the English
Index at the end, which will enable him to study connectedly
all that has been said, in different parts of the book, about
any one subject such as " Abraham," " Angels " etc.
With the view of making the work, as far as possible,
intelligible to readers knowing no Greek or Hebrew, both
languages have been altogether excluded from the text.
Even in the footnotes no Hebrew has been admitted beyond
an occasional word or two. But the references given to
Hebrew authorities in the footnotes will enable experts to
verify all assertions and translations.
To several friends, mentioned in the Prefaces of previous
volumes of Diatessarica in particular, to Mr VV. S. Aldis,
Mr H. Candler, and the Rev. J. Hunter Smith my thanks
are again due for inspecting, correcting, and criticizing my
proofs.
Obligations to fellow-labourers in New Testament criticism
will be acknowledged where they occur. Differences of opinion
from them have been seldom mentioned. But as I have had
occasion to express dissent on a few points from two eminent
men of learning, with whom I am in general agreement, and
for whose work I feel a special respect, Professor Dalman and
Professor Charles, I take this opportunity of saying that there
are no modern writers to whose labours I am more indebted.
XXXV
PREFACE II
My thanks to the Cambridge University Press, due on
many previous occasions, are more than usually due for this
volume, because of the skill with which the printers have
surmounted the exceptional difficulties presented by the
" Longer Footnotes."
EDWIN A. ABBOTT.
Wellside, Well Walk,
Hampstead.
12 July 1910.
XXXVI
CONTENTS*
PAGE
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS .... 1 Hi
INTRODUCTION
I The subject of the investigation (3000 5)
2 The conditions of the investigation (3006 9)
3 The method of the investigation (30108)
4 Early Christian evidence (301921)
BOOK I
"SON OF MAN"
IN PRE-CHRISTIAN USAGE
CHAPTER I
"SON OF MAN" IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
APPLIED TO MAN IN GENERAL
i "Man "(3022 -6)
2 " Son of man " in a bad sense (302732 (ii))
3 " Son of man " in a good sense (3033 7)
CHAPTER II
"SON OF MAN" IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
APPLIED TO EZEKIEL AND DANIEL
i Their visions of " man " or " son of man " (303844 (ii))
2 Their appellation of " son of man " (30459)
* This Table gives the Contents of the text. For the Contents of the Longer
Footnotes, see p. xlviii.
A. s. xxxvii c
CONTENTS
CHAPTER III
"SON OF MAN" IN GRAECO-JEWISH LITERATURE
i The Similitudes of Enoch (30504)
2 The Second Book of Esdras (30558)
3 The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (305962)
4 The distinction between a phrase and a title (3062 (i) (iv))
CHAPTER IV
"SON OF MAN" IN JEWISH USAGE
i " Son of man " not Messianically used in Talmuds, Targums, etc.
(3063-4)
2 " Son of man " used by an early opponent of Christianity
(30656)
3 Non-use of "son of man" in the gospels except as a self-
appellation (30678)
4 Use of the third person for the first (3068 (i) (v))
CHAPTER V
"SON OF MAN" IN ARAMAIC AND GREEK
INTERPRETATIONS
i Aramaic interpretations (306974)
S 2 Greek interpretations (307581)
CHAPTER VI
PARALLELISMS BETWEEN EZEKIEL AND JESUS
i The " opening " of " the heavens " (3082)
2 "The spirit "(3083 6)
3 Redemption for captives (30878)
4 The connection between " captivity " and " beasts " (308990)
8 5 The " one shepherd " (30912)
6 "Bearing iniquity "(3093 6)
7 The adoption of the Gentiles (30978)
8 The New Temple (3099101)
9 Parables (3102 5)
$ 10 The " new heart " and " new spirit " (31067)
CHAPTER VII
A WORKING HYPOTHESIS
1 The divinity of Man (310814)
2 The humanity of God (311523)
xxxviii
CONTENTS
BOOK II
"SON OF MAN"
IN MARK, MATTHEW, AND LUKE
CHAPTER I
MARK, HOW FAR TO BE FOLLOWED
I Mark's order to be followed (3124 6)
2 The gap in Mark, how supplied by Matthew and Luke
(3127-33)
3 The gap in Mark, how supplied by John (3134 7)
4 John's allusions (313840)
CHAPTER II
"THE SON OF MAN" CLAIMING AUTHORITY
i "Authority to forgive sins "(3141)
S 2 The problem (3142)
3 The meaning of " authority " here (31436)
4 Forgiving (314751)
5 Why did Jesus call Himself " son of man/' here ? (31524)
6 "On earth "why added ? (31557)
CHAPTER III
i
"THE SON OF MAN" USING AUTHORITY
I Why was not this " authority " used before ? (3158 61)
2 The " authority," at first, quasi-physical (3162 4)
3 With what words did Jesus first use this " authority " ? (3165)
4 What was the proof of this " authority " ? (31668)
5 "The son of man" using "authority" over the sabbath
(316973)
CHAPTER IV
"THE SON OF MAN" DESPISED
I " The son of man," never used merely for " I " (31746)
2 u Whosoever shall say a word against the son of man " (31778)
3 " Who do men say that the son of man is ? " (317981)
xxxix c a
CONTENTS
CHAPTER V
"THE SON OF MAN" TO SUFFER MANY THINGS
i " From that time..." (31823)
2 " Suffering many things," the origin of the phrase (3184 5)
3 The Suffering Servant is "the arm of the Lord" (31867)
4 " The son of man " to be rejected (31889)
CHAPTER VI
"THE SON OF MAN" TO ARISE
i " The son of man " to arise on the third day (31901)
2 "On the third day," " after three days " (31924)
3 "After three days" uttered by false witnesses (31957)
4 "On the third day in accordance with the scriptures" (3197
(i)-(iv))
5 " Smitten " interchangeable with " killed " (3198201)
6 Christ's omission of " from the dead," explained from Hosea
(32026)
7 " He learned the obedience [of the Cross] from the things that
he suffered " (320710)
CHAPTER VII
"THE SON OF MAN" WILL BE ASHAMED
i "To be ashamed of" expressed by "to hide oneself from"
(32112)
2 God's retributory " self-hiding " or " denying " (32134)
3 " Adulterous generation," omitted by Luke, explained by John
(32156)
4 " Me. . .the son of man " (32178)
CHAPTER VIII
"THE SON OF MAN" WITH ANGELS
i The problem (3219)
2 "Angels "(32201)
3 " Holy [ones] " and " angels " (32223)
4 " Holy ones," or " saints," in Daniel (3224-5)
5 " Like angels," or " equal to angels " (32267)
6 " Holy ones," or " saints," in the Pauline epistles (32289)
7 " Saints," not " angels," are to judge (32301)
8 Conclusion (3232)
xl
CONTENTS
CHAPTER IX
"THE SON OF MAN" COMING IN GLORY
i Origen's comment (3233 5)
2 John the Baptist's relation to the coming of " the son of man "
(32368)
3 "Art thou he that is to come?" (323941)
CHAPTER X
"THE SON OF MAN" COMING IN HIS KINGDOM
i "Behold, thy king cometh "(3242)
2 The " meek " King (3242 (i) (iv))
3 The "coming," spiritual (32434)
4 " Coming in his kingdom " (3245)
5 The perplexity of the disciples (32468)
6 Mark's first use of the phrase " raised from the dead " 3249 52)
CHAPTER XI
"THE SON OF MAN" TO BE DELIVERED UP
i The first passage mentioning the " delivering up " of " the son of
man "(3253)
2 The "delivering up" referred to Isaiah liii. 12 (Heb.) "inter-
cession," (LXX) "delivered up" (3254)
3 The " intercession " of Moses (3255)
4 Could Elijah be called an "intercessor"? (3256 7)
5 Jesus implied " intercession for the transgressors " (3258 61)
CHAPTER XII
"THE SOX OF MAN" MAKING ATONEMENT
i "Delivering up," by itself, first mentioned by Luke alone
32623)
2 " Delivering up," with details of the Passion (32646)
3 " The son of man came... to minister" (3267)
4 The Sen-ant in Isaiah (32689)
5 Mark's (and Matthew's) tradition (32703)
6 Luke's tradition (32745)
7 John's tradition (32768)
xli
CONTENTS
CHAPTER XIII
"THE SON OF MAN" WITH CLOUDS
i The Synoptic texts (327981)
2 " Coming with the clouds of heaven " in Daniel (32823)
3 Daniel variously interpreted (32846)
4 Inference as to the meaning of " coming " and " clouds " in
Christ's doctrine (32879)
5 Paul on " clouds " (32902)
6 Origen on " clouds " (32935)
7 Luke's omission of "coming" after " sitting" (3296)
CHAPTER XIV
"THE SON OF MAN" COMING UNEXPECTEDLY
i "The lord of the house," in Mk xiii. 34 5, confused with "the
Lord [Jesus] "(3297 8)
2 Various interpretations of Mark (3299300)
3 Petrine influence (33013)
4 "About that day knoweth...not even the Son" (33045)
CHAPTER XV
"THE SON OF MAN" AND "THE POWER"
i "At the right hand" (3306)
2 " The power " (33079)
3 The context (33101)
4 " Henceforth " (33125)
CHAPTER XVI
"THE SON OF MAN" IN CONNECTION WITH
THE PASSION
i The origin of glosses exemplified (3316 7)
2 "Goeth [home]" or "goeth [on his way]," and "is [to be]
delivered up" (3318)
3 " Delivered up into the hands of sinners " (331920)
4 "The hour "(3321)
5 Confusion of narrative at this point (3322 6)
6 The tendency of the evidence (332732)
xlii
CONTENTS
BOOK III
"SON OF MAN"
IN MATTHEW AND LUKE
CHAPTER I
"THE SON OF MAN" IN THE DOUBLE TRADITION
I Some characteristics of the Double Tradition (3333 4)
2 " The son of man.. .eating and drinking" (33356)
3 "The son of man hath not where to lay his head " (33379)
4 "The son of man" in connection with "Jonah" (3340)
5 " The son of man " before " the angels of God " (33412)
6 "As the lightning... so shall be the son of man " (33434)
7 " Remember Lot's wife " (33457)
8 " The abomination of desolation " (3347 (i) (x))
CHAPTER II
"THE SON OF MAN" IN THE SINGLE TRADITION
OF MATTHEW
i Matthew's use of " son of man " in parables (3348)
2 "Ye shall surely not make an end of the cities of Israel until the
son of man come " (334953)
3 The inclusiveness of the Gospel (3353 (i) (iv))
4 "He that soweth the good seed is the son of man " (33545)
CHAPTER III
"THE SON OF MAN" IN THE SINGLE TRADITION
OF LUKE
i "The son of man" as compared with Elijah (33568)
2 "Ye shall desire to see one of the days of the son of man"
(3359-62)
3 " The kingdom of God is within you " (3362 (i) (v))
4 " Shall the son of man... find the faith on the earth ?" (33636)
5 "Beseeching that ye may prevail. ..to stand before the son
of man" (336770)
6 " Betrayest thou the son of man with a kiss?" (3371
7 Christ's last words to Judas (3371 (i))
8 "Remember how he spake unto you... saying that the son of
man..." (33723)
xliii
CONTENTS
BOOK IV
"SON OF MAN"
IN JOHN
CHAPTER I
"THE SON OF MAN" CONNECTED WITH "ASCENDING
AND "DESCENDING"
i " Angels of God ascending and descending upon the son of
man" (33747)
2 Jacob's Dream (337880)
3 "Jacob" and " Israel" (33815)
4 " The son of man " ascending and descending (3386 90)
5 The " angels " of the " little ones " (3390 (i) (iv))
CHAPTER II
"THE SON OF MAN" TO BE LIFTED UP
i " Water " and " the serpent," how connected (33912)
2 "The serpent" (3393 5)
3 " Fiery [serpent] " or " seraph " (3396401)
4 Being "lifted up "(3402 5)
5 " Lifting up " connected with " the yoke " (3405 (i) (Hi))
6 " Serpent " or " seraph," and " life " (34067)
7 " Lifting up " on an " ensign " (3407 (i) (iii))
8 " Jehovah-nissi," or " Jehovah my ensign " (3407 (iv))
9 The " thau " or " sign " in Ezekiel (3407 (v) (vi))
10 The " ensign " may be " a light " (3407 (vii) (ix))
ii The doctrine of the "ensign" latent in the gospels (3407 (x)
-(xiii))
CHAPTER III
"THE SON OF MAN" JUDGING
i The " authority " to " judge " (340810)
2 "Judging "(3411 2)
3 "Judging "and "forgiving "(3413 4)
4 " Remitting " and " retaining " sins (3414 (i) (ii))
5 " Forgiving " and " causing to live " (34159)
xliv
CONTENTS
CHAPTER IV
"THE SON OF MAN" GIVING LIFE TO MEN
i Life and food (34201)
2 Food and covenants (3422 4)
3 " Manna " and " flesh " (34257)
4 The Johannine doctrine consistent with Jewish thought
(342830)
CHAPTER V
"THE SON OF MAN" GIVING LIFE FOR MEN
i " Flesh and blood " and " soul " (34313)
2 Luke silent about Christ's "soul" and (probably) "blood"
(3434-7)
3 The Good Shepherd (343843)
CHAPTER VI
"THE SON OF MAN" NOT UNDERSTOOD
i " The son of man ascending where he was before " (3444 8)
2 "When ye have lifted up the son of man " (344951)
3 " And who is he, Lord... ? " (34523)
4 " Who is this son of man ? " (34546)
5 A " new name (3456 (i) <v))
6 Johannine "irony" (345762)
CHAPTER VII
"THE SON OF MAN" TO BE GLORIFIED
i The Johannine use of " glorify " (34636)
2 The "glorifying" of "the son of man," a public utterance
(34678)
3 The "glorifying" of "the son of man," a private utterance
(3469-75)
4 Conclusion (34747)
xlv
CONTENTS
BOOK V
DOES THE HYPOTHESIS WORK?
CHAPTER I
GOD REGARDED AS MAN
i The old conception and the new (34789)
2 How is God "perfect"? (34801)
3 The precept to the disciples, " Be ye perfect " (34825)
4 The precept to Abraham, " Be thou perfect " (34868)
5 Why Jesus does not say, " Be ye holy" (348992)
6 Christ's attitude toward the scriptures (3493 9)
7 Christ's attitude toward the scriptures illustrated by His doctrine
concerning Gehenna (3499 (i) (xi))
CHAPTER II
GOD AS NURSING FATHER
i God was revealed to Abraham, in effect, as " Father" (35003)
2 God as the " reward," giving food (35049)
CHAPTER III
GOD AS REDEEMER OR DELIVERER
i God the "Shield" of Abraham and "Redeemer" of Jacob
(35101)
2 " Rescuing " and " ransoming " (35124)
3 "Rescuing" may imply "ransoming" (3515 8)
4 " Hanging " and " the curse " (3518 (i) (ii))
CHAPTER IV
"THE SON OF MAN" AS "THE LITTLE ONE"
i The "suckling" (3519 20)
2 "He that is least " (35215)
3 " The little one " is to have " authority " (35268)
i "Authority," implying limitations (3529 31)
2 The " authority," that of the Man over the Beast (35324)
xlvi
CONTENTS
CHAPTER VI
"THE SON OF MAN" TO BE DELIVERED UP
i " Shall be delivered up," in the Synoptists (3535)
2 " Delivered up," in Greek, " given up " (35368)
3 " Shall be delivered up " implies self-sacrifice 3539 44)
CHAPTER VII
"THE SON OF MAN" DAILY DELIVERED UP
I "Always being delivered up unto death" (3545 7)
2 " Shall be delivered up " implies " laying down life " (35489)
3 The "delivering up " implies "ransoming" (3550 1)
4 " Ransoming," akin to " buying" (35526)
CHAPTER VIII
"THE SON OF MAN" IN GLORY
I " Glory" in Greek and in Hebrew (35579)
2 "Glory" in the Synoptic gospels (35604)
3 " Glory" in the fourth gospel (356573)
4 The fourth gospel, closest to the fact (3574 7)
5 " Glory," in fact, " love " (357883)
5 6 8 Addenda on Jn viii. 58 "Before Abraham was, I am'
(3583 (i)-(i))
7 The Feast of Abraham (3583 (v) (ix))
8 John's attitude toward the Feast of Abraham (3583 (x) (xii))
CHAPTER IX
A HARMONY OF THE FACTS
i Jesus and the Temple (3584-90)
2 The Builder (3591 4) '
3 Building on the Rock (35959)
4 Building with authority (3600 6)
5 The Servant, Ransom, and Sacrifice (360711)
6 The Conqueror (36125)
7 The Judge and the Paraclete (361623)
8 The Exorcist as described by Mark (36245)
9 The Person and the Spirit as described by John (362631)
10 Postscript, on the limits of this investigation (3632 5)
xlvii
CONTENTS
LONGER FOOTNOTES
On some apparent parallelisms between N.T. and Enoch (3053 a
3054 h)
" Ye, my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are man " (3090 bf}
" In the thirtieth year" (3093 a/)
"He that heareth let him hear" (3107*? /)
Addendum on "Shaddai" (3123 a, and see 3120 a foil.)
Jewish views of forgiveness (3154 b e)
Luke's attitude to Herod Antipas (3183 c d)
" The Elders " (3184 c /)
"Rejected" or "Without honour" (31893 /)
Addendum on "suffering" (3189 k)
Addendum on " the third day " (3210 c}
The meaning of " holy ones" (3223 33224 a)
The sense in which Jesus used the term " meek " (3242 (i) a (iv) d)
The "coming" of Elijah (3246 </ 3248 e)
Addendum on "table" and "altar" (3278 c}
The hypothesis of a Hebrew gospel (3333 eg)
"The sign of Jonah" (3340 c -j)
Addendum on Luke's divergences from Matthew (3347 (x)aT)
The Syrophoenician Woman (3353 (iv) aj)
Addendum on Matthew's "grouping" (3355 e)
" This generation " (3362 (v) b /)
"A grain of mustard-seed " (3364 d h}
"This sycamine-tree" (3364 z q)
"That it be not in winter" (3368 ad)
" For it was cold " (3369 a e}
" Companion," in Mt. xxvi. 50 (3371 (i) a in)
Working Hypothesis as to the origin and objects of the fourth gospel
(3374 A. 19)
The fig-tree (3375 fk)
The diversity of traditions about angels (3385 a m)
Different senses of " heaven " (3390 c K)
" Be ye wise as serpents " (3394 d K)
" As the crafty serpent " (3401 a e)
" For a testimony " (3414 (ii) ai)
Misunderstandings not to be confused with inventions (34203 )
The " nations " and the " people " (3423 aj)
The "carrying" of Israel (3425 a 3426/)
" The earth " variously interpreted (3442 c K)
The disciple whom Jesus loved (3460 a i)
Boanerges (3468 a d)
The Holy Mountain (3468 <:)
xlviii
CONTENTS
Abraham the Inheritor (3488 o)
Christ's appellations of God :
(1) " The Most High " (3492 a t)
(2) " Father " in doctrine (3492 /)
(3) " Father " in prayer (3492 ou)
Law (3493 a n)
Metaphors expressing " sin " (3495 a e)
" Torments " (3499 (iv) b (v) c )
"Raca"(3499(v)</ e)
" Thou fool " (3499 (v)/r)
Christ's doctrine on " anger " (3499 (v) s x)
" Killing " or " mortifying " (3499 (vii) c /)
An Ode (?) in the name of Abraham (3501 d m)
Addendum on the title " God " in the Synoptists (3509 c)
Addendum on (3519 a foil.) "behind" (3528 )
The instances where Jesus mentions, or implies, " Christ" (3534 a k)
Christ's doctrine on prayer (3534 /)
The foreknowledge of Jesus (3548 d k)
" Affliction " and " afflicted " (3550 a d)
" The Hypocrites " (3553 d -j}
God the " Purchaser " or " Possessor " (3555 ae)
The Confession of the Unity of God (3578 ag}
The Bridegroom (3583 (xii) a )
Christ as embodying that which Abraham " saw" (3583 (xii)_/" g)
Abraham (?) in the Oxyrhynchus Logia (3583 (xii) K)
"The Lord is there" (3589 a)
The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (3601 c k)
"The strong" and "the stronger 1 ' (3603 a)
Christ's " preaching " to " the spirits in prison " (3615 a/)
The twofold meaning of " fire " (3619 a 3620 d}
Christ's parting utterances (3623 c o)
Addendum on Abrahamic Tradition (3635 a c)
Note on " Corban" (Indices p. 867)
INDICES
PAGE
I NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES 821
II ENGLISH 836
III GREEK 868
xlix
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
REFERENCES
(i) Black Arabic numbers refer to paragraphs in the several volumes
of Diatessarica, as to which see p. 874 :
1 272= Clue.
273 552 = Corrections.
553 1149 = From Letter to Spirit.
1 150 1435 = Paradosis.
1436 1885 =Johannine Vocabulary.
1886 < 2>l=Johannine Grammar.
2800 2999 = Notes on New Testament Criticism.
30003635= The Son of Man.
(ii) The Books of Scripture are referred to by the ordinary ab-
breviations, except where specified below. But when it is said
that Samuel, Isaiah, Matthew, or any other writer, wrote this or
that, it is to be understood as meaning the -writer, whoever he may
be, of the words in question, and not as meaning that the actual
writer was Samuel, Isaiah, or Matthew.
(iii) The principal Greek MSS. are denoted by fc$, A, B, etc. ; the Latin
versions by a, b, etc., as usual. The Syriac version discovered by
Mrs Lewis on Mount Sinai is referred to as SS, i.e. '" Sinaitic
Syrian." It is always quoted from Prof. Burkitt's translation.
I regret that in the first three vols. of Diatessarica Mrs Lewis's
name was omitted in connection with this version.
(iv) The text of the Greek Old Testament adopted is that of B, edited
by Prof. Swete ; of the New, that of Westcott and Hort.
(v) Modern works are referred to by the name of the work, or author,
vol., and page, e.g. Levy iii. 343 a, i.e. vol. iii. p. 343, col. I.
ABBREVIATIONS
Apol. = Justin Martyr's First Apology.
Aq. = Aquila's version of O.T.
Brederek = Brederek's Konkordanz zum Targum Onkelos, Giessen,
1906.
Burk. = Prof. F. C. Burkitt's Evangelion Da-mepharreshe, Cambridge
University Press, 1904.
Chr. = Chronicles.
Clem. Alex. 42 = Clement of Alexandria in Potter's page 42
1
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
Dalman, Words= Words of Jesus, Eng. Transl. 1902; Aram. G.=
Grammatik Aramdisch, 1894.
En. = Enoch ed. Charles, Clarendon Press, 1893.
Ency.= Encyclopaedia Biblica.
Ephrem = Ephraemus Syr^is, ed. Moesinger.
Etheridge = Etheridge's translations of the Targums on the Pentateuch.
Euseb. = the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius.
Field = Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunr, Oxford, 1875, also
Otium Norvicense, 1881.
Gesen. = the Oxford edition of Gesenius.
Hor. Heb.=/fora? Hebraicae, by John Lightfoot, 165874, ed.
Gandell, Oxf. 1859.
Iren. = the treatise of Irenaeus against Heresies.
Jer. Targ. or Targ. Jer. (abbrev. for Jerusalem Targum), or Jon.
Targ. (i.e. Targum of Jonathan, abbrev. for the Targum of Pseudo-
Jonathan) = the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan on the Pentateuch, of
which there are two recensions both quoted (Notes on N.T. Criticism,
Pref. p. viii) by ancient authorities under the name " Jerusalem Targum."
The two recensions are severally denoted by Jer. I and Jer. II. On other
books, the Targum is referred to as simply " Targ."
Jon. Targ., see Jer. Targ.
K. = Kings.
Krauss = Krauss's Griechische und Lateinische Lehnworttr etc., Berlin,
1899.
Levy = Levy's Neuhebr'disches und Chalddisches Wbrterbuch, 4 vols.,
Leipzig, 1889; Levy Ch. = Chalddisches Wbrterbuch, 2 vols., 1881.
L.S. = Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon.
Mechilta, see Wiinsche.
Onk. =the Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch.
Origen is referred to variously, e.g. Horn. Exod. ii. 25 = lib. ii. ch. 25
of Horn. Exod., but Orig. on Exod. ii. 25 = the commentary adloc. ; Lomm.
iii. 24 = vol. iii. p. 24 of Lommatzsch's edition.
Oxf. Cone. = The Oxford Concordance to the Septuagint.
Philo is referred to by Mangey's volume and page, e.g. Philo ii. 234,
or, as to Latin treatises, by the Scripture text or Aucher's pages (P. A.).
Rab., after Gen., Exod., Lev. etc. means Rabba and refers to Wiinsche's
edition of the Midrash on the Pentateuch.
Rashi, sometimes quoted from Breithaupt's translation, 1714.
S. = Samuel ; s. = "see."
Schottg. = Schottgen's Horae Hebraicae, Dresden and Leipzig, 1733-
Sir. = the work of Ben Sira, i.e. the son of Sira. It is commonly called
Ecclesiasticus (see Clue 20a). The original Hebrew has been edited, in
part, by Cowley and Neubauer, Oxf. 1897 ; in part, by Schechter and
Taylor, Camb. 1899; in part, by G. Margoliouth, Jewish Quart. Rev.,
Oct. 1899.
SS, see (iii) above.
Steph. or Steph. Thes. = Stephani Thesaurus (Didot).
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
Sym. = Symmachus's version of O.T.
Targ. (by itself) is used where only one Targum is extant on the
passage quoted.
Targ. Jer., Targ. Jon., and Targ. Onk., see Jer. Targ., Jon. Targ., and
Onk., above.
Tehillim, see Wiinsche.
Test, xn Patr.= Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs ed. Charles,
1908 (Gk., Clarendon Press, Eng., A. & C. Black).
Theod. =Theodotion's version of O.T.
Tromm. = Trommius' Concordance to the Septuagint.
Tryph. = the Dialogue between Justin Martyr and Trypho the Jew.
Wetst. = Wetstein's Comm. on the New Testament, Amsterdam, 1751.
W.H. = Westcott and Hort's New Testament.
Wiinsche = Wiinsche's translation of Rabboth etc., 1880 1909.
(a) A bracketed Arabic number, following Mk, Mt., etc., indicates
the number of instances in which a word occurs in Mark, Matthew, etc.,
e.g. aydirr) Mk (o), Mt. (i), Lk. (i), Jn (7).
(b) Where verses in Hebrew, Greek, and Revised Version, are
numbered differently, the number of R.V. is given alone.
lii
INTRODUCTION
i. TJi subject of the investigation
[3000] * It is popularly supposed, at least in this country,
that when Jesus spoke of "the son of man 2 " for the first
time in Mark and Luke and for the second time in Matthew
saying in the synagogue of Capernaum " that ye may know
that tlte son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins,"
He meant "the Messiah 3 ." That (it is supposed) was what
" the Jews " meant by the term. "The Jews," in such an asser-
tion, ought to mean " all, or most of, the Jews in the first
1 On the meaning of the paragraph numbers see References and
Abbreviations at the beginning of this volume.
2 [3000 a] In the Revised as well as the Authorised Version of our
Bible " the Son of man " is printed with one capital letter. The excellent
edition of Enoch published by Prof. Charles to whom I am none the less
grateful because I am not able to agree with all his conclusions prints it
with two capital letters, " the Son of Man." Presumably the intention, in
both cases, is to signify that the term is a title or proper name.
[3000 ] In this book it will be almost invariably printed in inverted
commas and with no capital letters, as it is in the eighth Psalm, " What
is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou visitest
him?" Not that the term was used by Jesus precisely as it was by the
Psalmist ; but this colourless method of printing may help the reader to
keep his mind open to possibilities of various shades of meaning, and of
gradations by which our Lord led His disciples to recognise " the son of
man " as the Son of God, and the Messiah of God, although at first the
term had no such recognised Messianic meaning.
3 [3000 c] Alford, on ML ix. 6 "the son of man," says that it was
" regarded by the Jews " as equivalent to " Christ, the Son of God." This
may be taken as representing the popular view in this country. Prof.
Dalman ( Words p. 241 folL) opposes this view, but what is said above
refers to the popular English belief.
A. S. I I
[3001] INTRODUCTION
century." Taking the phrase in this sense we must first in-
vestigate whether there is any solid ground for asserting that
" the Jews," or even " some Jews," spoke of " the son of man,"
in this absolute, way, without introduction^ , and without further
definition, as the Messiah.
[3001] The popular reply to such a plea for investigation
would be : " There is nothing to investigate. The ' solid
ground ' you desire is to be found in the words of Daniel,
' Behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of
heaven 2 .' "
But this is quoted from the Authorised Version, which
is corrected by the Revised Version into " one like unto
a son of man." Similarly, the Authorised Version, reporting
Nebuchadnezzar as saying " The form of the fourth is like the
Son of God z " is corrected by the Revised into " like a son of
the gods" Both these passages are in Aramaic, and some-
thing will be said later on about the grammatical reasons
for substituting " a " for " the " ; it will also be shewn that
in Aramaic, " son of man " is so frequently used for " man,"
" human- being," that we may accurately render the passage
in Daniel's Vision thus, " There came with the clouds of
heaven one like unto a human being" and that there is no
suggestion at all of anything like a title of the Messiah.
Meanwhile the reader is asked to accept, at all events
provisionally, these two renderings in the Revised Version as
correct. It will be found that they illustrate each other.
It is apparently the intention of the writer of the prophecy to
describe Nebuchadnezzar as startled at seeing, in the fiery
furnace into which he has cast the three Jews, a fourth figure,
one like a divine being; and Daniel as amazed at seeing, near the
1 [3000 d\ " Without introduction." These words are intended to
imply a contrast between the use of the term here and the use in the
Similitudes of Enoch quoted below (3050 foil.) where the term is
mentioned, but not " without introduction."
2 Dan. vii. 13. 3 Dan. iii. 25.
INTRODUCTION [3002]
Ancient of Days, whose throne was " fiery flames 1 ," one like
a human being, to whom supreme power is given. Nebu-
chadnezzar is expressly said to have been " astonished." Of
Daniel it is said that his spirit is " grieved " and that his
visions "troubled" him 2 . This appears to mean that his
visions of monstrous beasts, culminating with this supreme
paradox of " one like a man " near the throne of God, have
overwhelmed him with astonishment and dismay. Daniel
might be disposed, at first, to say, with David, " Let us fall
now into the hand of the Lord, for his mercies are great ; and
let me not fall into the hand of man*."
No doubt the phrase actually used by Daniel " one like
unto a son of man" or " one like unto a human being" might
lead some writers first to think and speak about the Figure as
" the Person mentioned by Daniel as one like a son of man,"
and then, more briefly, as " the son of man mentioned by
Daniel," and lastly as " the son of man." But it will be
shewn hereafter that the Jewish authorities who regarded the
words of Daniel as pointing to the Messiah did not (so far as
we know) use " the son of man " as a Messianic title. There
were many Messianic titles, but this was not one of them.
[3002] Then if " the son of man " in the gospels did not
mean the Messiah, what did it mean ? If, as has been said
above, the Aramaic " son of man " frequently means " human
being," or " man," are we to take it thus in the gospels, only
used definitely " the human being, or, the man, hath authority
on earth to forgive sins " ? If so, what does that mean ?
An answer is suggested by Epictetus, Tennyson, and
other writers, who in various ways describe " the Man " as
morally rising above or ruling the Beast. But we must be on
our guard against reading modern and Western thoughts into
the sayings of Christ. The first question for us, therefore,
will be, whether Hebrew thought or Jewish thought before
1 Dan. vii. 9. 2 Dan. vii. 15. 3 2 S. xxiv. 14.
3 i2
[3003] INTRODUCTION
Christ's time recognised this conception of " the Man," or, in
Aramaic, " the son of man," as distinct from the Beast, and
as intended to rise above the Beast. Here, then, is something
to investigate.
[3003] If this question is answered affirmatively, the next
question will be whether it would be in accordance with Jewish
thought that this conception of" the Man " or "the son of man"
should be identified with a particular Person, a representative
of what we may call the spiritual Israel. In the Bible, Israel
sometimes means Jacob, but sometimes the Nation. In Isaiah,
the Servant of Jehovah appears sometimes to be the prophet
Isaiah himself, but sometimes Israel converting the Gentiles,
and sometimes the Messiah converting Israel. In Daniel, the
Person " like a son of man " appears to be Israel in some
sense, as the subsequent context shews. Is it in accordance
with precedent that Jesus should use " the son of man "
in some similar way, identifying it with Himself, but also
with what Paul calls "the Israel of God 1 "?
[3004] Suppose both these questions to be answered in
the affirmative, (i) Jesus (we will assume) regarded "the
son of man " as meaning Man rising above the Beast and
drawing near to God. (2) Jesus also identified this "son of
man " or " Man " with Himself. A third question will then
arise, namely, whether this notion of " Man rising above the
Beast " gave to the title a special fitness for the occasion when
Jesus claimed that " the son of man " had " authority to forgive
sins." We know that Hebrew thought regards the first sin as
having been caused by a serpent, and the Greek word for
Beast (which sometimes means serpent) is regularly used in
Revelation to denote a Power or Agency of Sin. Moreover
when Jesus speaks of giving to His disciples "authority to
tread upon serpents and scorpions and over all the power of
the enemy," He is apparently contemplating sin and Satan.
1 Gal. vi. 1 6.
4
INTRODUCTION [3005]
Is the forgiveness of sins regarded by Christ as implying a
victory of the Man over the Beast ? Is this the reason why
Jesus does not say " I " but " the son of man " on this
occasion 1 ? Is it because He does not put forth this claim
for Himself alone ? If so, for whom else does He make the
claim ? Surely not for every being that has the body of a
man. Then does He make it for the Man or " the son of man "
meaning the Man in God's likeness, exercising dominion over
the Beast, in the spiritual as well as the material world, in
accordance with the work begun in the first Adam and to be
fulfilled in Adam's posterity, the last Adam ? All these ques-
tions suggest several points for investigation.
[3005] We pass to another point. When Jesus predicts
His Passion, and, in particular, His being " delivered up," He
habitually says, not " I shall be delivered up," but " the son of
man will be delivered up." Why is this ? An answer is sug-
gested by facts pointing to the conclusion that Jesus was
referring to a "delivering up" of the Suffering Servant of
Jehovah mentioned in the Greek Version of Isaiah, concern-
ing whom Isaiah has previously said that he had an aspect
of humiliation " more than all tJie sons of man." We do not
now stay to prove or to discuss this, but merely to point out
that here is another subject for investigation.
Tennyson, after describing the rise of " the man," says that
he is to pass from " more to more," or to move his course
" crown'd with attributes of woe, like glories." Is this also
a Hebrew thought? Are we or are we not to believe that
Jesus, who, in predicting His Passion and its circumstances
and consequences, often seems to have had scripture in view,
used " the son of man " here as meaning that particular
" son of man " who was to be, " more than all the sons of
1 [3004 a] Mark and Luke make it the first occasion, Matthew makes
it the second. According to Matthew, the first occasion was also one in
which there was a contrast between man and beast between "the son
of man " and " foxes and birds of the air."
[3006] INTRODUCTION
man'' conspicuous in suffering, " crown'd with attributes of
woe " ?
We might quote other instances of interesting questions
calling for answers, but these will suffice. It will be our busi-
ness to take all the gospel passages mentioning " son of man,"
in their order, and to ask, about each, " What distinction did
Jesus wish to be drawn here either by His hearers at the
time or by His disciples afterwards, or by both between ' I,'
which He mostly uses, and ' the son of man,' which He uses on
this occasion ? " The reader will not find that there is any
lack of matter to investigate.
2. The conditions of the investigation
[3006] " Delivered up " was mentioned above as occurring
in our gospels, covering an allusion to a passage in the Greek
translation of Isaiah concerning the Suffering Servant. In-
deed "covering" hardly expresses the extent to which the
allusion is concealed for those ignorant of Greek. For (as
was stated in the Preface, and as will be shewn in detail
hereafter) the corresponding Hebrew mentions something
quite different on the surface " interceding." But for
an allusion (to the Greek word in Isaiah) recognisable in
the Epistle to the Romans (" he was delivered up for our
trespasses ") 1 the covert reference in the gospels might perhaps
escape notice. Even as it is, some may perhaps dispute it.
This fact suggests one condition of successful investiga-
tion. We must be prepared to find, in the gospels, latent
references and allusions to phrases, as well as thoughts, in the
Hebrew scriptures.
It may be objected that Christ " did not teach as a
scribe among the peasants and labourers and fishermen
of Galilee." No, but He assumed that the peasants knew
1 Rom. iv. 25, which Westcott and Hort print as derived from Is. liii.
12 (LXX). Jerome on Is. liii. 12 quotes Rom. iv. 25. See 3254 60.
INTRODUCTION [3008]
the scriptures quite as well as our Puritan forefathers knew
them, or better. For such knowledge was not confined to the
lettered classes. Take the most illiterate book in the New
Testament or rather, the book written in the style most
remote from literary Greek the Revelation of John, and we
shall find it permeated from beginning to end with allusions
to, and quotations from, the scriptures. Not a tenth part of
these would be detected by an ordinary English reader ; but
no adequate student of the New Testament would deny that
they are there ; and no one would call the writer of that book
" a scribe," or assert that he did not appeal to the unlearned.
[3007] We are apt to forget that among all ancient
nations where there were, at least for the lower classes, very
few books and no newspapers or magazines memory was
much stronger than it is with us. Moreover the Jews had
none of the Greek distractions arising from divergent philo-
sophies, and from literary and artistic views of life. They
were people, if not of one book, at all events of one collection
of books, every one of which was stamped as it were with the
name of God, and yet also with the name of Israel. The
Bible expounded, and sometimes amplified with interesting
detail, in Aramaic expositions was their religion, their law,
their politics, their history for the past, their oracles for the
future, their ballads, their epic poetry, their psalms and hymns
for devotion, their proverbs for daily life.
Unless we recognise the absorbing interest taken by all
classes of the nation in their scriptures an interest quite
independent of the hair-splitting discussions of some of the
scribes we shall utterly fail to realise the extent to which
Jesus looked in thought, even when He did not point in definite
speech, to " that which was written."
[3008] Another condition for our investigation is, that
we must be prepared to find our Lord's quotations from the
Hebrew scriptures often recorded by our evangelists in accord-
ance with the Greek translation, even where it varies from the
[3009] INTRODUCTION
Hebrew. For the present, the instance given above must
suffice, shewing that Christ's predictions about being "delivered
up," that is, to death, appear to be inadequate Greek trans-
lations of a prediction taken from Isaiah about " making
intercession." The inadequacy may arise, as it does in the
LXX, sometimes from mere linguistic or scribal causes but
sometimes from a tendency in the translators to literalise, or
deorientalise, the Hebrew metaphor. Both these causes of
corruption must be kept in view in studying the gospels.
[3009] Perhaps, under this head, a third condition may
be suggested akin to the second one. Jesus was not only a
Jew and, as such, liable to be inadequately represented in
Greek but also (as we believe) a greater than the greatest of
the prophets. Luke represents Him as having been found, at
the age of twelve, questioning and being questioned by a
circle of amazed Rabbis, and yet as delaying till His
thirtieth year to proclaim the Gospel to which He was
called by a vision of the Spirit descending from the opening
heaven and by a Voice announcing His divine sonship. Even
though we may not be able to accept Luke's narrative as
history, we may reasonably accept it as a help to realise the
spiritual pre-eminence of Christ, which few would deny to be
a historical fact.
The thoughts of such a prophet would be more than
prophetic. They would be the thoughts of a prophet of
prophets, holding communion at one and the same moment
both with " the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity "
and also with " him that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to
revive the spirit of the humble 1 ." The nearest approach to
such a prophet is Ezekiel Ezekiel now lying on the earth
with his " iron pan," and his " tile " on which he has portrayed
"a city, even Jerusalem 2 "; and now, "in the visions of God,"
brought up to " a very high mountain " and bidden to shew to
1 Is. Ivii. 15. 2 Ezek. iv. I foil.
INTRODUCTION [3009]
his countrymen the frame of the New City, the New Jerusalem,
of which the name is to be " The Lord is there 1 ."
Now Ezekiel is the only prophet bidden to speak to Israel
in " parables," and he bitterly complains of the result : " Ah
Lord God ! they say of me, Is he not a speaker of parables? 2 "
For something of the same kind we ought to be prepared in
Christ's teaching about "the son of man." Both as regards
"son," and as regards "man" that is to say as regards son-
ship and as regards humanity He may have been " a speaker
of parables." Of these, some may not have been of the
Synoptic type, like the parable of the Sower. John says
that Jesus, shortly before His death, described His past
teaching to the disciples as having been " in proverbs 3 ." We
shall see, hereafter, that some of these " proverbs " appear to
have been epigrammatic metaphors rather than parables
metaphors based on Messianic visions of the realities of
invisible and intangible things.
" But, if so, why have they not been preserved by Mark,
the earliest of the evangelists ? Why wait till the latest
perhaps till the second century for a mention of them ? "
It will be maintained that some of them have been
actually preserved, or implied, by Mark, but omitted by
Matthew and Luke because of their obscurity. But if Mark
has omitted the great mass of them, the omission can be
easily explained. It was partly because they were spiritual,
and consequently obscure, and consequently less interesting
to many minds than such graphic descriptions as that of the
execution of John the Baptist. Again, it was partly because
no words of Christ were profoundly interesting to the com-
moner sort of Christian in the first half of the first century
unless they dealt with damnation, or the date of the Last
1 Ezek. xl. 2 foil., xliii. 10, xlviii. 35.
2 Ezek. xx. 49, comp. xvii. 2, xxiv. 3.
3 On the Johannine use of the word " proverb " see 3105 a, and
3374 A. 7.
[3010] INTRODUCTION
Day, or were connected with those great and special Messianic
actions in the course of which He wrought His most startling
miracles, or by which He was supposed to have purchased
salvation for mankind. Was not the Son of Man Himself
speedily " coming " if not that very year, perhaps the next ?
Then, if they were so soon to have Himself, where was the
need of reducing to writing the floating traditions of His
mere words? When the need at last appeared, it was too
late to save more than a few and these, often in varying and
doubtful traditions. It is our part, if we are wise, not to
waste time in complaining, but to respond to what may be,
perhaps, the stimulus of God, urging His children to pene-
trate to the truth through apparently inadequate and illusory
phenomena, by patience, by scientific method, and by faith in
truth.
3. The method of the investigation
[3010] The subject and the conditions of our investigation
having been explained, we have to consider the method in
the light of these explanations that is to say, bearing in
mind that " the son of man " was not known to Christ's
hearers as a Messianic title ; that " son of man " came into
use in Aramaic as a frequent (and, in some cases, a regular)
equivalent of " man " ; and that obscurities and inadequacies
are to be expected in any attempts to express in Greek
what Christ said in Aramaic about this as about other
subjects.
The method must of course be to pass from the known to
the unknown, from what was said and thought about " man "
and " the son of man " in pre-Christian times to what Christ
said. But here we are confronted with a difficulty, a want of
known facts.
[3011] First, the Greek gospels insert the definite article
before ' man," having " the son of the man " (rendered by us
10
INTRODUCTION [3011]
in English "the son of man"). But the Hebrew Bible, though
frequently using ha-adam, that is, "the man" after "the sons of"
plural, never uses it after "the son of" singular. This and
other verbal details will be discussed later on (3029 3032 (i) foil,
3063 a foil.). Secondly, we have not data for determining the
exact usage of " son of man " in Palestinian Aramaic during,
and just before, Christ's teaching. So far as the post-Christian
evidence of Aramaic Targums goes, it indicates that the
Targumists rendered the Hebrew "son of man" irregularly
and inconsistently.
Some light may be thrown on Aramaic usage by the
ancient Syriac versions and quotations of the gospels, as to
which we are told on high authority that, in order to represent
the gospel term, the writers sometimes resort to a form that
" does not occur in Syriac except as a rendering of the Gospel
phrase 1 ." This indicates that the title perplexed them. In
the earliest Greek commentators on the gospels we shall find
signs (to which we shall recur presently) indicating that they,
too, were perplexed and divided by the belief that the title
meant the son of some definite hitman being.
In this lack of evidence, not being able to start from a
Biblical " the son of the man," which does not occur, we must
begin from the Biblical " son of man," which does occur ; and
we must begin by asking, " Was the title ' son of man ' given in
the Old Testament to any person or persons? If to one,
what do we know about him ? If to more than one, what
characteristics had they in common ? "
The answer is, that Ezekiel was called ben adam, or " son
of man," by a voice from heaven, nearly a hundred times.
Daniel was so called once. And these two prophets had this
additional peculiarity in common that in their visions the
former saw " the appearance of a man," and the latter " one
like a son of man," above, or near, the Throne in heaven.
1 Burkitfs Syriac Gospels, voL ii. p. 272.
II
[3012] INTRODUCTION
Further, they and they alone among Hebrew prophets
saw " four " of what the Hebrew calls " living things " trans-
lated by our Revised Version in Ezekiel " living creatures "
but in Daniel " beasts." The " beasts " in Ezekiel (like those
mentioned in the Revelation of John) will be shewn to be
very different from the " beasts " in Daniel ; but in both
visions Man appears to be regarded, though in very different
aspects, as dominating the Beast.
[3012] Here we seem to be on solid ground, and we may
perhaps infer that we should be historically safe in trying to
imagine the feelings of Jews in the synagogue at Capernaum,
saying to themselves about Jesus, when He claimed authority
to forgive sins, " Here is a prophet, or one like a prophet,
calling himself by the same name that Ezekiel was called,
' son of man,' that is to say, man or human being. What can
he mean by it that ' the man hath authority to forgive
sins'?"
But, if we may trust the Aramaic Targum on Ezekiel, we
should not be quite right in this imaginary picture. For the
Targum gives Ezekiel's appellation, not as " son of man" but
as "son of Adam."
This is easily explicable. The Targumist takes the
Hebrew ben adam as " son of Adam (i.e. the Patriarch)" not
as " son of adam (i.e. man)" Accordingly he renders the
Hebrew ben adam by the Aramaic bar Adam, just as he else-
where renders ben Jesse, i.e. " son of Jesse " in Hebrew, by bar
Jesse, i.e. " son of Jesse " in Aramaic.
We are therefore led to & prima facie inference that Jesus
called Himself in Aramaic bar Adam corresponding to the
Hebrew ben adam, and meaning " Adam's son." If so, did
He mean that He was " the son of Adam " or " a son of
Adam " ?
[3013] The answer to this depends less on grammatical
than on contextual and circumstantial considerations. " Ben
Jesse " and " Bar Jesse " (without " David " in apposition)
12
INTRODUCTION [3014]
correspond to "the son of Jesse" in our English Version 1 ;
yet it is not thereby implied that David is the only son of
Jesse. " The son of Jesse," by itself, is for the most part
contemptuously used.
This last statement has a direct bearing on the application
of the title ben adam to Ezekiel. For Jewish opinion was
divided about it Some Jews, followed by Jerome, took it as
being, not indeed contemptuous but depreciative. Others,
with whom Origen agrees, took it as being intended to
encourage Ezekiel (as also Daniel) by suggesting to him
that he, the son of adam or man on earth, had a like-
ness to the adam or man revealed near the Throne in
heaven.
[3014] These differences of opinion on the special phrase
in Ezekiel are based on a fundamental difference of opinion
about the likeness and unlikeness, to which Philo calls
attention, between God and Man. Philo, and Balaam, and
the profane friends of Job, call attention to the unlikeness.
Philo says that the other doctrine, that of the " likeness," is
illustrated by the Deuteronomic picture of God "bearing"
Israel as a Father. This, he says, is adapted for " the duller
sort."
Step by step, Ezekiel's appellation " son of man " seems
to be leading us into the centre of Christ's teaching. For
surely our Lord favoured the view declared by Philo to
be "adapted for the duller sort." If we are certain of
anything that Christ taught, we are certain that He taught
us to pray to God as to " our Father " and taught us how to
become like Him.
1 [3013 a] With ben Jesse, " the son of Jesse," we may contrast i S. xvi.
18 (lit.) "I have seen a son (ben) to Jesse," that is, "a son belonging to
Jesse," where David is for the first time mentioned (but not by name) to
Saul, and comp. i S. xxii. 20 (lit.) " a son one [belonging] to Ahimelech,"
R.V. " one of the sons," where the Aramaic and Syriac have " the son " as
if it were "the only remaining son." See 3063 a d.
13
[3015] INTRODUCTION
[3015] Proceeding therefore upward from this apparently
safe ground we must study the doctrine of the Bible generally
about Man, especially when denoted by the word adam or
by phrases containing the word adam the word that signifies
man as a mean between two extremes, or, as Pope says, " in
a middle state," distinguished from God on the one side, in
whose likeness Adam was made, and from beasts on the
other side, over whom Adam was to reign :
" Placed on this isthmus of a middle state
# # * *
In doubt to deem himself a God or Beast."
Pope seems to incline to the Beast, at all events so far
as Man is an intellectual creature. Of the greatness of Man
as a loving creature Pope says nothing and perhaps thinks
nothing. But the angels, he says, from the height of their
superiority, condescending to regard man as a mathematician
or an astronomer
"Admired such wisdom in a human shape
And shewed a Newton as we shew an ape."
[3016] Our thoughts must take a different path. We
must put ourselves in the position of the author of the eighth
Psalm, the Psalm of the Babes and Sucklings, who, after
looking on the glory of God's works in the heavens, still
believes that God has " established strength " out of the
mouth of these little ones. Already is Man " but little lower
than God." " What is man," he cries in amazement, " that
thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou visitest
him ? " At the same time he rejoices that God does visit poor
earthborn ben adam, the son of man, and has " put all things
under his feet."
[3017] Going back to Genesis we shall find that one of
the points there differentiating adam or man from the Beast
is the capacity of "service" or " labour" We all know what
stress Christ lays on this, as the fundamental Law of His
14
INTRODUCTION [3017]
Kingdom, " The son of man came to serve." But we lose this
sense of the ancient dignity of "serving" in our English
Bibles, because we do not realise that one and the same
Hebrew word means "serve," "labour," and "till [the ground]."
In Hebrew the thought of serving is carried back to the
making of Adam, when God differentiated his lot from
that of beasts by appointing him to "serve" first in the
garden of Eden and then to "serve" on the thorn-bearing
earth 1 .
When the curse was pronounced on Adam, the two
Targums commonly called the First and the Second Jerusalem
Targum- represent him as praying to God that he might be
allowed not to eat grass like the cattle but to stand upright
and " serve " with his hands so as to gain his bread. In the
Psalms, the " service " of men seems contrasted with the
ravening of wild beasts, as light is contrasted with darkness.
Both are mysteriously appointed by God. The lions by
night seek their prey from God. The sun arises and they get
them to their dens : " Man goeth forth unto his work and
unto his service until the evening." Of the two Greek words
meaning "serve" and "labour" corresponding to the Hebrew
word above mentioned, the fourth gospel adopts the latter.
But if we substitute " serve," we shall find Jesus saying in that
gospel " We must serve in the service of him that sent me while
it is day, the night cometh when no man can serve 3 " This
utterance is appropriate to the character of the true Man, or
1 Gen. ii. 5 "no adam to (lit.) serve the ground," ib. 15 "put him
into the garden of Eden to (lit.) serve it," ib. iii. 23 "to (lit) serve the
ground from which he was taken."
z On the various ways of referring to these two different recensions of
the Jerusalem Targum (Jer. I and Jer. II) and to their connection with
the name of Jonathan as distinct from the earlier Targum of Onkelos.
see References ("Targ. Jer. and Targ. Jon.") and A'otes on N.T.
Criticism^ p. viii.
3 Jn ix. 4 " we must work (epyafeo-tfot)." The Syriac has the Hebrew
word above mentioned, but in the sense of " work," not " serve."
15
[3018] INTRODUCTION
Adam, or Son of Adam, whose mission is to " work," and, by
" working," to " serve."
[3018] It will be perceived that we are being led away
from grammatical discussions about the Greek, the Hebrew,
and the Aramaic methods of expressing " the son of man," to
thoughts about the relations between God, the Man, and the
Beast. And it must be confessed that if Jesus called Himself
bar Adam, with some reference to Ezekiel's appellation,
there is little use in discussing Aramaic phrases that mention,
not " Adam," but " man," nask, in various forms (3069).
The Aramaic "son of man," bar nas/i, in some of its
forms, might lay stress on Christ's humanity. The Aramaic
" son of Adam " might do the same thing indirectly but more
forcibly. It might mean " one who claims, instead of dis-
daining, kinship with the descendants of Adam." It might
also suggest " one who calls himself not bar David, but bar
Adam, because he aims at building up, not the House of
David alone, but the House of fallen Adam, the whole of
mankind." Lastly, it might convey the thought of the like-
ness of the Son of Adam to Adam, and, through Adam, to
God, Adam's archetype.
4. Early Christian evidence
[3019] Against the view that Jesus called Himself bar
Adam it may be objected that not a single passage in any
of the gospels gives the title in this form ; nor do early
subsequent traditions give it. It is purely conjectural.
So would any other Aramaic phrase and more than one
might be alleged be " purely conjectural." The question is,
what conjecture best satisfies the phenomena ?
As to the unanimity of the gospels in the Greek phrase
"the son of the man," that is not difficult to explain. For,
when "the son of the man" had once been accepted by Mark
as the rendering and not an unreasonable rendering of " son
16
INTRODUCTION [3020]
of Adam," succeeding evangelists would naturally shrink from
any change in so sacred a matter as the Lord's own self-
appellation. It was ambiguous and perplexing ; but not so
perplexing as " son of Adam," at least for many. For Adam
is associated with the thought of sin and death ; and an
evangelist like Mark whom his warmest admirers will hardly
place on a level with Luke in judgment and sense of pro-
portion, or on a level with Paul and John in spiritual insight
would naturally shrink from associating Christ with that name,
not perceiving the spiritual fitness of the paradox that the
Man from heaven coming to the rescue of the earthy Man,
made in His likeness, should take pleasure in calling Himself
the Son of the latter.
" The son of the man " might mean, in Greek shaped by
Christian thought, "the Son of Mankind," that is, its repre-
sentative and champion. That would give excellent sense,
amounting to much the same thing as " the [ideal] Son of
Adam," without the objection to which the latter title was
liable. The more the matter is considered, the easier it seems
to understand how an Eastern tradition about Adam might
pass into a Western tradition about Man.
[3020] The weakness of the argument from the unanimity
of the gospels as to " the son of the man " may be illus-
trated by the analogy of the Greek version of Ezekiel. If
the Hebrew text of Ezekiel were lost, some might urge that
the Greek is unvarying in rendering his appellation " son of
man," and that it is "pure conjecture " to suppose that " sou of
Adam" was intended. But the Aramaic is equally unvarying
in rendering it " son of Adam." The truth is that variation
between " Adam " and " man ' : can hardly be conceived as
possible in Christian documents on such a point as Christ's
habitual self-appellation. When once " the son of Adam "
had come to be generally translated " the son of the man," no
vestige of the original could be expected to remain in gospels
regularly read in Christian Churches.
A. s. 17 2
[3021] INTRODUCTION
Nevertheless, it can be shewn that in very early Christian
interpretations there are faint traces of a belief that the phrase
pointed to some patriarch. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and
other early writers, appear to have had an uneasy feeling that
11 the man'" in "the son of the man," meant some definite
human being, either Abraham, or Mary the Lord's Mother
as being descended from one of the Patriarchs. This last
interpretation would be theoretically possible if the original
was "son of adam," since there is no masculine article in
Hebrew to define the gender of a common noun, and " adam,"
by itself, might include feminine as well as masculine
humanity. It may be added that, in two instances, and
perhaps not wrongly, editors of Justin wish to substitute
Adam for Abraham.
The early sect of the Sethians, by its name as well as
by its doctrine, points in the same direction, that is, to a
primitive recognition of Christ as the Son of Adam. Cain
being rejected and Abel killed, Seth was "//^son of Adam."
Scripture also says expressly that he was in the " likeness " of
Adam, and consequently in the likeness of God. That the
Sethians called Christ " Seth " seems, at the first glance,
astonishing. But if He called Himself the Son of Adam, it
is explained at once.
[3021] Most important of all, however, is the indirect
testimony of Paul. He habitually thinks of Christ as the
spiritual Man cancelling the sin of the earthy Man. The
name of Adam he never mentions without the thought of
Christ as the Saviour of Adam and all his race ; and on one
occasion he actually calls Christ the Second Man or Last
Adam. If he could have derived such doctrine from Jewish
sources this evidence might leave us doubtful as to the origin
whence Paul derived it. " Was it Gamaliel," we might ask, " or
was it Jesus ? " But it can be shewn that no Pharisaean origin
was possible. Not till the Middle Ages did Jewish mysticism
begin to use such language. We are therefore driven to the
18
INTRODUCTION [3021]
conclusion that Paul either invented it in the course of his
meditations on Christ or else derived it from Christ's teaching.
The latter is the more probable.
These facts have been touched on in order to emphasize
the necessity that the student of the Bible should keep his
mind open to the Hebrew thought beneath the Greek, in the
New Testament as well as in the Old, and to the probability
that, if not the phrase, at all events the thought, " son of Adam,"
may be latent under the various instances of " the son of the
man " which we find in our Greek gospels.
BOOK I
"SON OF MAN"
IN PRE-CHRISTIAN USAGE
CHAPTER I
"SON OF MAN" IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
APPLIED TO MAN IN GENERAL
i. "Man"
[3022] The Hebrew for "man" in the Biblical phrase "son of
man" is almost always adam. It occurs for the first time after a
mention of adamah " ground." When God had created " everything
that creepeth upon the adamah" He said " let us make adam in our
image after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish...
and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and
God created the ac/a///...male and female created he them 1 ."
Another description says that at first "There was no adam to
labour [at] the adamah" but "the Lord God formed the adam [as]
dust from the adamah and breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life; and the adam became a living soul 8 ." Afterwards "the Lord
God took the adam and put him into the garden of Eden to labour
[at] it 3 ." After the fall, " the Lord God said, Behold, the adam is
become as one of us to know good and evil," therefore " the Lord
God sent him forth... to labour [at] the adamah from whence he was
taken 4 ."
Our Authorised Version, agreeing with the Targums, differs from
the Revised in having ''Adam " repeatedly throughout this narrative
where the latter has "the man." But that is a subject for future
consideration. The point for us to note is the connection between
adam and adamah and the tendency of the whole narrative to shew
the twofold nature of man, and his relation, on the one hand to God,
and on the other to the beasts, the creeping things, and especially
the serpent
1 Gen. i. 15 7. 2 Gen. ii. 5 7.
3 Gen. ii. 15. 4 Gen. iii. 11 3.
2 3
[3023] "SON OF MAN"
[3023] When the curse of "enmity" is predicted between the
seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman, and a mutual
"bruising," the Jerusalem Targums also imply that God's first
thought was to make man " go upon his belly " like the serpent, or
eat grass like the beasts of the field, but Adam said "I pray,...
O Lord, that we may not be accounted as the cattle to eat the herb
of the face of the field. Let us stand up and labour with the labour
of the hands."
The thought of " labour " or " service " for the Hebrew word is
the same for both as befitting man, runs through all the Old
Testament, notably, in the title of Moses "the servant of the Lord,"
and in Isaiah's phrase " my servant " frequently uttered by Jehovah
about Israel. It is also the Law of the Gospel, which says " The son
of man came not to be ministered unto but to minister 1 ," and the
Pauline Epistles insist upon it.
The thought of " standing up " is metaphorical. To a Jew it
often implied serving God or praying, as in the first two instances
where the word is used in the Bible concerning Abraham, who "stood
by THEM," that is, by the three Persons, and of whom it is said a
little later that he "stood yet before the LORD 2 ." Onkelos, renders
it "serve" or " minister in prayer." Jesus assumed that His disciples
would "stand" when they prayed. "Whensoever ye stand praying,"
He said, "forgive 3 ." The Pauline use of "stand" does not need
exemplification.
[3024] Taken as a whole, the narrative of the Fall prepares us
to believe that the adam, though destined to be " bruised " in the
" heel," is still to retain some of the " dominion " intended for him
over the beasts. The Jerusalem Targums add "There shall be a
remedy for the heel in the days of the King Messiah." This pro-
bably represents the thought current among the Jews of Capernaum
when Jesus (according to Luke) read from Isaiah the words " He
hath sent me to set at liberty them that are bruised*." The " bruising "
in Genesis is expressed by a rare Hebrew word that means " crushing,"
not by the word for " bruising " in Isaiah ; but we may reasonably
suppose that any great Deliverer of Israel would be regarded by
1 Mk x. 45, Mt. xx. 28. 2 Gen. xviii. 8, 22 (comp. xix. 17).
3 Mk xi. 25, comp. Mt. vi. 5 (on which Hor. Heb. quotes Berach. 26 b " To
stand was nothing else than to pray ").
* Lk. iv. 18, quoting Is. Ixi. i 2, but the italicised words are in Is. Iviii. 6
LXX) ; (R.V.) "to let the oppressed go free" (see 3584 a).
24
APPLIED TO MAN IN GENERAL [3026]
Tews of a spiritual type as coming to the rescue of the adam that is
being " crushed " by the serpent.
[3025] After the first six chapters of Genesis, adam (as compared
with other Hebrew words for "man") is very seldom used 1 except
in phrases denoting the class, man (also " every man," " not [any]
man," " man and beast," etc.) and especially man in relation to God.
The patriarchal name "Adam" is very rare, after Genesis, at
least in our English Bibles. Job says " I covered my transgressions
like Adam " (Targ. also " like Adam "), Hosea, They, like Adam,
have transgressed the covenant." In both these cases the margin
of R.V. has "men." Deuteronomy (A.V.) has "when he separated
the sons of Adam" but R.V. has "the children of men." The LXX
has " Adam " in none but the last of these three instances, where the
translators perhaps thought that "the sons of Israel" mentioned
in the same sentence are contrasted with "the sons of [sinful]
Adam 2 ." According to the text of R.V., Job and Hosea represent
Adam as the type of sinful man.
[3026] Concerning the relation between Man and God, adam
and elohim, a passage of special importance (as being in part quoted
by our Lord) occurs in what may be called the Psalm against the
Unjust Judges, where Elohim is variously interpreted as " gods," or
"rulers appointed to judge." It runs literally thus: "Elohim
standeth in the congregation of God (El) in the midst of the
1 In Gen. xvi. it A.V. "a wild man," R.V. "[as] a wild-ass among men,"
lit. "wild-ass man," Onk. and Jon. have "(like) a wild ass among man, or,
among sons of man." In Josh. xiv. 15 A.V. "a great man," R.V. "the
greatest man," the lit. Heb. is "the man the great," LXX nirrpbroXis. The
Vulg. has " Adam maximus."
2 [3026 a] Job xxxi. 33, Hos. vi. 7, Deut. xxxiL 8. These are all the
instances of Adam to be found in our English Concordances, outside Genesis,
except i Chr. i. i.
On the notion of a covenant with Adam see 3422. A covenant seems to be
implied, although it is not expressed, in the permission to eat of all the trees of
Paradise, provided that the precept be observed, not to eat of the tree of knowledge.
Rashi says, on Hos. ri. 7, "in terra bona, in qua eos collocaveram, ibi contra me
praevaricati sunt, sicuti Adam, quern introduxtram in hortum Eden et transgressus
est praeceptum meum (v.r. voluntatem meam)."
[3026 b] It is noteworthy that, in each of the three cases where "like adam "
(Mandelkem p. 13) occurs in the Bible, the context admits, or favours, the
interpretation "like Adam." The third instance is Ps. Ixxxii. 7, "Ye shall die
like adam," where the Targum has "sons of man," but the Midrash ''Adam."
In Hos. vi. 7, Targ. has "the generations of old," which seems to be a paraphrase
of "Adam."
25
[3027] "SON OF MAN"
Elohim doth he judge. How long will ye judge unjustly and
respect the persons of the wicked? Judge the poor... I (emph.)
said, 'Elohim [are] ye and sons of the Most High all of you,
But indeed like Adam (or adam) shall ye die and like one of the
princes shall ye fall 1 .'"
"Judging" implies discriminating between "good" and "evil."
The serpent said to Eve, " Ye shall be as Elohim knowing good and
evil," and God Himself says, " The man (lit. the adam) is become as
one of us, to know good and evil 2 ." But the faculties of knowing
and discriminating, or judging between good and evil, become satanic,
not divine, when the judges " call evil good, and good evil " and
"justify the wicked for a reward 8 ."
Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, taught His disciples how to
be like God. According to Luke, they were to be loving and " com-
passionate" ; thus they were to become "sons of the Most High"-
the Psalmist's phrase 4 . This phrase and the Johannine quotation,
"I said, Ye are gods 5 ," cannot be discussed here, but they are
worth mentioning here as indications of the manner in which we
may expect to find the Old Testament traditions about adam
affecting the doctrine of "the son of man."
The facts above-stated shew the two aspects in which " adam "
or "Adam" may be regarded, first, as the type of sinful man,
secondly, as man in the image of God, corrupted and imperfect,
but still regarded by God and aided by Him in his conflict with the
serpent.
2. " Son of man " in a bad sense
[3027] Of these two meanings of adam, the former that is to
say, man regarded as imperfect and sinful is suggested by the first
instance in which the Bible uses the plural phrase " sons of man"
(lit.) " The Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the
sons of the adam builded 6 ."
1 [3026 a] Ps. Ixxxii. i 7. In Ps. xvii. 4 "as for the works of adam" the
Targum has "vere arguisti opera filiorum hominum in verbo labiorum meorum,"
implying "the works of sinful man," but Rashi has "unumquodque opus hominis
quod veni ut faciam," implying "the works that man was sent into the world to
do." And he implies the same meaning in an alternative rendering. The Heb.
for "works" (Gesen. 821 b) means more often "works" or "wages" in good
sense than in bad.
2 Gen. iii. 5, 11. 3 Is. v. 203. 4 Lk. vi. 35.
5 Jn. x. 34. 6 Gen. xi. 5.
26
APPLIED TO MAN IN GENERAL [3029]
Here the article (ha-adam, " the adam ") signifies that the
meaning is not " the sons of Adam " for " Adam " could not be
preceded by " the " in Hebrew any more than in English but " the
sons of the [creature, or race, called] adam," that is, " of all the
human race."
In the Psalms, "the sons of adam" is the usual form of the
phrase, and it is used in the well-known refrain "O that [men]
would therefore praise the Lord for his goodness, and declare the
wonders that he doeth for the sons of adam 1 "; "the sons of the
adam " occurs only twice ; and, just before both instances, mention
is made of the "chosen " people, or of the " saints," in such a way as
to suggest a contrast 2 . In Ecclesiastes, "the sons of adam" is
non-occurrent, but " the sons of the adam " is very frequent, and
generally connected with "vanity and striving after wind*," and the
writer says, concerning the injustice of the world, " It is because of
the sons of the adam, that God may prove them, and that they may
see that they themselves are [but as] beasts 4 ." The Targumist and
Rashi limit this, as referring to sinners and oppressive rulers a
doubtful limitation.
[3028] Going back to the first instance in Genesis, we find
Rashi, in spite of the article, interpreting " the Adam " as " Adam,"
thus, " Whose ' sons ' are these ? Sons of swine or of camels ? Not
so, but sons of the first man... 5 ." The context shews that he takes
"sons of Adam" to imply "like Adam" in their conduct, "rebellious
sons of a rebellious father." In Hebrew, "son of" may be used to
mean " specimen of," " member of," as in " son of the flock," " sons
of the prophets'," etc. ; and Rashi's comment, which is based on
ancient authority, is instructive as shewing how "the sons of the
adam," meaning " members of mankind," may retain, for Jews, a
suggestion of " sons of Adam."
[3029] Passing from the plural " sons of adam, or, the adam," to
the singular " son of adam," we have to note first that the singular
" son of the adam" ben ha-adam, does not occur in the Hebrew
1 Ps. xi. 4, xiL i, xiv. 2 etc. and especially Ps. cvii. 8, 15 etc.
* Ps. xxxiii. 17 13, cxlv. 10 u.
3 Eccles. i. 13 14, comp. ii. 3, 8 etc.
4 Eccles. iii. 18.
5 Rashi on Gen. xi. 5. Comp. Gen. Rob. ad loc. which gives a somewhat
similar tradition.
6 Gesen. m b.
27
[3030J "SON OF MAN"
Bible, nor as far as is known at present, in any early Jewish
tradition 1 .
" Son of man " occurs in a bad sense in the only passage where
it occurs in the Pentateuch : " God is not a man (vir) that he should
lie... nor son of man (filius hominis) that he should repent 2 ." These
words are uttered by Balaam to Balak the prince of Moab, who had
invited the prophet to curse Israel with the promise, " I will promote
thee unto very great honour 3 ." Similar words are uttered by Samuel,
who says to Saul that God " is not a man (homo) that he should
repent 4 ." The thought in both passages may be illustrated from the
Psalms, " Man that is in honour and hath no understanding is like
unto the beasts that perish 5 ," and again " Put not your trust in
princes, nor in the son of man in whom there is no help; his breath
goeth forth, he returneth to his earth (///. his ground, adamaK) ; in
that very day his thoughts perish 8 ." Here the thought is probably
of a " son of Adam." What we express by saying " Earth to earth "
is expressed in Hebrew by saying " the son of adam to adamah."
[3030] In one Biblical passage, "son of man" is uniquely 7 ex-
pressed by " son of enosh " (not " son of 'Adam "). Enosh is of
uncertain meaning. It might mean "frail man " or "common man."
Perhaps the latter rendering is generally preferable 8 . The words are
regarded by the Jewish Tradition as uttered by David after his
contest with Goliath, but also with general allusion to the helplessness
of " man," or " the son of man," apart from God. " Blessed be the
Lord, my Rock... who subdueth [my] people[s] 9 under me! Lord,
1 See 3032 (i) foil.
2 [3029 a] Numb, xxiii. 19. " Only passage " refers to " son of man " singular.
The plural "sons of man, or, adam" occurs in Gen. xi. 5 (R.V.) "children of
men," Deut. xxxii. 8 (A.V. ) "sons of Adam" R.V. "children of men." In the
following pages "adam" is never translated "men." It often means "man-
kind," but so does the English "man" (sometimes written " Man").
8 Ib. xxii. 17, comp. ib. xxii. 37, xxiv. n.
4 i S. xv. 29. 5 Ps. xlix. 20, comp. xlix. 12. 6 Ps. cxlvi. 3 4.
7 See Mandelkern's Concordance.
8 [3030 a] See the instances in Is. viii. i "pen of a [common] man" (?) so
that anyone can read, xiii. 7, 12, xxiv. 6, xxxiii. 8, li. 7, Ivi. 2. It occurs only in
Isaiah, Psalms, and Job (with Jer. xx. 10, 2 Chr. xiv. n). It is also the name
of Adam's grandson, the son of Seth, in Gen. iv. 26 (where Jon. Targ. has "That
was the generation in whose days they began to err and to make themselves
idols, and surnamed their idols by the Name of the Word of the Lord ").
9 [3030 b~\ Ps. cxliv. i 4. The sense, and the parall. Ps. xviii. 47, demand
"peoples," not "my people." In Notes 2998 (ix), "enosh" is rendered "[frail]
man." But "[mere] man," "[common] man" better suits, for example, such
28
APPLIED TO MAN IN GENERAL [3032]
what is [earthy] man (adam) that thou takest knowledge of him, or
the son of [common] man (ben enosh) that thou makest account of
him? [Earthy] man (adam) is but vanity."
[3031] In Job, the phrase " ben adam " occurs thrice. Besides
being used once by Job himself in a good sense, it is twice used by
his friends in a bad sense. Bildad says " How then can [mere] man
(enosh) be just with God ? Or how can he be clean that is born of
a woman ? Behold, even the moon hath no brightness, and the
stars are not pure, in his sight. How much less [mere] man that
is a worm! And the son of man (ben adam) that is a worm 1 !"
Elihu appears to go still further and to maintain that man's
righteousness or unrighteousness does not affect God in any way
since the former does not help Him nor the latter harm Him. " If
thou hast sinned, what doest thou against him?... If thou be
righteous, what givest thou him?... Thy wickedness [may harm] a
man (vir) as thou art, and thy righteousness [may profit] a son of
man 3 ."
[3032] Thoughts like those of Elihu are sometimes loosely
attributed to " Israel 3 ." But they are opposed to the best
a passage as Is. xiii. i, where "a [common] man' 7 is said to be "more precious
than gold," after the general destruction of the population (see Ibn Ezra).
1 Job xxv. 4 6.
2 Job xxxv. 6 8. For " son of man " in good sense, used by Job himself,
see 3033.
3 [3032 a] On a confusion of this kind, attributing to " Israel" the thought of
a speaker expressly condemned for profanity, see Matthew Arnold's Literature
and Dogma, chap. i. 3 "All this, which scientific theology loses sight of, Israel,
who had but poetry and eloquence, and no system, and who did not mind
contradicting himself, knew. ' Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art
righteous? (Job xxii. 3).' What a blow to our ideal of that magnified and
non-natural man, ' the moral and intelligent Governor ' ! Say what we can about
God, say our best, we have yet, Israel knew, to add instantly: ' Lo, these are
fringes of his ways ; but how little a portion is heard of him (Job xxvi. 14) !'
Yes, indeed, Israel remembered that, far better than our bishops do."
It is no very great exaggeration to say that this is as absurd as it would be to
quote lago and Othello in two consecutive sentences to shew what " Shakespeare
knew" or what "England knew." The first of these quotations is the utterance
of Eliphaz the Temanite to whom God subsequently says (Job xli. 7), " My wrath
is kindled against thee and against thy two friends ; for ye have not spoken of me
the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath."
No doubt we should do ill to call God as Matthew Arnold sarcastically says,
" the moral and intelligent Governor " of the universe. But the reason would be,
not that it is too anthropomorphic but that it is not anthropomorphic or affectionate
enough. " Holy," " righteous," " loving," and " Father," would be better.
29
[3032] "SON OF MAN"
Hebrew thought. They belong rather to Epicurus, whose name the
Jews Hebraicized to express a godless philosophy. Epicurus taught
that the Gods did not trouble themselves about men. The Hebrews
believed in a God who was the Nursing Father of Israel. It is of
great importance that we should recognise the pure Hebrew and
Jewish doctrine of the likeness between God and " the son of man,"
and of the extent to which God interested Himself, so to speak, in
the welfare of man ; for there is good reason to think that whatever
Jesus taught on this subject would be in danger of being obscured
and corrupted in coming through Greek channels 1 .
Philo twice contrasts Balaam's saying favourably with the doctrine
that God bore Israel in the wilderness as a father bears a child in
his arms. " There are two fundamental principles," he says in effect,
" One is, God is not as man. The other is, that \_He is\ as man.
The former is confirmed by fundamental truth ; the latter is for the
sluggish, or for the teaching of the multitude 2 ."
1 [3032 b] Take, for example, the LXX version of the words in Genesis
(vi. 6 7) " It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and
it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, ' I will destroy man... for it
repenteth me that I have made them.' " The LXX corrupts this as follows,
" And God took into consideration that he had made man on the earth and turned
it in his mind. And God said, ' I will destroy man... because I am angered that
I made them.'" Philo (i. 280, and Qutzst. Gen. ad loc.) not only adopts this
corruption, but also expressly condemns the correct rendering : " Some think that
the Divine Being is indicated by these words as repenting (poenitere). But they
think wrongly."
The reason for this is obvious. The " repenting " was a stumbling-block
to the Greeks and a thorn in the side of Christian Apologists defending the
Old Testament. Celsus (Orig. Cels. vi. 58) is scathing in his contrast between
Genesis and the Sermon on the Mount: "How is it," he asks, "that He
\i.e. God] repents over them [i.e. men] when they became ' unthankful and evil '
(comp. Lk. vi. 35) and blames His own handiwork, and hates, and threatens, and
destroys His own offspring?" Origen, in his reply, quotes the LXX, and says,
"There is no mention of repentance." But elsewhere, in Horn. Numb, xxiii. 2,
he quotes " it repenteth me" correctly, and says that, if there is joy in the heaven
over a sinner's returning, there must be sorrow over his going astray, "And
perhaps human sins cause mourning to God Himself." See 3122 l>, 3550 a.
[3032 c] Also in Adamant. Dial. ii. (Lomm. xvi. 300) the Marcionite quotes
Gen. vi. 7 " I repent," and is not corrected, and Origen himself quotes it thus
in Horn. Gen. ii. 3, " pcenitet." It is remarkable that Jerome, in his Quaest.
Gen., while commenting diffusely on the context, has no note on this difficulty.
Origen Cels. vi. 58 quotes iv^\]^i]Qj]v (for tQvi*.uQj}v) which would justify the
reader in denying that there was " wrath."
2 See Notes 2998 (iv) d quoting Philo. i. 280 and i. 656.
30
APPLIED TO MAN IN GENERAL [3032 (ii)]
[3032 (i)] The statement made above (3029) that ben ha-adam is
non-occurrent in and before the first century deserves to be reiterated
and emphasized in view of the manner in which Dalman's exposition
of this fact has been ignored in a recent treatise on eschatology 1 .
The fact is important because we know from the Pauline epistles
that in the first century one Jew at least had come to regard the
Messiah as "the Last Adam," and to speak of the Patriarch anti-
thetically as " the First Man Adam," and of the Messiah as " the
Second Man '' (presumably capable of being called " the Second
Adam "). Since no other Jews at, or before, this time, are known
to have entertained this thought, and since this Jew was a Christian,
we naturally ask whether he may not have borrowed it from Christ's
doctrine.
We have seen also that Ezekiel's appellation, namely, ben adam,
" son of adam, or man" was interpreted by the Aramaic Targum as
meaning " son of Adam," but by the Greek translators as " son of
man."
[3032 (ii)] At this point comes in the fact that this bifurcated
title, if we may so call it, " son of Adam " in Aramaic but " son of
man " in Greek might be regarded as meaning " son of Adam " in
1 [3032 (i) ] Der Urspmng der Israelitisch-judischen Eschatologie von Lie.
Dr Hugo Gressmann p. 334 *' Es konnte kein Zweifel sein und die letzte
Untersuchung von FIEBIG hat es bestatigt dass WELLHAUSEN das sprachliche
Problem von vorneherein richtig gelost hat. ' The use of this term in Aramaic has
been treated with most comprehensiveness by FIEBIG, with most Talmudic
learning by DALMANN (sic), and with most insight by WELLHAUSEN '(SCHMIDT).
Wie vi6s d'0/>unroi> = hebr. D1X |2 = aram. w'3N ~Q, so ist 6 vibs TOV dr{)puTrov =
hebr. DISH p = aram. Xi?3X ~O. Wahrend aber jenes hebraische Wort
verhaltnismassig selten und poetisch ist, also einem ebenso ungebrauchlichen
'Menschenkind' entspricht, so ist diese aramaische Phrase in alien aramaischen
Dialekten ganz gewohnlich und bedeutet weiter nichtsals ' der Mensch.'"
[3032 (i) 6] On this point there is a bearing in the following remarks in my
Notes on New Testament Criticism (2998 (xxiv) b) "Westcott's note on Heb. ii. 6
'son of man,' vios curffpurov, 'D"1X~|3 not 6 ftot TOV dvOpurrou (D^Xl^~]^)' might
give rise to erroneous inferences if at least it led the reader to suppose that the
Hebrew writer might have written the latter but preferred the former. The
pi. bni ha-adam sometimes occurs in the Bible, but the sing, ben ha-adam nowhere
(so far as Mandelkern's Concordance shews). Dr Schmidt says (Enc. Bib. 4706)
'Christians like Sason... probably translated 6 vlbt rov dvOpurov by ben ha-adam,
as, in modern times, Delitzsch.' But that fact does not justify us in supposing
that a Jew in the first century could have used such a phrase : it merely shews
that modern Jews felt the ambiguity caused in ancient Hebrew by the absence of
the article. I am informed by Dr Buchler that he has not found ben ha-adam in
Talmudic literature."
31
[3033] "SON OF MAN 1 '
a particular sense, that is to say, " son of Adam where Adam was
regarded as representing the race of sinful man." This meaning
would have been properly represented by ben ha-adam if that
form had existed; but as that form had no existence, the duty of
representing it might be thrown on ben Adam, or bar Adam, either
of which might mean " the son of Adam," just as ben Jesse may
mean " the son of Jesse." Some Greek translators, taking this view,
might naturally render "Adam" by u the man," that is, " the [creature]
man," just as Greek (and English) uses "the" in "the lion," "the
fox," and so on 1 .
3. " Son of man " in a good sense
[3033] We pass to passages in which, although "ben adam " is
regarded as earthy and needing help, yet he is also regarded as
receiving help, so that out of weakness he is made strong.
Job, for example, differing widely from the cynical and profane
views of his friends, speaks of man as a creature of earth, but a
1 [3032 (ii) a] Comp. Plato 321 B c where "the race of men" is referred to
as (ib.) TOV &v6p<i)trov, and Thuc. i. 140 "the counsels of the [creature] called
man " perhaps slightly contemptuous. Also Lucian (ii. 506, De Imag. 28)
quotes "the best of the philosophers," Diogenes the Cynic, as "having said that
l the man is God's image (eiKbva. 6eov TOV &v0pwiroi> elirbvTa elveu) ' " a saying
repeated in Diog. Laert. vi. 2. 51 "[He said] thai good men (TOUS dyaOovs Hvdpas)
were images of gods (deCov eiKbvas elvai)." This is not quite the same thing, but
the two passages supply a useful illustration of the meanings of "the man" in
Greek. In Eccles. i. 13, ii. 3, iii. 10 etc., "the sons of the adam," LXX has oi
viol T&V dvOp&iruv, but with v.r. TOV dvOpuirov, in ii. 8 vluv avOpwiruv v.r. TOV
dvOp&irov, in iii. 18, 21 etc. viuv TOV dvOpwirov.
[3032 (ii) b] Dr Schmidt (Enc. 4729) commenting on Eccles. viii. 11 (lit.)
"the heart of the sons of the [creature] man (ha-adam) " and on Aquila's rendering,
ol viol TOV dvOp&irov, says " To a Greek this could scarcely have conveyed any
other idea than 'the sons of the man,' the man being some particular person
previously mentioned. " But a similar remark might be made about Symmachus'
rendering, " the sons of the men," namely, that "the men" must almost necessarily
be "some particular persons previously mentioned."
The truth is, that in classical Greek, 6 &vOpuiros is frequently dependent on its
context for its meaning. Bonitz's Index Aristotelicus (avffpwiros, pp. 58 9) gives
us at a glance, " the upper and lower parts of the man" "we must first take the
parts of the man," "the front [parts] of the man," "the veins in the man" "the
man is tailless," and many more instances where "the man" means, not "some
particular person previously mentioned," but " mankind." It is not Aquila's use
of "the man" here, but the Hebrew use of "son," which might lead a Greek,
unfamiliar with Hebrew idiom, completely astray. He would be similarly led
astray by Symmachus, who has oi viol TWV dv
32
[3034]
creature of great possibilities, nay, even of rights and claims upon
his fellow-man, and almost (it is suggested) on God, expressing the
wish that a " man " (geber, " vir ") might plead his cause with God
just as a " son of man " (ben adam) may plead it to his neighbour 1 .
Whatever may be the exact meaning of the context, this passage
certainly vindicates the rights of a " son of man " and uses the term
in a good sense.
The following is apparently a prayer for a prince of the House of
Israel, first called a " son " of the vine (if the text is correct) and
then " the son of man " whom God has strengthened : " Look down
from heaven... and visit this vine, and the stock which thy right hand
hath planted, and the son (i.e. branch) that thou madest strong for
thyself.... Let thy hand be upon the man (vir) of thy right hand,
upon the son of [earthy] man (ben adam) whom thou madest -strong
for thyself 1 ."
Similarly Isaiah pronounces a blessing on " ben adam " if he will
"keep judgment and righteousness," saying "Blessed is the [mere]
man (enosh) that doeth this and the son of [earthy] man (ben adam)
that holdeth fast by it 3 ." In this, as in the preceding passage,
"poetic parallelism" does not seem to be a complete explanation
of the poetic language. There seems something of climax in the
position given to " son of [earthy] adam " when strengthened by
alliance with heaven.
[3034] Special importance attaches itself to an instance in the
eighth Psalm, because that Psalm is said by Matthew to have been
quoted by our Lord, and the following extract from it is full of
thoughts developed in the gospels : " O Lord, our Lord, how
excellent is thy name in all the earth, who hast set thy glory upon
(or, above) the heavens ! Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings
1 [3033 a] Job xvi. 21, R.V. text and marg. differ from one another, and so do
the Vulg., the LXX, and the Targum. But none of the differences can alter the
conclusion that Job stands up for the right of a " son of man." On the views of
Job's friends see 3031 2. On ben adam as meaning both ''the son of man " and
" a son of man," see 3063 a foil.
* [3033 i>] Ps. Ixxx. 14 17. In the first sentence, the Targum has " and the
stock which thy right hand nath planted, and that because of King Messiah whom
thou madest strong for thyself," LXX has " son of man r (for " son " i*. branch).
3 [3033 c] Is. IvL i 2. Isaiah's only other use of "ben adam " is in li. 12
(in a bad sense) " who art thou that thou an afraid of [mere] man (enosh) who shall
die, or the son of [earthy} man (ben adam) who shall be appointed to be as
grass?"
A- 5 - 33 3
[3035] -'SON OF MAN"
hast thou established strength, because of thine adversaries, that
thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. When I consider
thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which
thou hast ordained ; what is [mere] man (enosh) that thou art mindful
of him, and the son of [earthy] man (ben adam) that thou visitest
him ? "
Then comes a passage (referred to in the first epistle to the
Corinthians and the epistle to the Hebrews 1 ) on which we shall have
frequent occasion to comment: " For thou hast made him (K..V.)
but little lower than God (or, the angels, Heb. Elohim) and crownest
him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion
over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his
feet : all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field.... O Lord,
our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth ! "
[3035] Without unduly anticipating what should be reserved for
a later part of this work, it must be observed that the glory of the
"excellent Name" of God is here connected with "babes and
sucklings," and not only did our Lord (according to Matthew) quote
the words " out of the mouth of babes and sucklings etc.," but also
He associated His deepest doctrines (and a mention, or implication,
of the Name, which is implied in " my name ") with " receiving little
ones," thus, "whosoever receiveth one of such little ones in my
name receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent
me 2 ." On another occasion, when the Seventy said to Him, "Even
the demons (or, devils) are subjected to us," Jesus is said to have
replied " I beheld the Adversary (or, Satan) fallen as lightning from
heaven. Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents
and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy," and, " in that
same hour," says Luke, He thanked God for revealing His Kingdom
" to babes 3 ."
[3036] Jewish comments on non-literal meanings to be found in
this Psalm do not interpret " adversaries " (which might be rendered
" oppressors ") as being " powers of Satan," nor " the beasts of the
field " as being " demons," or " the power of the enemy," or spiritual
"serpents" and "scorpions." But they find a reference in the
1 i Cor. xv. 27, Heb. ii. 6 8.
2 [3035 ] Mk ix. 37, Mt. xviii. 5, x. 40, Lk. ix. 48, and see Clue 268 72 on
"the Name" as probably employed in Mk ix. 41 (lit.) "in the name that ye are
Christ's" (3527 a, 3534 d).
3 Lk. x. 17 21.
34
APPLIED TO MAN IN GENERAL [3037]
Psalm to " the four empires l ," corresponding to the four beasts
seen by Daniel. As regards "son of man," some represent the
words "What is. ..the son of man that thou art mindful of him?"
as having been uttered by jealous angels, who wish to prevent Moses
from coming up to receive the Law from God 2 .
[3037] These facts may suffice to call the reader's attention to
the antiquity of the paradox presented by the creature who seems at
one moment "son of the earthy," at another " son of the heavenly,"
"in doubt," as Pope says, "to deem himself a god or beast."
Hamlet has made us familiar with the contrast between the
" quintessence of dust " and " the paragon of animals," and we
understand how in modern times a man may say, at a few minutes'
interval, " What a piece of work is a man ! " and then " What should
such fellows as I do crawling between earth and heaven* ?" But we
1 Wunsche, Tehillim i. pp. 74, 79, 80. See 3039 c.
2 [3036 a] See Notes 2998 (xi). Compare the words of David :
2 S. vii. 19 (lit.) i Chr. xvii. 17 (lit.)
" And this is (or, is this) the law of " And thou hast seen me according
the adam, my Lord Jehovah." to the rank of the adam [of] exaltation,
Jehovah God."
The texts are corrupt, but the contexts indicate that David is thanking God
for the exaltation of the adam, in his own person, as being in accordance with
God's "law" or will. The Targum on i S. vii. 19 has "This is the vision for
the sons of man, O Lord Jehovah," which is somewhat similar to the LXX of
Chr., "Thou, as [being] a vision of man, didst look on me (tn-ftSe? fit ws opa<n!
tivdpunrov) and thou hast exalted me, O Lord God," Syr. " Dost thou bring forth
from darkness into light, O Lord of Lords, all men that worship thee with their
whole heart ? "
[3036^] The contexts represent God as putting aside David's offer (i S.
vii. 5) to build Him a house, and as replying (ib. n, 13) that He will make a
house for David, and that David's son will build a house for the name of God.
Bearing in mind that David is introduced as (i S. xvi. n) "the little one
(6 juKpos) " in the family of Jesse, we seem justified in inferring that this utterance
of his, so divergently reported above, harmonizes in spirit with the thanksgiving
in the eighth Psalm for the exaltation of babes and sucklings and for the dominion
given to "the son of adam."
There is no reason to suppose that in i Chr. xvii. 17 there is any allusion to
a doctrine that is found (Dalman, Words p. 247) in Sohar about the " higher
Adam " and the " lower Adam " ; but the two parallel passages, taken together,
shew how the doctrine of the exaltation of the earth-born creature man, ex-
emplified in David, might find various expression in the visions of prophets as
well as in the utterances of Psalmists.
3 Hamlet, ii. i. 320, iii. i. 128.
35 32
[3037] "SON OF MAN"
are not equally familiar with ancient appreciations of this strange
antithesis running through Hebrew literature.
Epictetus warns us against doing anything like a " beast 1 '' lest
we "lose the MAN." The negative doctrine, Man's discord with the
Beast, is latent in many passages of scripture, as for example the
Psalmist's antithesis between the Beasts and the Vine of Israel 2 . The
. positive doctrine, the supremacy of the Man over the Beasts, will appear
in the prophecies of Ezekiel and Daniel. It will also be found
developed in the Christian book of Revelation, which is, in brief, a
story of the victory over the Beast gained by the Word, or Lamb, of
God, who is introduced as " one like unto a son of man 3 ." But the
most spirit-stirring suggestion of it, and the one most likely to appeal
to the greatest of Seers, is in the eighth Psalm 4 .
1 [3037 a] Epict. ii. 9. 3 " beast," Bijplov, i.e. "savage beast." The Revela-
tion of John, which opens (i. 13) with the vision of " one like unto a son of man,"
is in large part the history of the conflict of this Person against " the Beast," who
is suddenly mentioned (without previous introduction) as (ib. xi. 7) "the beast
(TO Qripiov) that cometh up from the abyss."
" Beast" means, in Acts xxviii. 4 5, "serpent" or "adder." This inclusive-
ness of meaning would favour the mystical view that the contest between " the
son of man" and the Beast began with the prediction (Gen. iii. 15) of the
antagonism between the seed of the woman and the serpent.
[3037^] Schottgen (on i Thess. ii. 3) quotes Jalkut Rubeni Ixxii. 3 "Woe
unto him, who is dominated by the Beast" i.e. the Evil Desire. " He," it is
added, "is the man of sin (impius)," but the man that dominates the Beast
he is the righteous and perfect of whom it is written (Is. xliii. 4 (3)) " Dabo hominem
sub te" [R.V. "I will give men for thee"] " nimirum hominem impium, virum
peccati." This is not an early work of high authority, but it may occasionally
illustrate early thought. See 3129 b.
2 Ps. Ixxx. 13.
3 Rev. i. 13. For further details as to the Biblical use of " the son of man "
see Notes 2998 (iii) foil.
4 [3037 c\ That Psalm, perhaps, ought not to be dismissed without some
mention of the apparent imitation of it in Job (vii. 17 18), " What is man (endsh)
that thou shouldest magnify him, and that thou shouldest set thine heart upon him,
and that thou shouldest visit him every morning and try him every moment ? How
long wilt thou not look away from me ? " Even in this passionate protest against
suffering, the sufferer may be regarded as unconsciously testifying to its exalting
power. The Aramaic Targum has, " What is man's son (bar nash) that thou
magnifies! him?"
CHAPTER II
"SON OF MAN" IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
APPLIED TO EZEKIEL AND DANIEL
i. Their visions of "man" or "son of man"
[3038] Three prophets, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, see visions
of a "throne" or "thrones" in heaven. In the case of Isaiah,
Jehovah Himself is seen upon the throne, and the prophet needs to
have his lips touched with fire because he has seen "the living
God 1 ." To Ezekiel 2 and Daniel 3 , alone among Hebrew prophets, it
is given to see an appearance of some human personality, above the
throne, or near the Ancient of Days in whose presence the thrones of
judgment are placed.
In these two prophets there is also this point of similarity that
they are called by a special appellation. " Son of adam " is applied
to Ezekiel more than ninety times 4 , to Daniel once, and to no other
Hebrew prophet. In the case of both prophets, the appellation
comes from a celestial Person or Voice. In both cases also, the
appellation follows the vision described above.
[3039] There is, further, in the circumstances of these two visions
of what may be called human dominion, a similarity of antithesis
1 Is. vi. i foil.
1 Ezek. i. 26 "and upon the likeness of the throne was a likeness as the
appearance of a man upon it above."
3 [3038a] Dan. vii. 9 13 "I beheld till thrones were placed and one that
was ancient of days did sit...I saw in the night visions, and behold, there came
with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man " A.V. has, definitely,
"the son of man" But this is not justified by the original. See 3001. The
writer appears to be reproducing the phrase of Ezekiel, only in Aramaic, using
" son of man" for "man." See 3043.
4 More than six times as many as the whole of the rest of the Biblical
instances.
37
[3040] "SON OF MAN
between " man " and " beast " which is liable to escape notice
because the Hebrew word translated by our Revised Version "beast"
in Daniel is translated by it "living-creature" in Ezekiel 1 . Some-
what similarly the "four beasts" in our Authorised Version of
Revelation correspond to "four living-creatures" (or "creatures")
in our Revised Version 2 .
In Daniel, as in Ezekiel and Revelation, the " beasts " are
" four " in number, but the symbolism in Daniel is narrowed down
to little more than political reference, referring to the four great
idolatrous empires that represent the war of the Beast against the
Man 3 .
[3040] In Ezekiel, empires are perhaps rather alluded to than
referred to. The primary reference appears to be to the powers of
the universe, human or non-human, regarded as forces that need
control perhaps as horses that need a charioteer. These are
described as brought by "a stormy wind (lit. a wind, or spirit, of
storm) out of the north." They might be typified by the four
elements, or the four winds the ministers of God's blessings but
also the ministers of His chastisements 4 . Ezekiel typifies them by
four " living creatures " which, though four, are controlled by one
spirit 5 , and, though non-human, have humanity as it were stamped
upon them 6 . There is also a human "appearance," like a charioteer,
controlling the whole 7 .
1 [3039 a] R.V. follows the LXX, which renders one and the same Hebrew
word by <jiov in Ezekiel, but by drjpiov in Daniel.
2 [3039 ] Rev. iv. 6, 7 etc. always fya. Qyplov, in Rev., is the Beast that
represents evil. To. Oypia -r^s yrjs is once used to mean (Rev. vi. 8) "the wild
beasts of the earth," the destructive agents of Death and Hades.
3 [3039 c] The Midrash (3036) on the first verse of the eighth Psalm
(Wiinsche, p. 74) mentions the four empires, although the Psalm itself speaks
merely of the dominion of the son of man over non-human creation.
4 [3040 a] Comp. Rev. vi. 17 where the four (A. V.) "beasts," (R.V.) " living
creatures," announce God's chastisements, and id. vii. i, where "four angels"
hold "the four winds of the earth," also Ezek. xiv. 21 " my four sore judgments."
8 [3040 ] Ezek. i. 4 " a stormy -wind," might be rendered "a spirit of storm
(or, of whirlwind)," the Heb. for " wind " being the same as that which is rendered
(R.V.) "spirit " in i. 12 " Whither the spirit was to go."
6 [3040 c\ Ezek. i. 5 " they [i.e. the living creatures] had the likeness of a man,"
id. 8 "they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides,"
id. 10 "they had the face of a man." Yet they include the "faces" of "lion,"
"ox," and "eagle."
7 [3040 d] So Origen (Horn. Ezek. i. 16) " Haec autem regit omnia et quo-
cumque vult torquet totius universitatis Deus in Christo Jesu," and (on Ezek. i. 5
38
APPLIED TO EZEKIEL AND DANIEL [3040]
Nevertheless it can be shewn that there is at least an allusion to
imperial forces. " Out of the north " alludes, as Rashi says, to " the
land of the Chaldaeans." He quotes Jeremiah, " Out of the north
evil shall break forth 1 ." So, too, Isaiah says "There cometh a smoke
out of the north" which Ibn Ezra explains as "the king of Assyria
and probably Sennacherib 2 ." And Ezekiel says elsewhere, "Behold,
I will bring upon Tyre Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, king of
kings, from the north 3 ." The elemental forces, doubtless, are in the
prophet's view, but the winged bulls of Assyria are not left altogether
out of sight.
Why does Ezekiel apply to these four mysterious forces a word
that, in the plural, occurs nowhere else in the Bible except to denote
(i) the "ravenous beasts" that shall be excluded from "the way of
holiness," in Isaiah; (2) the "small and great beasts" which the
foil.) 6 fyioxos (bis). Also Terome (on Ezek. i. 6 8) "hanc igitur quadrigam in
aurigae modum Deus regit, et incompositis currentem gradibus refraenat docilem-
que facit...," where he briefly gives different views, laying especial stress on the
correspondence to the four gospels. One of these appears to refer to the Chariot
in Plato's Phaedrus (pp. 246 7). Origen (Horn. Ezek.) regards the four creatures
as the spiritual powers that dwell in the heaven, the earth, the waters, and the
waters that are above the heavens. "The Chariot" plays a large part in Jewish
theological discussions (Levy iii. 252 b).
[3040/] What is the significance of Ezek. i. 7 "like the sole of a calf's
foot " ? Evidence as to early interpretation is wanting. The LXX omits
" calfs" and the Targum follows Aquila in substituting "round." Having regard
to the fact that " calf," in the Bible, is habitually associated with Israel's idolatry,
we might conjecture that this detail of the vision reveals even this aspect of the
beast-nature as being, so to speak, taken out of the service of false gods and made
a part of the service of the true God. It would not be surprising that the audacity
of such a conception offended many pious Jews.
Rashi (on Ezek. x. i) says " Our Rabbis have this tradition : Ezekiel besought
God ; and the faces (sic) of the ox were changed into the face of the cherub, for
Ezekiel said before Him, ' Lord of the world, no Accuser is made Defender.' "
That is to say, the "ox " (identified with the "calf," as in Ps. cvi. 19 20 "a calf
in Horeb...an ox that eateth grass") being, so to speak, the Remembrancer of
Israel's idolatry in the wilderness, was regarded as the habitual "Accuser," or
Adversary, or Satan, of Israel, and could never become a suitable "Defender."
So God " changed it into a cherub." The expression of the thought is childish ;
but the thought itself is not childish, that Evil may be pressed into the service of
Good. See 3049 a.
1 Jer. i. 14.
2 Is. xiv. 31.
3 Ezek. xxvi. 7. "from the north" occurs similarly in Ezek. xxxix. 2, Jer.
iv. 6, and many other passages.
39
[3040] "SON OF MAN"
Psalmist couples with " leviathan " ; (3) the " beasts " mentioned in
Daniel's vision 1 ?
English readers may feel a natural dislike for the term "beasts"
applied to what we are accustomed to call the " living-creatures " in
Ezekiel. But in Revelation, as has been said above, the four "living-
creatures" before the throne of God are called "beasts" in the older
English of our Authorised Version, without any depreciatory meaning.
There the rendering of the Greek is wrong; for it ought to be
"living-creatures." But here the correct rendering of the Hebrew
demands " beasts,'' if at least we are to keep before our minds the
fact that Ezekiel here uses the plural of the word of which the
singular is repeatedly used by him later on in the phrases " noisome
beast" "beast of the field," "evil beasts'*" etc., and also that he
uses the same word as that employed in Daniel's description of the
"beasts" that represent the four empires.
Some mystical or symbolical reason for Ezekiel's use of the word
is further demanded by the fact that later on, when he is "lifted
up... and brought in visions of God to Jerusalem," he sees something
like his former vision repeated with significant changes ; and what
he sees is connected with " cherubim " thus : " And the cherubim
mounted up ; this is the living-creature that I saw by the river
Chebar " ; and again more emphatically, " This is the living-creature
that I saw under the God of Israel by the river Chebar, and I knew
that they were cherubim?"
The quaintness of the Jewish traditions that explain why what
was an "ox" by the Chebar became a "cherub" in Jerusalem 4 ,
ought not to prevent us from believing that there must be some
explanation of this apparent change of aspect. It would seem that,
as long as the ministers of divine chastisement were swooping down
" from the north " on Israel, the prophet regarded them as " beasts,"
1 Is. xxxv. 9 R.V. "nor. ..any ravenous beast," but the Heb. has "beasts," Ps.
civ. 25 6, Dan. viii. 4 "no beasts could stand before him." Mandelkern (p. 387)
gives only these instances, together with Ezek. i. 5, 13, 14, 15, 19, iii. 13. In
Dan. vii. 3 foil, the word for "beasts" is the Aramaic plural.
2 The reader will observe that in these passages, where the word is used in a
lower sense, some adj. or defining phrase is used. In Ezek. xiv. 15 "because of
the [noisome] beasts (lit. beast)" there is no adjective, but that is perhaps because
"noisome beast (s) " occurs previously in the same verse. In this passage, Heb.
"beast" (like Eng. "Jish") is used collectively, and is consequently rendered by
R.V. "beasts."
3 Ezek. viii. 3, x. 15, 20. 4 See Rashi on Ezek. x. i, and 3049 a.
40
APPLIED TO EZEKIEL AND DANIEL [3042]
"animals," or "living-creatures"; but afterwards, when he saw them
in Jerusalem, and even in the Temple itself, preparing to abandon
and destroy the Holy Place, he " knew that they were cherubim." In
Assyria, he saw as a captive exile in Assyria ; in Jerusalem, he saw
as a citizen of the New Jerusalem. The former vision revealed the
powers of this visible world coming to destroy ; the latter revealed
the powers of heaven abandoning the old to destruction, as a pre-
paration for the new.
It will be shewn, later on, that somewhat similar imagery
appears to be used in Zechariah, in parts of the book of Revelation,
and in the Vision of Hermas, so as to suggest that " the animal,"
" the living-creature," or " the beast," is a twofold agency, working
good or evil, according as it accepts, or refuses, the control of the
Charioteer ; but in the end, in either case, voluntarily or involuntarily,
working for the good of the whole 1 .
[3041] In Daniel, there is but the faintest reference to the
"winds," the type of elemental powers: "I saw in my vision by
night, and behold, the four winds of the heaven brake forth upon the
great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea diverse from
one another 9 ." No humanity is stamped on these.
What follows describes how these non-human " beasts " or
"kingdoms" are cast down, one after the other, and how their
" dominion " is " taken away " ; and then " Behold, there came with
the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man*, and he came even
to the ancient of days, and THEY* brought him near before him.
And there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom, that
all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him 5 ."
[3042] The "four beasts" are definitely explained in Daniel as
meaning " four kings." The explanation of " one like unto a son of
man" to whom "dominion" was to be given is this, "Judgment
was given to the saints of the Most High," " the saints possessed the
kingdom," "and the kingdom... shall be given to the people of the
1 See 3048 a f. * Dan. vii. 23.
* On the Aramaic (here used) for " a son of man " see 3043 and 3069 folL
4 [3041 a] On " THEY," sometimes not emphasized, but mysteriously suggesting
unknown celestial agents, see From Letter 667 a, 738, Joh. Gr. 2426. It occurs
here in Aramaic, in which the indefinite "they" with an active often implies little
more than a passive. But in the Aramaic of Daniel, in such a passage as the
present, the thought of divine agency seems likely to be intended.
5 Dan. vii. 13 14.
41
[3043] "SON OF MAN"
saints of the Most High: his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
and all dominions shall serve and obey him 1 ."
These repeated explanations indicate that the prophet regards
the human personality, "one like unto a son of man," as including,
or drawing in its train, all the saints of God. But it is not clear
whether he regarded the new kingdom as destined for Israel after
the flesh, ruling the converted nations of the world as willing
subjects ; or whether he supposed that all the righteous, without dis-
tinction, would be absorbed into one kingdom of the saints.
[3043] A question has probably already suggested itself to the
reader, as to the difference of phrase between the two prophets in
describing the vision of humanity near the throne. Why does
Ezekiel say " man " whereas Daniel says " son of man " ?
The reason appears to be this, that Daniel's vision, is written in
Aramaic, whereas Ezekiel's is written in Hebrew. Aramaic often
uses "son of man" where Hebrew uses "man." This might
naturally follow from the use of "son of" to mean "one of a class,"
"a specimen 2 ." Thus " son of man" in later Hebrew and Aramaic
came to mean, in certain circumstances, " a specimen of a man,"
"an ordinary man," " anyone." This is a frequent use of the phrase
in the Jerusalem Targum of the Pentateuch. For example, where
the Hebrew has " man " twice, in " Man doth not live by bread
alone... doth man live," the Jerusalem Targum has, twice, "son of
man 3 ."
[3044] But this verbal correspondence must not conceal the very
great difference of thought between the two visions. Ezekiel sees
one Person, Daniel sees two. Ezekiel sees a " throne," Daniel sees
" thrones." This plurality of " thrones " caused sharp controversies
between Jewish Rabbis in the second century. R. Akiba thought
that an additional throne was provided for David; but he was sharply
rebuked by his contemporaries 4 .
1 [3042 a] Dan. vii. 22, 27. It should be added that another version of the
visions of empire, written in Hebrew (viii. i 14) precedes the appellation given
to Daniel (viii. 17) "son of man" and is explained as referring to (viii. 20 i)
Media, Persia, and Greece.
2 See 3028.
3 [3043 a] Deut. viii. 3. See 3127 a. It will be shewn that the same form
("son of man") is found in the Syro-Sinaitic version of Mt. iv. 4, where our
Lord quotes these words, and a similar but not quite the same form in the
Syro-Sinaitic version of the parallel Lk. iv. 4.
4 [3044 a] See Chagiga 14 a, rep. in Sanhedr. 38^. R. Jose the Galilaean
42
APPLIED TO EZEKIEL AND DANIEL [3044 (i)]
The unknown writer of Daniel appears to have regarded the
Ancient of Days as representing God in heaven, and the figure " like
unto a son of man " as the spiritual Israel, the representative of elect
humanity, who is to be brought near the throne, accompanied by all
the holy ones of God, the saints, clothed in the clouds that reflect
the glory of the Sun of Righteousness. Reasons for this view will
be given elsewhere (3282. 3287 b, 3295).
[3044 (i)] Some may depreciate these visions on the ground that
they are artificial and borrowed. "Ezekiel's," they may say, "was
borrowed from the winged human-headed bulls of Assyrian monu-
ments, and Daniel's was modified from Ezekiel's."
It would be truer to say concerning Ezekiel and to some extent
also concerning the less original writer of the book called " Daniel "
that his vision was not an artificial borrowing but an inspired
protest. Like the spirit of Paul in Athens, so the spirit of Ezekiel
" was provoked within him as he beheld the city full of idols 1 ."
The Acts tells us that Paul, on that occasion, proclaimed in the
Areopagus that God had made "from one [man]" every nation
of men; that He had "determined their appointed seasons and
the bounds of their habitation"; and that He had "appointed
a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by the
man whom he hath ordained...*."
This, in effect, is also the proclamation of the visions of Ezekiel
and Daniel. To both of them the world revealed itself as needing a
"judgment in righteousness" for "every nation of men." This
revelation implied a revelation of divine nature. Athens was full
of images of gods, male and female, and it had also an altar dedi-
cated TO UNKNOWN GOD 3 . Neither images nor altar suggested
that world-wide supremacy of a divine yet human " righteousness "
said, "One for [legal] judgment, the other for righteousness (or equity)," where
the Heb. " righteousness " (Gesen. 842) is prob. used in its New Heb. sense of
"beneficence" (as in Levy iv. 173 " Gerechtigkeit, Wohlthat"). Goldschmidt
renders it by " Milde " ; but that would seem more appropriate if the Heb. had
been ckesed, "loving-kindness." The context indicates that Akiba accepted this
correction. R. Eliezer who bitterly advised Akiba to confine himself to questions
of purification and to " leave Agada alone " suggested that the " thrones" were
both for the Supreme, one a seat, the other a footstool.
1 Acts xvii. 1 6.
1 Acts xvii. 2631. Acts xvii. 23.
43
[3044 (ii)] "SON OF MAN
in which the Hebrew prophets believed and to which the visions of
Ezekiel and Daniel pointed. The Athenians divided the world
into Greeks and Barbarians. The Jews, whatever division they
might make between themselves and Gentiles, were bound to
confess that all were " from one man," Adam ; and these two
prophets predicted in their several visions that the supremacy was
to be like that of Humanity, in its fullest and most divine sense,
controlling infra-human powers the Man subjugating and con-
trolling the Beast.
[3044 (ii)] The two visions are complementary. Daniel sees a
world temporarily possessed by the four Beasts transitory powers
of disorder and violence. These he sees succeeded by a reign of
righteousness when the Ancient of Days intervenes to judge, and
oppressed Humanity ("one like a son of man") is at last promoted
to its place near the throne of divine judgment.
This is a human and terrestrial view of things. Daniel was a
captive exile, and to captive exiles the world might naturally seem to
have run out of its course and to have gone wrong. Bacon says that
things move " calmly in their place " but " violently to their place 1 ."
To an exile, all things seem like himself, out of " their place," and
therefore moving "violently." So, to Daniel, the Beast seemed to
have gained the victory over the Man for a time.
But this is not the scientific view. Nor is it the highest view
of the highest kind of prophet. To the scientific man, and to the
prophet of prophets, everything that grows is " moving to its place,"
and moving, not "violently," but under control; even though it
appears to be, in some stages of its growth, misshapen and im-
perfect. And this seems to have been the view of Ezekiel. Soaring
in spirit to the heaven of heavens, this prophet saw the brute forces
of idolatrous empires, and the non-human storm-forces of the material
universe, and all the powers of the visible and invisible world,
drawing one Chariot, under the control of one Charioteer : and
moving onward in an unchecked undeviating course to one ap-
pointed goal, the City whose name shall be THE LORD is THERE 2 .
1 Bacon's Essays xi. 108.
2 Ezek. xlviii. 35, the last words of Ezekiel's prophecy.
44
APPLIED TO EZEKIEL AND DANIEL [3046]
2. Their appellation of " son of man "
[3045] To the question why Ezekiel and Daniel were addressed
as " son of man " Jerome gives the following answer, " Both Ezekiel
and Daniel and Zacharias, because they often see themselves among
angels lest they should be made haughty and proud and believe
themselves to be of angelic nature or dignity are admonished of
their frailty and called ' sons of men,' that ' they may know them-
selves to be [but] men 1 .'"
Kimchi gives this as the general opinion, but dissents from it
"The commentators," he says, "have explained that he is called
' son of man ' that he might not grow proud, and reckon himself as
one of the Angels because he had seen this great vision. But my
own opinion is that because he had seen ' the face of a man ' in the
vision of God... God made known to him that he [i.e. Ezekiel] is
good and acceptable in His sight, inasmuch as he is l son of man,'
and not son of lion, nor son of ox, etc....*."
[3046] Jerome is wrong about Zechariah, who is nowhere called
" son of man." But he is right in saying that Zechariah, like Ezekiel
and Daniel, receives many revelations through "angels"; and this
so far as it goes is rather against the notion that any prophet having
intercourse with angels would be called " son of man " to warn him
of his human inferiority to angelic beings. For Zechariah sees angels
and is not thus warned.
Kimchi's view seems nearer the truth, namely, that the term is
used to comfort and strengthen the two prophets. The context
1 [3045 a] So Jerome on Dan. viii. 17, quoting Ps. ix. 20. But on Ezek. ii. i
he says, "Crebro ad Ezechiel dicitur: ' Fill hominis' et ad Daniel raro. Quorum
uterque in persona ejus qui dixerat (Mt. viii. 20) ' Filius autem hominis non
habet ubi caput suum reclinet ' captivum populum consolalur et retrahit ad
poenitentiam." This resembles (3047) Origen's view, namely, that amid a de-
generate race that can no longer claim to be called true "sons of man," these
two prophets retain the claim, and that they are types of Christ.
* [3048 b] Quoted above .nearly as in The Yalkut on Zechariah, p. 19 n.,
ed. Edward G. King, B.D., Cambridge 1882, a brief work full of valuable
information. The " lion " and the " ox " are two of the beasts or living creatures
that draw the throne. For " ' the face of a man ' in the vision of God " comp.
Targ. Jer. I and II (on Gen. xxviii. 12) which represent angels below saying
to angels on high, " Come, see Jacob the pious, whose likeness is \inlaid\ in the
throne of glory"' Rashi on Ezek. ii. i gives two explanations, preferring the
one adopted by Jerome on Daniel.
45
[3047] "SON OF MAN
indicates this in the case of Ezekiel, where the first use of the title
occurs as follows : " And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon
thy feet and I will speak with thee. And the spirit entered into me
when he spake unto me, and set me upon my feet 1 ."
This is encouraging and uplifting, not checking and warning.
And the voice proceeds, "Son of man (adam), I send thee to the sons
of Israel... and thou shalt say unto them, 'Thus saith the Lord God,'
and they whether they will hear or whether they will forbear (for
they are a rebellious house) yet shall know that there hath been a
prophet among them. And thou, son of man, be not afraid of them,
neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns be with
thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions."
Does it seem as if the appellation, in such a context, could be
simply intended to " admonish " Ezekiel that he may know himself
"to be but man"? Rather we must say that it is intended to
" admonish " the prophet that " the son of man," though weak in
himself, may derive strength from the human Spirit 2 , the Power
above the throne.
[3047] In Daniel, the single use of " son of man," as a prophet's
appellation, appears to be imitative of the usage in Ezekiel. Gabriel
encourages the prophet when he, like Ezekiel, has fallen on his face :
" So he came near where I stood, and, when he came, I was
affrighted, and fell upon my face ; but he said unto me, Understand,
O son of man; for the vision belongeth to the time of the end 3 ."
This view of the appellation is confirmed by the general tenor of the
celestial utterances to Daniel, who is repeatedly encouraged and
consoled but never rebuked. He is thrice called " greatly beloved "
a title unique in the books of the prophets 4 .
1 Ezek. ii. i.
2 Comp. i Cor. xii. 9 "[My] power is made perfect in weakness."
3 [3047 a] See Dan. viii. 15 17 where "man" is at first geber, i.e. " (strong)
man," the root of " Gabri-el" (which means "strong man of God") and then
adam: "There stood before me the appearance of a strong man (geber), and
I heard the voice of a man (adam)... which called and said, ' Gabriel [i.e. strong
man of God], make this [person] understand the vision '...and I fell upon my face ;
but he said unto me, ' Understand, O son of man (adam)....'" Jerome ad loc.
says that the Jews regard the adam, who speaks, as Michael, and the geber, who
appears, as Gabriel. The adam, in any case, commands Gabriel to help the "son
of adam."
4 [3047 b] On Dan. viii. 16 " make this [man] to understand," Rashi says about
the rare Heb. for " this [man] " that " ubicunque dicitur ibi vir spectabilis
46
APPLIED TO EZEKIEL AND DANIEL [3048]
Origen, in his commentary on the Psalms, takes a somewhat
similar view 1 to that of Kimchi. He points out that the title is
given only to Daniel (whom he places first) and to Ezekiel, both of
whom prophesied in captivity. Then he adds, in effect, that, because
those in the captivity were sinners, therefore, as a reproach to them,
Daniel and Ezekiel were called " son of man," where, by " man," is
meant the ideal MAN, made in God's image and likeness, which
character, he says, Daniel and Ezekiel alone "retained," while their
countrymen had lost it 2 .
This reads obscurely until we grasp his general statement about
the twofold meaning of "man,' 1 namely, that, when contrasted with
God, it is used in a bad sense ; but when contrasted with beasts
("cattle or wild beasts") it is used in a good sense. There is
no extant comment of Origen on the fact that Ezekiel and Daniel
alone receive a vision of the semblance of a "man," or "son of
man," near the throne in heaven.
[3048] It is probably more than a coincidence, that the Revelation
of John, the only other book in the Bible mentioning the semblance
of a "son of man " in a vision, as wielding divine power, mentions
also four "living creatures" near the throne of God 3 . It is
difficult, at first sight, to recognise in these any connection with the
Beasts in Daniel. But the extract from the Visions of Hermas given
below indicates that there may be such a connection; and it is
suggested by the fact that the "living creatures," in Revelation,
besides ministering to God's praise and glory, also summon War,
Famine, Death and Hades to execute His chastisements 4 .
indicatur." This is fanciful, but it indicates Rashi's belief that the term is used
admiringly and not contemptuously. It is noteworthy that the same rare pro-
nominal form occurs in Zech. ii. 4 "speak to this youth," in circumstances
similar to those in Daniel.
Even those who disbelieve that a prophet named Daniel ever heard himself
called from heaven "greatly beloved," may nevertheless justly urge that, since
the editor or writer of the book called " Daniel " recorded such an appellation, he
could hardly have supposed that the appellation, "son of man," applied to the
prophet in the same book, was applied " that he might not grow proud."
1 Origen on Ps. iv. 2, Lomm. xi. 429 30.
* See also 3087 foil.
3 Rev. i. 13, iv. 6 foil.
4 [3048 a] Rev. iv. 6 foil., vi. 17. See 303940. On Rev. xi. 7 " the
beast (frtjpiov) that cometh up out of the abyss," Prof. Swete says, ' ' Perhaps it
points back to Dan. vii. 3 (Theod.) rtaffapa. ffripia nfyd\a a*4pcuev IK TTJS doAoeroTjs,
the Apocalyptist mentally merging the four in one, or fixing his attention on the
47
[3048] "SON OF MAN"
They never contend against God. When the writer of Revelation
wishes to describe such contention he uses the word therion, used
by the Greek translators of Daniel ("beast") not zoon, used by
the Greek translators of Ezekiel (" living- creature ") to represent the
four non-human creatures. The writer of Revelation appears to be
imbued with the conception of a Being " like a son of man," in that
higher sense mentioned by Origen, a Lord of the Beasts, whether
in Ezekiel's sense or in Daniel's.
The thought of some antithesis between " man " and " beast "
may help to explain an obscure passage in which Ezekiel appears to
liken the nations that oppress Israel to "beasts," and Israel itself to
fourth." The former hypothesis (" merging ") seems to me the more probable of
the two. It may be illustrated by two facts.
[3048 l>] First, in Ezekiel, "the four beasts, or living-creatures," after repeated
mention in the plural (i. 5, 13, 14 etc.), are called in the singular (ib. 20, 21 foil.)
"the beast, or living- creature," perhaps in order to call attention to their unity of
spirit. Secondly, the four colours connected- by Ezekiel with these "beasts," or
beast ("amber," "brass," "beryl" and "crystal"), appear to be alluded to,
though not by the same names, in Hermas Vis. iv. i " the beast had four colours
on its head black, then fiery and bloody, then golden, then white." "This
Beast," says Hermas (ib. 2), "is a type of the great tribulation (comp. Mt. xxiv. 21
and parall.) that is coming." The "black" (ib. 3) is this present world; the
"fire and blood" represent the punishment through which this present world
must perish; the "gold" is the remnant that will escape; the "white" is the
age that is to come, or eternal life. This seems to combine the thought in
Ezekiel with the thought in Daniel. The Beast, in Hermas, is as destructive
and evil, if left to itself, as the four Beasts in Daniel. But it is not "left to
itself." It is under control somewhat like the four Beasts, or Beast (i. 20 (R-V.)
" the living creature ") in Ezekiel, though with obvious differences. Therefore
the action of the Beast is good in its result. It begins with sin and ends with
the Kingdom of God.
[3048 c] With the " four colours " of Hermas we may compare the colours of
the "horses" in Zech. i. 8, and those of the horses in the "four chariots" in
Zech. vi. i foil., as commented on by Kimchi. Kimchi (ad loc. transl. Neale,
1557 Paris) says that Zechariah's visions have (p. 14) hidden meanings like the
visions of Daniel, and that they represent (p. 32) " four empires " that oppressed
Israel. Like Hermas, Kimchi (p. 14) first explains the "red" by "blood."
But he adds an explanation (p. 15) that it may mean "golden." He also speaks
of (p. 15) "horses in which was blackness,... and they turn out white, namely,
those which -were before red" which curiously resembles the doctrine of Hermas
about " then white" and about "white" being "the age to come." Kimchi will
not seem to many to succeed in reconciling Zechariah's two descriptions of the
coloured horses ; but his language confirms the view that Hermas derived his
"beast" with "four colours" from Jewish or Hebrew traditions on the same
lines as those that describe the "four beasts" in Ezekiel and Daniel.
48
APPLIED TO EZEKIEL AND DANIEL [3049]
Man: (Ezek. xxxiv. 28 31) "And they [that is, Israel] shall no
more be a prey to the heathen, neither shall the beast of the earth
devour them.. .and ye, my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are man
(lit. adani) and I am your God."
[3049] In the passage just quoted, " beast of the earth " presents
little difficulty. The Targum paraphrases " Neither shall the beast
of the earth devour them " by " And the kingdoms of the earth
shall not consume them."
But the words " ye are man " have greatly perplexed Jewish
commentators. They variously explain " man " as " house of Israel,"
or " Jacob," or " weak man needing my help," or " man and not
beasts 1 ." It might imply all these. But we have to remember that
the expression is that of a prophet habitually taught by voices from
heaven to regard himself as " son of man" and to think of a human
appearance as representing a controlling power above the forces *of
terrestrial storm-winds which are represented by beasts. Regarded in
that light, " man " seems to mean humanity oppressed by beasts but
still superior to beasts, and destined hereafter to control them with
the help of the Man above the throne 2 .
1 On Ezek. xxxiv. 28 31 see Targ. ad loc., Pesikt. (Wiinsche, pp. n and 177)
and Bab. Metz. 1 14 , also 3090 b foil.
ADDENDUM ON THE "ox" CHANGED INTO A "CHERUB"
2 [3049 a] To the Rabbinical traditions given above (3040 f) concerning the
"ox" in Ezekiel, changed into a "cherub," should be added Abbahu's derivation,
or rather play upon, the word "cherub" (Chag. 13 b, Succ. $b) as being che-r6b,
"like a child." Abbahu supported this by saying that the Palestinian word for
"child" (i.e. the word translated by us "suckling" in the eighth Psalm) was
known in Babylon by a word resembling rfib. Abbahu's etymology was probably
pressed into the service of a pre-existing belief that "cherub" was connected
with "child." This view of the "cherub" as being "one like unto a child,"
interceding for men near the throne of God, would harmonize with much of
Christ's doctrine about "little ones" and "children," whose "angels," in
Matthew's version of His words, "do always behold the face" of the Father
in heaven.
That Jews in the first century thought a great deal about cherubs is indicated
by Philo's (i. 138 foil.) special treatise on them. Josephus says (Ant. viii. 3. 3)
"No one can describe, or even conjecture, what sort of beings they are (oirotat
A. S.
49
CHAPTER III
"SON OF MAN" IN GRAECO-JEWISH LITERATURE
i. The Similitudes of Enoch
[3050] We have seen above that Daniel, following Ezekiel, saw
a vision of One like " a son of man " in heaven, as Ezekiel had seen
a vision of One like "a man," the difference of expression being
apparently explained by the fact that Daniel, writing in Aramaic,
substitutes for the Hebrew adam, "man," its Aramaic equivalent,
" son of man."
The book called The Similitudes of Enoch, alleged on good
authority to have been written in the first century before Christ,
follows in Ezekiel's and Daniel's steps, describing the Deliverer as
one "whose countenance had the appearance of a man 1 ." Afterwards
he is called " that son of man," " this son of man," " the son of man
that hath righteousness," etc. But "the" is not used at first. He is
not introduced, absolutely, by the title of " the son of man " as though it
were a recognised title. On the other hand, " the " is used, in " the
Righteous One," on the first occasion when the future Judge is
mentioned, "When the Righteous One shall appear." He is also
called "the Elect One of righteousness and of faith." The contrast
indicates that " the Righteous One " and " the Elect One of righteous-
ness" might be used as Messianic titles absolutely, but that "the son
of man " was not as yet thus used, not at least by this author.
[3051] The atmosphere (so to speak) of this portion of the
Enochian narrative indicates the writer to have been a man of no
very great spiritual originality. He seems to combine Fzekiel with
i En. xlvi. i "And there I saw One who had a head of days, and His head was
white like wool, and with Him was another being whose countenance had the
appearance of a man, and his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy
angels. ..and I asked the angel... concerning that son of man."
5
GRAECO-JEWISH LITERATURE [3052]
Daniel, but somewhat injures the effect of the combination by adding
the phrase " like one of the holy angels." This blunts the point of
the prophetic paradox, apparently implied by Ezekiel and Daniel, of
the connection between the Divine Throne and the Human Person
above it or near it.
Very probably, the writer believes the Person whom he sees to be
supernatural. But that is not the point. The point is, that he does
not venture to introduce that Person as " the Son of Man'' meaning
"the supernatural character whom everybody calls by that name."
If that had been a recognised title, it would have been quite easy for
him to say " one whose countenance had the appearance of the Son
of Man" or simply "the Son of Man'' But he first tells us, in effect,
that this supernatural being looked like a man, and then he says that
"his face was full of graciousness like one of the holy angels,"
apparently meaning that, though he looked like a man, yet he was,
as the Psalmist says 1 , so full of "grace" that he was "above" his
"fellows." and was, indeed, "like one of the holy angels."
Amazed at seeing a human appearance in such a position, Enoch
asks the angel accompanying him who this supernatural yet apparently
human being is ; and, to express " human being," he uses " son of
man," part of the phrase used by Daniel: "I asked the angel...
concerning that son of ma/i, who he was, and whence he was, and
why he went with the Head of Days [i.e. with God]."
The angel in his reply defines, or refers to, the " human being "
or " son of man " with various defining clauses such as " who hath
righteousness," "whom thou hast seen " etc., saying, in effect, that he
is the man pre-eminent in righteousness and in the favour and election
of God : " This is the son of man who hath righteousness^ with whom
dwelleth righteousness, and who... etc" Then the angel speaks of him
as " this son of man whom thou hast seen " and afterwards describes
in detail what /' he " will do, but the title is not repeated till some
way on, when Enoch speaks of him as " that son of man."
[3052] For detailed quotations from Enoch proving the con-
clusion above stated the reader is referred to Notes on New Testa-
ment Criticism (2998 (li) foil.). In that work, doubt was expressed
whether portions of Enoch were of the early date assigned to them
by Prof. Charles ; but even if all the passages mentioning " the son
of man " are pre-Christian, they do not shew a pre-Christian absolute
1 Ps. xlv. i, 7.
5 1 42
[3053] "SON OF MAN"
use of the title. They are like the Biblical and the Enochian use of
(3062 (ii)) " His Anointed," which is quite different from though it
prepares the way for the later Baruchian use of "the Anointed,"
that is, " the Christ," with which we are familiar in our gospels.
In two instances, " son of man " is used, not in Enoch's prophecy
concerning the Messiah, but in words addressed to Enoch himself
(Ix. 10) " Thou son of man, thou dost seek here to know what is
hidden," (Ixxi. 14) " Thou art the son of man who art born unto
righteousness." Both of these occur in the course of what Prof.
Charles regards as interpolations. They are interesting, as being
apparently imitations of the title of Ezekiel, interpreted in the two
ways (3045) mentioned by Kimchi (i) depreciative, (2) appre-
ciative.
[3053] It may be urged that the thoughts, and even the words,
of Enoch are shewn by a multitude of parallelisms to have permeated
all the books of the New Testament including the gospels 1 , and that,
1 Enoch, ed. Charles, p. 42 foil. This subject is important enough to repay
a separate examination.
ON SOME APPARENT PARALLELISMS BETWEEN N.T. AND ENOCH
[3053 a\ Take for example, one of the most (apparently) convincing instances
of Pauline borrowing from Enoch, 2 Cor. iv. 6 " to give the light of the knowledge
of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." This is paralleled by Prof.
Charles with En. xxxviii. 4 "The light of the Lord of Spirits is seen on the face
of the holy." But Paul appears to be contrasting the steadfast light in the face of
Jesus Christ with the transitory light upon the face of Moses, previously mentioned
by him (2 Cor. iii. 7), " so that the children of Israel could not look steadfastly
upon the face of Moses for the glory of his face" (and comp. Acts vi. 15 "saw
his face as it had been the face of an angel ").
[3053(5] The next instance, 2 Cor. xi. 31 "He who is blessed for ever," and
Rom. ix. 5 " God blessed for ever," are referred to by Wetstein (on Rom. i. 25
" blessed for ever ") with other passages, and with the remark, " Doxologia frequens
Hebraeis." See also Dalman, Words p. 200 and comp. Ps. Ixxii. 19, Ixxxix.
52 etc. It occurs thrice in the Pauline epistles. The phrase, therefore, does
not prove that Paul had read En. Ixxvii. i " He who is blessed for ever."
[3053 c\ The other Pauline instances seem to me to prove, some of them, that
Paul used, in common with Enoch, such terms as angels, principalities and powers;
others, that he, in common with Enoch, used developments of scriptural language.
For example, En. cviii. 1 1 " the generation of light " does not appear to have
originated Eph. v. 8 "children of light," i Thess. v. 5 "sons of light" (comp.
Lk. xvi. 8, Jn xii. 36). All these expressions seem based on Dan. xii. 2 3 and
on the Psalmist's thought that the fleshly sensual man (Ps. xlix. 19) "shall never
see light." Christ and His followers regarded God's Kingdom as Light, and God
Himself as being Light. Hence the Christians who were (Mt. xiii. 38) "sons of
S2
IN GRAECO-JEWISH LITERATURE [3053]
for this reason alone, it would be reasonable to assume that Enoch's
frequent mention of " that, or the, son of man " must have affected
Christ's doctrine on that subject.
But a close examination of .these alleged parallelisms will shew
that, as regards Mark, Luke, and John, they can be otherwise
explained. A distinction must be drawn. Jude and the author of
Revelation, who undoubtedly use Enoch, must be distinguished from
other writers among whom Paul must probably be included who
are not proved to have used Enoch, but only to have used, as Enoch
has used, that mass of scriptural and traditional doctrine which all
Je\vs in the first century would have in common whether they had
read Enoch or not.
the Kingdom " as well as " sons of God," naturally regarded themselves from
either point of view, as " sons of the Light."
[3053 d] Concerning Lk. i. 52 "he hath pulled down (icafletAe*) rulers
(Swtfo-Tai) from thrones," Prof. Charles says, on En. xlvi. 5 "He will put down
the kings from their thrones and kingdoms," that the former " seems to depend
directly on this verse in Enoch in phrasing and thought." If so, why does Luke
alter the common word "kings" into the rare word SwtUrraj? The answer
probably is that Luke (as \V. H. indicate) is alluding not to Enoch but to Job xii. 19
SwdffTas Se yrjt Kariffrpf^fv, and also to the antithesis in Job v. u. He may well
have added " from thrones " for clearness (as he adds " of salvation " after " horn "
in Lk. i. 69). Or else he may have had in mind Sir. x. 14 Opovovs a.
[3053 <r] Prof. Charles prints thus, as parallels :
Mt. xix. 28 'When the Son of Man En. Ixii. 5 ' When they see that Son
shall sit on the throne of His glory.' of Man sitting on the throne of His
glory.'
'Ye also shall sit on twelve thrones.' En. cviii. 12 ' I will seat each on the
throne of his honour.'
But Hor. ffel>., on Mt. xix. 28, says "These words are fetched out of Daniel,
chap. vii. 9, 10." This is probably the case. The two passages quoted from
Matthew are one continuous sentence ; but in Enoch they belong to different
books written by different authors at different dates. On the Jewish controversy
about the " thrones " in Daniel see 3044 a. For "throne of glory" see Is. xxii. 23,
Jer. xiv. 21, xvii. i, Sir. xlvii. n (LXX). See also R. Acha's comment in the
Midrash on Ps. cxxii. 5 (" For there are set thrones for judgment, thrones for the
house of David ") " Thither the tribes went up, for there they sat on thrones for
judgment (Wiinsche, zum Gerichf) to judge the Gentiles." Possibly Matthew
(comp. xxv. 31) may be knowingly employing an Enochian phrase to represent
the parallel Lk. xxii. 30 "in my kingdom," or some such phrase as "in the
kingdom that is to come" (comp. 3334 d]. But it is doubtful.
The verbal identity between En. xxxviii. 2 and Mk xiv. 21, Mt. xxvi. 24 "it
would have been good etc." proves nothing in the face of the Jewish instances of
the same saying quoted by Schottgen and by Wetstein (who adds similar quotations
from Greek). Hor. Heb. says "A very usual way of speaking in the Talmudists."
S3
[3053] "SON OF MAN"
The gospel parallelisms are discussed below. Here it can only
be added that the use of " Gehenna " for hell, and many sayings such
as " the mammon of unrighteousness," which, at first sight, seem to
demonstrate that our evangelists borrowed from Enoch, will be found
to demonstrate nothing of the kind. Targumistic and Talmudic
traditions point to a very early and widespread use of the term
"Gehenna" derived from the scriptural "valley of Hinnom 1 ." And
we find Ben Sira using the word " Mammon " for " money," and
warning his readers against " riches of falsehood," which corresponds
to "unjust gain" rendered by the Targum "Mammon 2 of False-
hood " in a fundamental passage of the Law.
1 [3053/] On Gehenna and Sheol see Prof. Charles's valuable notes (En.
pp. 100 n., 135 n., 168 n.). I hope to treat of this subject in The Fourfold
Gospel. In the Mark -Matthew (Mk ix. 43 50, Mt. xviii. 8 9, v. 13) doctrine
about "Gehenna" and "fire" and "cutting off," Mark alone inserts a doctrine
of "salting with fire." The whole appears to be expounded in the Johannine
doctrine of pruning and burning (Jn xv. i 6). No one would wish to deny that
different Jewish views about Gehenna such as those manifest in the composite
book of Enoch were known to Jesus as being in the minds of His countrymen.
But there is nothing to indicate that He knew of them from Enoch, or that
He was in any degree influenced by Enoch. The Marcan tradition about "salting
with fire," and the introduction of Abraham as calling Dives, " Son," even when
the latter was in torment in " Hades," are certainly very different from some
Jewish traditions which appeared to represent the righteous as feasting their eyes
on the torments of those in Gehenna. See 3499 (i) foil.
2 [3053^] As regards the phrase "mammon of unrighteousness," it is not
necessary to suppose that Luke borrowed it from Enoch. " Mammon " is used
by Onkelos to represent "lucre" or "unjust-gain" in Exod. xviii. 21 "hating
unjust-gain," Onk. " hating to receive mammon." Here Jer. Targ. has " mammon
of shelter" and sheker is rendered in LXX by " unrighteousness] " (a3i/cos or
adi/da) (Tromm.) 41 times, so that the Targ. may be regarded as identical with
Luke's (xvi. 9) "mammon of unrighteousness." The Hebrew of Sir. v. 8 contains
a similar use of sheker (" riches of sheker") and that of Sir. xxxi. 8 contains an
instance of mammon ("Blessed is the man. ..that hath not gone aside after
mammon (LXX gold) ").
[3053^] The alleged parallelism between Lk. xviii. 7 and En. xlvii. i 2 is
not so close as that between Lk. and Sir. xxxv. 18 (Swete xxxii. 11) fj-aKpoOuntfo-et
eV avrois. Both Lk. and Sir. mention a'" widow" in their context. Lk. xxi. 28
"your redemption (airoKvTpucns} draweth nigh" (parall. to En. li. 2 "the day of
their redemption hath drawn nigh") is a phrase that might occur to any Jewish
writer, pomp. Is. Ivi. i (LXX) "my salvation hath drawn near," Dan. iv. 30 f
(LXX) "the time of my redemption (dTroXvTpuxrews) came," Joel i. 15, Zeph. i. 7,
14, Is. xiii. 6 "the day of the Lord is near."
[3053 z] The only important similarity between Luke and Enoch consists in
the title of "the Chosen" bestowed on the Messiah repeatedly in Enoch, and by
Luke in ix. 35 "this is my Son, the Chosen (6 fK\e\fy/j^i>o^) y " xxiii. 35 "the Christ
54
IN GRAECO-JEWISH LITERATURE [3054]
[3054] It might naturally be, that in controverting popular,
materialistic, and immoral notions about the "thrones" and "feasts"
of the Messianic era, and about the punishment of the apostates or
enemies of Israel in Gehenna, Jesus would sometimes use expressions
not found in the Bible, but used in later Jewish books and in
Enoch among others. But such instances are conspicuously rare.
Whereas two pages and a half are required for Prof. Charles's
parallels between Enoch and the single book of Revelation, one
page and a half suffice for those between Enoch and all the gospels.
And this is only what is to be expected. Jesus, who protested
against the supplanting of the Law by the traditions of the Pharisees,
was not likely to avail Himself largely of Enochian developments of
scripture even for the purposes of popular teaching 1 .
of God, the Chosen (6 Xerr&) " (comp. Jn i. 34 cV\err6s (for iMs) in K, SS, and
3rd cent. MS. in Oxyr. Pap. vol. ii. p. 7 (see 3466 (iii) and_/i>A. Gr. 2386a)), where
the parall. Mk and Mt. differ in both passages. The facts are too complicated to
discuss here (see From Letter 786 816). Dalman (Words p. 777) shews that
Heb. "choose" is rendered by Targ. " well-pleased-with" in Isaiah. But this is
also a frequent rendering in Onkelos (s. Brederek p. 15). That "the Chosen"
might be a name for the Messiah, independently of Enoch, is indicated by Is. xlii.
i (Heb.) ''Behold my servant... my Chosen in whom my soul was well pleased,"
where, after "my servant," the Targ. inserts "the Anointed (or, Messiah)," and
by Is. xliii. 10 "my sen-ant whom I have chosen," Targ. "my servant, the
Anointed, in whom I am well pleased." " Chosen " might be applied to any
Deliverer (Gen. xlix. 16 17 Onk. "from the house of Dan shall be chosen... a. man
. . .a man shall be chosen (*".*. Samson) "), and ' ' the Chosen " to the Deliverer. Only
eight parallels between Lk. and Enoch are alleged, and, of these, two consist of
the Messianic use of " Elect " or " Chosen." The Lucan use of Enoch does not
appear to be proved.
1 [3064 a] It is important, but very difficult, to realise the vast amount of
thought and language, strange to us but familiar to Jews, that would be common
to Jewish writers between 150 B.C. and 100 A.D., derived from Scripture and trace-
able to Scripture, not to any borrowing by these writers from one another.
For example, out of the twenty parallel instances (Enoch ed. Charles, pp. 45
7) alleged from the Pauline epistles, five (Rom. viii. 38 "neither angels nor
principalities... nor powers," Eph. i. n, Col. i. 16, 2 Thess. i. 7, i Tim. v. 31)
relate to "angels," " principalities," " powers," etc. It has been said above that
these are such as might be used by any Jew in the first century. But we may add
that some of them can be actually paralleled from the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs, written (Charles p. xv) "between 109 and 106" B.C. and by
" a Pharisee." E.g. Levi iii. 3 8 (in different versions) mentions " the powers of
the armies [of heaven]," "archangels," "the powers of the angels," "thrones,"
"dominions," Jud, iii. 10 "an angel of power," ib. xxv. i "the powers of
glory " (along with " the angel of the Face, or Presence ").
[30543] Eph. i. 9 "according to his good-pleasure (evdoKioj>) to which might
be added (ib. 5) "according to the good-pleasure of his will" seems to be a
55
[3054] "SON OF MAN"
phrase that might occur to any Jew to describe God's "good-pleasure" in
redeeming man. It is nearly the same as " in his (or thy) good-pleasure,"
which occurs (Mandelkern 1107) in Ps. xxx. 5, 7, li. 18, Ixxxix. 17, and is
rendered evdoida by LXX in the last two cases, by Aquila in the first, and by
Symmachus in the second. "According to his good-pleasure " occurs in Dan. viii.
4, xi. 3, 16, 36.
[3054 c] i Tim. vi. 15 "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" is placed by Prof.
Charles parallel to En. ix. 4 " Lord of Lords... King of Kings." But the full text
of the latter is '''Lord of Lords, God of Gods, King of Kings" (Gk, " Thou art God
of gods, and Lord of lords, and King of those that are kings, and God of men ").
Both of these are borrowed from Deut. x. 17 " For the Lord your God, he is God
of gods, and Lord of lords, the great God..." Paul has altered "God of gods."
This is natural for one who was a pious Pharisee. Both Onkelos ("God of judges
and Lord of kings") and Targ. Jer. ("God the Judge and Lord of kings") do the
same. This passage is important because it indicates that Paul, even when varying
from Scripture, did not follow an Enochian variation. For "the King of Kings"
comp. also 2 Mace. xiii. 4.
In the same context, r Tim. vi. 16 " dwelling in the light... no man hath seen "
and the alleged parall. En. xiv. 21 "None of the angels could enter [there] and
no man could behold..." appear to be both based on Exod. xxxiii. 10 " Man shall
not see me and live," Is. vi. 5, etc.
[3064 d] Col. ii. 3 " in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and know-
ledge" which can be explained without reference to En. xlvi. 3 "who reveals all
the treasures of that which is hidden" is connected by Origen, De Princip. iv. 23
(Lomm. xxi. 523), with Is. xlv. 3 " I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and
hidden riches of secret places." Even without such connection, Christ, as being
(i Cor. i. 24) " the wisdom of God,'' 1 would naturally be regarded by Paul as the
eternal Wisdom (Wisd. vii. 14), "a treasure unto men that never faileth, which
they that use become the friends of God."
[3054/] The remaining instances (besides those discussed in 3053 a foil.) are
i Cor. vi. ii "justified in the name of the Lord Jesus" (parall. to En, xlviii. 7
"saved in his (i.e. the Messiah's) name"), Gal. i. 4 "this present evil world " (En.
xlviii. 7 " this world of unrighteousness "), Phil. ii. 10 " at the name of Jesus every
knee should bow " (En. xlviii. 5 " will fall down and bow the knee before him "),
i Thess. v. 3 "then sudden destruction cometh upon them as upon a woman with
child" (En. Ixii. 4 "then shall pain come upon them as on a woman in travail,"
but comp. Hos. xiii. 13 "the sorrows of a travailing woman shall come upon
him " and other scriptural passages), i Tim. i. 9 "Law is not made for a righteous
man but for the lawless," etc. (En, xciii. 4 " He will make a law for sinners "), ib,
i. 15 (comp. ib. iv. 9) " worthy of all acceptation" (En. xciv. i "worthy of accep-
tation," but see Wetstein on the very great frequency of this phrase). These
passages do not appear to prove borrowing in the later from the earlier writer.
[3054/] As regards Johannine borrowing, the most important alleged
parallel is between Jn v. 11 7 and En. Ixix. 27 about committing judgment to
" the son" or "the son of man." This appears to be sufficiently explained from
Daniel combined (in the case of John) with Christ's doctrine. Jn xii. 36 "sons of
light " has been discussed above (3053 c).
Jn ii. 16 " this temple," parall. to En. Ixxxix. 54 6 " the house of the Lord...
their house " (where God's house is called " their house " to denote that He has
forsaken it) does not seem to refer to Enoch. Probably, both refer to Jeremiah
56
IN GRAECO-JEWISH LITERATURE [3055]
The doctrine of Christ is permeated with the thought of the
Fatherhood of God. In the book of Enoch that thought is alto-
gether subordinate. The difference between the two may be roughly
estimated by the fact that although Prof. Charles's Index to the
latter gives us twenty-nine titles of God, the name " Father " is not
to be found among them (3499 (xi)).
2. The Second Book of Esdras
[3055] The second book of Esdras in a passage of doubtful
date, but probably of the first century and not a Christian interpola-
tion says, "And it came to pass after seven days, I dreamed a dream
by night : and, lo, there arose a wind from the sea, that it moved all
the waves thereof. [And lo, that wind made to come up out of the
heart of the sea as the likeness of a son of man.] 1 "
(xxii. 5) " this house shall become a desolation." Comp. Jer. xii. 7 " I have for-
saken mine house," on which Jerome quotes freely (Mt. xxiii. 38, Lk xiii. 35)
" relinquetur vobis domus vestra deserta," that is, "your house (not mine)
(3088 a) " having become (Jer. vii. n) "a den of robbers."
[3054 ^] The only other Johannine instance is xiv. 2 " In my Father's house
are many mansions " alleged as parall. to En. xxxix. 4 " the mansions of the holy
and the resting-places of the righteous," comp. xxxix. 7 "his dwelling-place,"
xlviii. i "the thirsty had their dwellings with the righteous," etc. But John is not
so close to these Enochian passages as to similar Talmudic passages quoted by
Schottgen (on Jn xiv. 2) concerning the variety and multitude of the " mansions."
[3054 h\ The only Enochian parallel alleged from Mark is xi. 17 " My house
...a den of robbers," on which Prof. Charles refers to En. Ixxxix. 54 6, quoted
above (3054 f) along with Jn ii. 16. But the meaning of Mark is well given by
Pseudo-Jerome : " It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer,
according to Isaiah (Ivi. 7) ; but ye have made it a den of thieves, according to
Jeremiah (vii. n)." The allusion appears to be scriptural, not Enochian.
In concluding these remarks on Enochian parallels to the gospels, it may be
well to repeat that it is not intended to deny that some writers of N.T. borrowed
from Enoch. The denial (so far as the evidence at present alleged goes) extends
merely to Paul, John and the Synoptists (Matthew excepted). But it will also be
found that there are probably few or no traces of Enochian influence in any words
assigned, on the best authority, to Christ.
1 [3055 a] 2 Esdr. xiii. i 2. The Latin omits the bracketed sentence, but
it is inserted by the Syriac. In the context, the Latin mentions "homo" and the
Syriac in each case "son of man" the regular Syriac for "homo." Hence we
may infer that the Latin of the bracketed sentence, if extant, would have mentioned
"the likeness of a man (hominis)," not " of a son of man " just as Ezekiel uses
the Hebrew " man," whereas Daniel uses the Aramaic " son of man," in connec-
tion with their several visions of humanity exalted.
57
[3056] "SON OF MAN"
[3056] The narrative continues " And lo, that (tile) man (homo),
(Syr. son of man) waxed strong." The Person is also mentioned as
" \the\ man (homo, Syr. son of man) that came out of the sea," " the
same man" ipse homo, etc. 1 . Here, then, as in Enoch, the writer
first introduces a " son of man " in mysterious surroundings, and
then goes on to refer to him as " that" or "the same" or as defined
by his surroundings (" [the] man that came out of the sea ").
[3057] In one or two points, this book differs from Enoch.
The latter makes no mention of " beasts " as preceding the vision of
the " son of man." Esdras not only mentions the " four beasts," but
also typifies the Messiah as a " lion " distinct from these (no doubt
" the lion of the tribe of Judah ") which " sent out a man's voice*"
In Esdras, as in Enoch, there is no instance of " the" or " that"
in connection with " son of man," used absolutely and without
preparation.
[3058] The Apocalypse of Baruch, which is often parallel to the
second book of Esdras, gives the vision thus, (liii. i) " A cloud was
ascending from a very great sea... and lo, it was full of waters white
and black... and as it were the likeness of great lightning was seen at
its summit." The cloud rains down waters that " wrought devasta-
tion." Then (ib. 8 10) "that lightning which I had seen on the
summit of the cloud... made it descend to the earth. Now that
lightning shone exceedingly, so as to illuminate the whole earth, and
it healed those regions where the last waters had descended and had
wrought devastation. And it took hold of the whole earth and had
dominion over it." The " lightning on the cloud " is clearly a type of
the Messiah, and the tradition appears to be a version of Ezekiel's
vision, exhibiting the Power that rules over the devastating storms,
not as a man but as a beneficent "lightning 3 ."
3. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
[3059] This work, which is pre-Christian, is proved by cogent
evidence to have been written in Hebrew 4 . It resembles Biblical
1 2 Esdr. xiii. 5, 12. Later on (2 Esdr. xiii. 25, 51) it is "vir," not "homo"
(Syr. also " vir") "ascendens de corde maris."
2 2 Esdr. xi. 37 9; ib. xii. 31 says that the lion is the Anointed.
:i [30580] Comp. Mt. xxiv. 27, Lk. xvii. 24. Matthew also says of the
angel that rolls away the stone at Christ's resurrection (Mt. xxviii. 3) " His
appearance was as lightning." See 3468 b.
4 See Prof. Charles's edition, p. xiii foil.
58
IN GRAECO-JEWISH LITERATURE [3060]
Hebrew in using " sons of man " pretty frequently. But " son of
man " occurs only once, and then in parallelism, thus, {Joseph 2)
" God is not ashamed as a man, nor fearful as a son of man ; nor is
He weak or timid like an earthborn [creature] 1 ."
This is a manifest imitation of the words of Balaam quoted
above (3029). The addition of the clause about "earthborn
[creature]" may be illustrated from the Psalms, where "sons of
adam (i.e. homo) and sons of Ish (i.e. vir) " is clumsily rendered by
the LXX "earthborn [creatures] and sons of men," R.V. "low and
high*."
The exception in the Testaments is important. For it shews
that a post-biblical writer of Hebrew, in a work containing abundant
predictions of the Messiah, nei'er calls Him " the son of man" although
he does use the term in suitable context.
[3060] It is worth noting that on at least one occasion the
writer speaks of the Messiah as a "man" in a sentence where
" man " need not have been inserted, but is apparently inserted
because it means emphatically " a human being " thus, " The Lord
shall scatter them on the face of all the earth until there shall come
the Compassion of the Lord, a man doing righteousness and doing
mercy toward all [toward] those that are far off and those that are
near 3 ." The passage seems intended to emphasize the human
sympathy, as well as the righteousness and mercifulness : " a man
sent to save men."
In two passages of this book the Greek text represents God as
" saving Adam " and as " turning away the sword that threatens
against Adam " to prevent his return to Paradise. In both of these
Prof. Charles restores, or suggests, " sons of men " or " man " for
"Adam." The passages are instructive as shewing how difficult it
might be for Greek translators of a Hebrew book to know in some
cases whether " man " or " Adam " was the meaning 4 .
1 " Earthborn
* Ps. xlix. 2. For adam suggesting " earthborn " see 3022 and 3029.
* Napht. 4 " a man," dyflporroj, " human being," would naturally correspond
in Hebrew to " man," 1 adam, but in Palestinian Aramaic it might be expressed by
"sen of man."
4 [3060 a] In Simeon vi. 5, where Prof. Charles reads " sons of men," there
is also a confusion between " Shem," " Seth," and " sign." Beside the similarity
of letters, doctrinal motives might induce some to alter " Shem " into " Seth "
since the latter was (see 3077) the true "son of Adam, or man" (as opposed
to Cain). " Sign " might be favoured by Christian scribes who thought of " the
59
[3061] "SON OF MAN"
[3061] In many respects the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
is nearer than Enoch to the tone of the gospels, and especially, as
Prof. Charles points out, in the attitude adopted to the Gentiles,
whose salvation the writer proclaims : "all the Gentiles will be
saved through Israel 1 ." The book is also remarkable as embodying
the belief that the Messiah is to be descended from Levi, and not
from Judah. " We have here," says Prof. Charles, " the attestation
of a most remarkable revolution in the Jewish expectations of the
Messiah. For some thirty or forty years the hope of a Messiah
from Judah was abandoned in favour of a Messiah from Levi. But
with the breach of Hyrcanus with the Pharisees this hope was
abandoned, and so we find that in the first century additions the
hope of a Messiah from Judah reappears."
[3062] Only two of these first century additions are found. And
the question arises whether our Lord Himself was as convinced as
the Jewish multitudes of His day seem to have been and as His
followers were after His death that the Messiah must necessarily
be descended from David and Judah 2 . In the following points the
Levitical Messiah of the Testaments agrees with the type suggested
sign of the son of man," or "the sign of the cross." In Levi xviii. 10, Prof.
Charles retains " Adam " in the text, but says, in note, " Probably we should
read 'man ' here."
[3060 b~\ Compare however the Gospel of Nicodemus Part II, which de-
scribes Seth ( 3 (19)) as going to the gate of Paradise at the moment of
Adam's death to procure oil from the tree of compassion to anoint his dying
father. Seth is told that this cannot be done till the Saviour comes. Afterwards
(ib. 8 9 (24 5)) Christ rescues Adam and blesses him and the other patriarchs
with the sign of the cross and leads them into Paradise. After them (ib. 10 (26))
comes the penitent thief, who says, " The flaming sword, seeing the sign of the
cross, opened to me, and I went in." This passage rather favours the retention
of " Adam " in translating Levi xviii. 10.
[3060c] Test.Sim.\\.$ says that "Shew," or " Seth," will be " glorified (tvool-aaO-?i-
fftrai) " together with a mention of the " saving" of " Adam." Comp. Sir. xlix.
1 6 (19) (LXX) " Shem and Seth among men were glorified (8odff07)ffai>) and
above every living thing in the creation Adam," where Heb. for " among men " has
"and Enosh" which means "man." The two passages appear to be connected,
and perhaps point to some common original.
1 Test. XII fair. ed. Charles, p. xcvii.
2 [3062 a] John the Baptist was descended from Levi by both parents (according
to Lk. i. 5). But (according to Jn i. 19 24) he was questioned by a deputation
sent by, or including, Pharisees, as well as priests and Levites in such a way
that he thought it necessary to reply "I am not the Christ." This seems to
imply that Levitical descent was not universally regarded as precluding Messianic
claims.
60
IN GRAECO-JEWISH LITERATURE [3062 (i)]
by our gospels. He was to deliver the captives taken by Beliar,
even the souls of the saints, to open Paradise to the righteous, and
give the saints to eat of the tree of life. Moreover, he should give
the faithful power to tread upon evil spirits and bind Beliar, who
should be cast into the fire, and sin should come to an end 1 . One
of these expressions, " he shall give authority to his children to tread
upon the evil spirits," is very similar to Luke's expression " I have
given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions and over
all the power of the enemy " ; and the two passages illustrate what has
been said elsewhere about the use of the terms "serpents,"
"scorpions," "beasts," etc. to signify evil spirits 2 .
This and other similarities between the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs and our gospels give all the more importance to its
negative evidence attesting that the writer did not regard " the son
of man" as a Messianic title.
4. The distinction between a phrase and a title
[3062 (i)] In view of the importance of distinguishing the stages
by which a phrase or adjective may become a title, it may be well
to illustrate what has been said above concerning the phrase "son of
man" (3050-8) by what has actually happened to the adjective
"anointed" (Anglicised by us, from Hebrew in " Messiah" and
from Greek in "Christ").
It is said by the editors of the Psalms of Solomon (ed. Ryle and
James, p. 143) "The names Anointed, Christ, Messiah occur with
some frequency in the Apocalypses, Enoch 48. 10, 52. 4 (both times
in the Parables), 4 Esdr. vii. 28, 9 (? error for 28-9), xii. 32, Apoc.
Bar. 29, 3 and often."
On " Christ " or " the Anointed One? Prof. Charles says (Enoch
p. 51) "This title, found repeatedly in earlier writings but always in
reference to actual contemporary kings or priests, is now for the first
time see xlviii. 10; lii. 4 applied to the ideal Messianic king that
is to come. It is associated here with supernatural attributes. A
few years later in another writing, the Psalms of Solomon (xvii. 36 ;
xviii. 6, 8), it possesses quite a different connotation. In those
1 [3062 ] So Charles, p. xcviii, quoting various passages. In the text of Test.
Dan v. ii he brackets " Even the souls of the saints" as " a Christian addition";
but on p. xcviii he gives reasons for not bracketing it.
2 Lk. x. 17 21, Tat. Levi xviii. 12.
6l
[3062 (ii)] "SON OF MAN"
Psalms the Messiah, though endowed with divine gifts, is a man and
nothing more, and springs from the house of David."
[3062 (ii)] If however the reader were to infer from these state-
ments that "Anointed," or "the Anointed One," is used in these
books absolutely to mean Messiah, the inference would be erroneous.
In the first place, as regards Enoch Hi. 4, Prof. Charles says ad loc.
"this verse may be a later insertion." Even if it is a part of the
text, the phrase is not "the Anointed One," but "His Anointed."
This makes all the difference ; for " thy anointed [one]," " his
anointed [one]," " the anointed of Jehovah " etc. are regular Biblical
expressions (Gesen. 603 ). The same applies to Enoch xlviii. 10
" the Lord of Spirits and His Anointed." It also applies to 2 Esdr.
vii. 28-9 "filius meus lesus (Syr. etc. Messias) .. .filius meus Christus"
where the term is defined by "my son." Moreover "Anointed" is
defined by a following clause in ib. xii. 32 " Hie est Unctus quern
reservavit Altissimus in finem..." It is not till the Apocalypse of
Baruch (written in the latter half of the first century of the Christian
era) that we find " the Anointed" used absolutely, as a name, e.g.
xxix. 3 " the Messiah will then begin to be revealed " (comp. xxx. i
" the advent of the Messiah ").
[3062 (iii)] The Psalms of Solomon have (i) xvii. 36 X/HO-TOS
Kupios, lit. "[the] anointed Lord," ed. "the Lord Messiah," on which
the editors say, in margin, "probably in the original the Lord's
Anointed." In a note, they compare Lam. iv. 20 "the Anointed
of the Lord," LXX xP iarT <: vpio<;. They add "The LXX are here
guilty of a mistranslation, but their mistake points to the currency of
the expression" (comp. Lk. ii. ii, and see the whole of their note).
Those Psalms have also (2) Ps. xviii. (title) eirlrov XPWTOV KvpLov (ed.,
"the Lord Messiah," but ? "the anointed of the Lord") and ib. 6
"His anointed." These are all the instances indicated by the
editorial Index. In none of them is "the Anointed" used absolutely as
a name (as it is in Baruck and the gospels}.
[3062 (iv)] The reader must therefore be careful about drawing
inferences about " the son of man " from incidental remarks about
phrases that "point to the currency of the expression." It would be
better to say that they "prepared the way for the currency of the
expression."
It should also be noted that the remarks made above on Enoch's
use of " the son of man " or " that son of man " have nothing to do
with the fact that the writer of Enoch regarded the Person thus
62
IN GRAECO-JE\VISH LITERATURE [3062 (iv)]
indicated as supernatural. No doubt he did regard the Person as
supernatural ; but that is away from the point. The point is (3050-4)
that the writer did not venture to call the Person " the, or that, son
of man " until he had first introduced him in the language of Ezekiel
followed by that of Daniel 1 .
1 [3062 (iv) a] Attention has been called above (3060) to Enoch's non-use of
"the son of man," absolutely, contrasted with his use of "the Righteous One,"
absolutely, that is, without any introduction, to mean the Messiah in En. xxxviii. i
" And when the Righteous One shall appear...." Prof. Charles's note on this says
"The Messiah is variously named: 'The Righteous and Elect One,' liii. 6;
' The Elect One of righteousness and of faith,' xxxix. 6 ; ' The Elect One,' xl. 5,
xlv. 3, xlix. 2, 4...; 'The Messiah,' xlviii. 10, lii. 4." The note is accurate as
regards "the Righteous One" and "the Elect One," but it is not accurate as
regards "The Messiah." The text has, in xlviii. 10, "the Lord of Spirits and
His Anointed," and in lii. 4 (which may be a later insertion) "All these things
serve the dominion of His Anointed." I have italicised "//&" because the
pronoun reduces the passage to the level of such Biblical passages as i S. ii. 10
"exalt the horn of his Anointed." (Mandelkern gives ten such passages, not to
speak of " thine Anointed.")
On "the Righteous One " applied to Christ see Notes 2998 (liv) <? foil.
[3062 (iv) b] Luke's introduction, and use, of " Anointed " are worth noting :
Lk. ii. ri (the words of angels preparing the way for the ultimate meaning)
"a Saviour who is Anointed (?) Lord (8s itrrtv xptffrds /ci/ptoj)," ii. 16 (Luke
describing the expectation of the pious Simeon) "he should see the Anointed
of [the] Lord (TOV xpiffrbv Kvpiov, i.e. of Jehovah)," iii. 15 (Luke describing the
popular usage) "whether he himself [John] could possibly be the Anointed"
and iv. 41 "they, i.e. the devils, knew he was the Anointed," ix. 20 (the con-
fession of Peter) "the Anointed of God" (rbn xpto-Tov TOV Qeov)," xx. 41 (Jesus
representing what "they," i.e. people, say) "How say [people] that the Anointed
is David's son? :> xxii. 67 (the chief priests etc.) "If thou art the Anointed, tell us"
(on which see 3310), xxiii. 2 (the chief priests prepossessing Pilate against Jesus)
"saying that he himself is Anointed King (OLVT&V xpiaroj' finffiXfa. elvcu), ib. 35
(the rulers mocking Jesus on the Cross) " He saved others, let him save himself,
if this man is the Anointed of God, the Elect (6 xptjros TOV Oeov, 6 exXeKTds),"
xxiii. 39 (the reviling malefactor) "Art thou not the Anointed!" xxiv. 256, 46
(words of Christ, post-resurrectional, rectifying erroneous conceptions) " O sense-
less ones,... was it not needful that the Anointed should suffer these things?"
"Thus it is written that the Anointed should suffer."
[3062 (iv) c] In the Acts, "Anointed" and "Lord" are introduced in a
speech of Peter. The Apostle (ii. 25, 31, 34) first represents David as saying
(Ps. xvi. 8) (LXX) "I foresaw (irpoopuiJ.i)v) (Heb. I have set) the Lord always
before me" ; then he says that David had received a promise of a successor to sit
on his throne (which implied an anointed king); then that David, "having fore-
seen (rpoidwv), spake about the resurrection of the Anointed," and then that David
calls this anointed successor "my Lord." From this he infers (ib. 36) " God hath
made him both Lord and Anointed."
The Lucan usage indicates a desire to make the Christian meaning of " the
63
[3062 (iv)] "SON OF MAN"
Anointed" clear to the Roman world, to connect it with a successorship to
David, and yet to raise it above the level of political suspicions.
[3062 (iv) d] The fluctuation of Jewish views in the first century concerning
the Messiah may be illustrated from 2 Esdr. vii. 28 " For there shall be revealed
my Son Messiah (Lat. Jesus) together with those that are with Him, and those
that are left shall rejoice for four hundred years. And it shall be, after these
years, my Son Messiah shall die, and all men that have breath." "Four
hundred years" does not occur in the Bible except in Gen. xv. 13 (comp. Acts vii. 6)
"They [i.e. the Egyptians] shall afflict them four hundred years." This was in
accordance with the Jewish belief in exact retribution and recompense (and
particularly in connection[with Abraham, see Schb'ttg. ii. 61 2) comp. Aboth ii. 7,
with Taylor's note on Samson, who followed after the desire of his eyes and was
blinded, and on Absalom, who prided himself on his hair and was hanged up by
his hair. It was fit that the "four hundred years" of affliction endured by
Abraham's seed in Egypt should be requited by ''fotir hundred years" of
rejoicing for the promised Seed of Abraham in the Messianic Kingdom. The
"four hundred years" in Genesis (see Breithaupt's Rashi ad loc.) had to be dated
from the birth of Isaac, the type of the Messiah.
64
CHAPTER IV
"SON OF MAN" IN JEWISH USAGE
i. " Son of man " not Messianically used in Talmuds,
Targums, etc.
[3063] Although the Talmuds and Targums are post-Christian in
composition, they sometimes record traditions that go back to a
period long antecedent to the times when they were severally
composed, so that they may afford evidence as to pre-Christian usage.
The negative side of this evidence may be briefly stated. " Son of
man " so far as is known at present is not to be found, as a
Messianic title, in Talmuds, Targums, Midrash, or any early Jewish
literature, whether Hebrew or Aramaic*.
1 [3063 ] In Aramaic, there are means for distinguishing "a son of man"
from "the son of man," but in practice they are often not observed (3069 a). For
example, Gen. xxi. 13 "the son of the bondwoman" ought to be expressed by
what the Rev. M. H. Segal (/. Quart., July 1908, p. 728) has called "Circum-
locution with Anticipation," i.e. "her son [namely] that of the bondwoman."
But in fact both the Targums have simply bar, "son," without the anticipatory
possessive suffix (bar-ah).
[3063 ] Also i S. xvi. 18 (lit.) "I have seen [a] son (ben) to Jesse," i*.
belonging to Jesse, is exactly rendered in the Targum, but the Syriac has bara,
"the son." Again, in i S. xxii. 20 (lit.) "[a] son one {belonging} to Ahimelech...
escaped," the emphatic "one" is apparently inserted to indicate one out of many,
and so R.V. takes it, "one of the sons of Ahimelech." But Targ. has " the son
the one to A.," and the Syriac, too, has "the son," as if it meant the only son
(or? the only one that escaped).
[3063 c] As regards the Aramaic of "the son of Jesse," the Targum renders
it by bar Jesse, without the possessive suffix ("Ais-son"), e.g. i S. xx. 27, 30, 31,
i K. xii. 16, Ps. Ixxii. 20; but the Syr., while omitting the suffix in i S. xx. 27,
31 etc., has it in ib. 30, ib. xxv. 10, and 2 S. xx. i. In Job xvi. 21, ben adam,
R.V. "a son of man," Palest. Lect. has (Dalman, Words p. 239 n., which see on
the possessive suffix in Aramaic) "Ais-son that of the man."
[3063 d] In the gospels, the possessive suffix and the relative are used by Syr.
and Palest. Lect. to render Lk. xix. 9 "he also is a son of Abraham (vibs'A.),"
as well as Jn i. 45 "Jesus the son of Joseph (viov TOV 1.)." Even in our Lord's
own recorded utterance, Mt. xvi. 17 "Simon, Bar Jonah" Syr. inserts the
65 5
[3064] "SON OF MAN"
[3064] Schottgen, in the second volume of his Horae Hebraicae,
containing nearly a thousand pages devoted (as the -title-page says)
to " the ancient and orthodox dogmatic theology of the Jews about
the Messiah," mentions thirty-five names of the Messiah 1 . Among
these " films hominis " does not occur except with the following
significant note, " By this name the Messiah used frequently to
indicate Himself, that He might recall the thoughts of His hearers
to the words of Daniel vii. 13, on which see Book II 2 ." When
we turn to Book II, we find not a single instance alleged by
Schottgen of the phrase " the son of man " used Messianically in any
treatise of ancient Jewish literature, but merely statements indicating
that Jewish authorities generally admitted that the Person described
by Daniel as " like a son of man " meant the Messiah 3 .
The most ancient of these is from the Babylonian Talmud. In
the context of this, it is objected that the Messiah is to come,
according to Zechariah, "riding on an ass," and that this seems
inconsistent with the Messianic interpretation of Daniel, " with the
clouds of heaven." The objection is met by saying that, if Israel is
worthy, He will come " with the clouds " ; if unworthy, " on an ass."
Here there is not the least suggestion that " the son of man " was
supposed to be a name, or part of the name, of the Messiah. The
other authorities quoted by Schottgen are much later, and of no
value for the purpose of shewing " the son of man " to be a Messianic
title among the Jews of the first century or any century 4 .
possessive suffix, and the relative, but Palest. Lect. inserts neither, having simply
Bar Jonah. These facts, and especially the one last cited, indicate that no great
importance can be attached to the Syriac use of the possessive suffix in the
gospel phrase "son of man." Comp. 3458 c.
[3063 e] It will be noted that in all the above-mentioned instances, " son of
Jesse," "son of Abraham," "son of Joseph," "son of Jonah," the speakers
knew that there were other sons. Those who speak of " the son of Jesse,"
whether in Greek, or English, or Syriac, could not mean " the only son of Jesse."
1 Schottg. ii. 4 20. - Schottg. ii. 11.
3 [3064 a] Levy (iii. 422 a) gives two traditions. One of these certainly
connects Messiah with a "cloud" (Targ. on i Chr. iii. 24 " Anani," i.e. "cloud,"
Levy "Nubigena"), but makes no reference to Daniel. The other asserts that
Bar Naphle is a name of the Messiah, and this is supposed by some to refer to
the Greek Nephele, "cloud." But the Aramaic Naphle would naturally mean
"fat/en," and the Rabbi does not quote Daniel but only Amos ix. n "In that
day will I raise up ihe/a/fen tabernacle of David." There may be a play on the
word. Neither tradition even mentions much less lays stress on "son of man "
as a part of the Messianic title.
4 Schottg. ii. 263, quoting Sanhedr. 98 a.
66
IN JEWISH USAGE [3066]
2. " Son of man " used by an early opponent of Christianity
[3065] The following saying of Abbahu (about 280 A.D.) mani-
festly alludes to Balaam's words " God is not a mail that he should
lie nor son of man that he should repent," and, in a hostile spirit, to
the title applied by Jesus to Himself: " If a man says to thee, I am
God, he lies. [If he says] I [am] son of man, his end is to repent it."
Abbahu then takes up Balaam's following words : " Hath he
[i.e. God] said... and shall he not make it good? " These he applies
to Jesus, reading them non-interrogatively thus : " 'ffe that hath said
[so] shall not make it good]" so as to contrast God's power to "make
good" what He says with the impotence of the Christian Messiah to
do the same. The special instance of impotence that he selects is
connected with " ascension to heaven." In order to give dramatic
vividness to his jest, he represents Christ as boasting, like the king
of Babylon, "I will ascend into heaven 1 ." Then, by a non-interro-
gative version, Abbahu twists the sentence round to this : " [If he,
the Christian Messiah, says] ' / will ascend to heaven' he that hath
said [so] shall not make it good' 2 ."
[3066] This comment is important for two reasons. First, it
shews that this early Jewish controversialist assumed no doubt
from his intercourse with Christians that Jesus habitually called
Himself ''son of man." Abbahu does not say that the friends or
followers of Jesus gave Him this title : and indeed, as we have seen
and shall see, they did not give it to Him, speaking in their own
persons. The jest would be no jest if the title were not self-given.
In the next place, the gibe is quite consistent with the view that
the phrase used by Jesus, whatever it was, included the meaning of
"ordinary man," or "son of Adam," with a sense of weakness.
Abbahu does not say, " If he calls himself son of man, he lies," but,
in effect, "If he calls himself to quote Balaam's phrase son of
man, he will ' repent ' it to quote Balaam again only too keenly,
when he finds himself suffering like a son of man, or son of Adam,
and when he finds himself ' repenting' as sons of Adam do repent."
1 Is. xiv. 1315.
2 See Notes 2998 (xviii) foil.
[3067] "SON OF MAN"
3. Non-use of " son of man " in the gospels except as a
self-appellation
[3067] The non-use of " son of man " in the gospels except as
Christ's self-appellation is one of the strongest of all proofs that the
title was not recognised as Messianic by the Jews in pre-Christian
times. Its full strength is hardly perceived till we contrast the
gospel non-use of this title with the gospel use of other titles.
In the Synoptic gospels, blind men call Jesus " Son of David " ;
demoniacs, " The Holy One of God " ; disciples, and others, " the
Son of God" or "the Christ," or "the Christ of God." John the
Baptist sends to Him with the question, "Art thou 'he that is to
come 1 '?" The crowds in Jerusalem shout "Blessed is 'he that
cometh,'" with various additions about "David "or "king." The
high priest asks Him, at the trial, " Art thou the Christ ? " but
nowhere do we find Him called "son of man."
[3068] The same positive, as well as negative evidence, applies
to the fourth gospel. John the Baptist is questioned whether he is
"Elijah," "the prophet," "the Christ," but never whether he is
"son of man." In connection with Jesus, all classes the disciples,
the Samaritans, the multitudes, the rulers repeatedly mention " the
Christ." Sometimes it is in addressing Jesus, sometimes in dis-
cussing Him ; but in neither case do they mention " son of man "
except in one remarkable instance, which, as must be shewn later on
in detail, is one of the most important pieces of evidence against the
Messianic use of the title. For it exhibits the bewildered multitudes
as asking, at the close of Christ's career, " Who is this son of man ? "
When we come to examine the circumstances and the context we
shall find that this amounts to saying "Why does this man con-
tinually act with Messianic authority and yet refuse to call himself
by any clear Messianic title? We could understand his calling
himself Messiah. But what can he possibly mean by calling himself
' son of Adam ' or ' son of man,' which may mean any human being
whatever? What or who is this vague personage, this 'son of
man 2 '?"
1 On "he that is to come," or " the Coming [One]," as a title, see 3239 41.
8 Jn xii. 34, comp. Jn x. 24 " If thou art the Christ, say [so] to us plainly."
See 34546.
68
IN JEWISH USAGE [3068 (ii)]
4. Use of the third person for the first
[3068 (i)] On the use of the third person (" this man ") for the
first, Dalman (Words p. 249) quotes Beza on Mt. viii. 20 "(addo,)
propterea quod familiare est Hebraeis, ut de se loquantur in tertia
persona, ideo accipi loco pronominis primae personae in evangelica
historia." If by " Hebraeis " Beza meant the Hebrew scriptures he
would be wrong, for such use (apart from such phrases as "thy
servant knoweth ") is extremely rare. On Balaam's use of it, see
Preface (I). Another instance, perhaps, is in Ps. xxxiv. 6 (R.V.)
"this poor man cried, and the Lord heard him," on which see
3068 (v) a, 3550^^.
But from New Hebrew Dalman gives eleven references and
suggests that it is mostly used " where something disagreeable has to
be said." To his eleven add Levy i. 502 a, " Woe to this man (i.e.
woe is me) ! " and ib. ii. 343 " How falleth the soul of the brother of
this manl" It seems somewhat like the Greek poetic use of "this
man" (Steph. Thes. v. 1728) and may be used in various senses
to mean "the man addressing you," "your humble servant," in
modesty real or ironical a usage probably common to many
languages from very ancient times.
[3068 (ii)] In all these cases the word for " man " is neither the
Hebrew adam nor the Aramaic equivalent for it, but geber, i.e. vir
instead of homo. Hence the above-mentioned instances have no
direct bearing on the special title " son of man," except so far as
concerns the use of the third person for the first. On that aspect
they do bear, and they favour the view that Christ's self-appellation
was originally used with a suggestion, not of authority, but of
humility.
We may illustrate this suggestion of humility but humility
ultimately endowed with authority from Wetstein's not quite
accurate comment on Mt. viii. 20 "the son of man." He compares
the Targ. on Ps. Ixxx. 1 7 as rendering ben adam by " King Messiah."
The fact, however, is that the Targum, on Ps. Ixxx. 17, renders
" son of man," ben adam, by its Aramaic equivalent, bar nash, but
on ib. 15 it renders "ben" ("the Son, R.V. (txt.) branch, whom thou
hast made strong for thyself") by "King Messiah."
In Ps. Ixxx. 17 "Let thy hand be upon the man (ish, i.e. vir) of
thy right hand, upon the son of man (ben adam i.e. filius hominis)
whom thou hast made strong for thyself," the word vir suggests
69
[3068 (iii)] "SON OF MAN"
one who is strong already, whereas the phrase filius hominis suggests
one who is weak until he has been "made strong" by God, that is
to say, one who begins in humility and ends in authority.
[3068 (iii)] As regards the Biblical use of the third person,
connected with Balaam the son of Beor when under the influence
of the Spirit, we may mention 2 S. xxiii. i ''David the son of Jesse
saith, and the man who was raised on high saith." The preceding
clause is " These be the last words of David." They begin with the
third person although they soon pass into the first (" the spirit of the
Lord spake by me"). Jewish tradition contrasts them with what it
calls "the first words 1 ," namely, the preceding "song," spoken
unto the Lord in the day that He delivered him " out of the hand
of Saul," in which there is no such use of the third person by the
Psalmist but only by the historian ("David spake... and he said,
'The Lord is my rock...'"). There are as will be seen later on
(3405 (i)) different interpretations of the passage introducing " the
last words " ; but the impression left by them on the modern reader,
and also apparently on the ancient Jewish interpreters, is that they
are on a higher level than the earlier words. " The last words "
seem to exhibit David looking back on his past career from a
detached non-egoistic position, recognising himself as God's agent,
God's responsible Ruler and Psalmist or Poet, indebted for his
poetry to "the spirit of the Lord," and identifying himself with
(ib. 3) " one that ruleth over men righteously, that ruleth in the fear
of God." The passage, on the whole, seems to agree with the view
taken in the Preface (I) that Balaam's resort to the introductory third
person was appropriate when " the spirit of God came upon him."
[3068 (iv)] At first sight, a use of the third person for the first
seems to present itself in Ezek. xxiv. 22 4 "Ye shall do as I have done;
ye shall not cover your lips, nor eat the bread of men, and your tires
shall be upon your heads... ye shall moan one toward another.
Thus Ezekiel shall be unto you a sign." The context ("as I have
done") seems at first to oblige us to suppose that the prophet (not
God) is speaking and that the meaning is " I, Ezekiel, shall be a
sign." But the next words are "According to all that he hath
done shall ye do : when this cometh, then shall ye know that I am
the Lord God." The italicised clause, if connected with what
1 See Rashi's comment.
70
IN JEWISH USAGE [3068 (v)]
precedes, is an instance to the point ; if with what follows, it is not
an instance 1 .
[3068 (v)] In any case, however, we may find here an illus-
tration of the impersonal atmosphere in this passage of Ezekiel as
compared with that in the following passage of Isaiah (viii. 18)
" Behold, / and the children whom the Lord hath given me, are for
signs and wonders." To say " I " had been literally enjoined on the
prophet (Ezek. xiL n) "Say, / am your sign." But he perhaps
prefers not often to use " I " to mean himself, when addressing the
people, but mostly to reserve " I " for visions and communications
with God. When he addresses the people as God's prophet, " I " is,
for the most part, Jehovah. It is at all events true that Ezek. xxiv.
24 affords the nearest approximation to be found in any Hebrew
prophet to Christ's practice of speaking of Himself in the third
person 8 .
1 Comp. Is. xx. 3 " And the Lord said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked
naked and barefoot three years for a sign and a wonder...." There is no
ambiguity here.
2 [3068 (v) a] To the instances of "this man" meaning "I," add an instance
of "he" for "I" in Chag. 166 (transL Streane) "to-morrow he (i.e. /) will be
dead, and his (i.e. my) voice will not be heard." Goldschmidt has the third person
without comment. But the sense seems to demand the first. The words are
uttered by a penitent judge on the grave of a man whom he has unjustly sentenced
to death.
The mention (Ps. cxxxii. i) of "David" and "all his affliction" and the
comment of Pirikta (3860*) identifying (Ps. ciL, title) "the afflicted \oiu\ (3J7) "
with David, make it probable that Ps. xxxiv. 6 "this afflicted \one\ (*jy)" means
David, writing of himself in the third person.
CHAPTER V
"SON OF MAN" IN ARAMAIC AND GREEK
INTERPRETATIONS
i. Aramaic interpretations
[3069] Owing to the various meanings of the Hebrew " son of
adam," according to its context, it is liable to be variously para-
phrased by Aramaic interpreters. For example, where a bad sense
is indicated, as in the Song of Balaam, " son of adam " is rendered by
Onkelos "sons of the flesh 1 ." On the other hand, in the words,
" We have seen this day that God doth speak with man (ha-adam)
and he liveth 2 ," whereas Onkelos renders this literally, using the
emphatic form (endsha) to signify man collectively, the Jerusalem
Targum has an unemphatic shortened form of endsha, namely ndsh,
together with bar " son of," thus : " God doth speak with bar ndsh
in whom is the Holy Spirit and he remaineth alive." The context
indicates that " man " here means the whole congregation who have
heard, and have survived, but are afraid to incur the risk of hearing
again. But Etheridge renders it " with a man in whom is the Holy
Spirit " as if it referred to Moses alone. Perhaps this is the intention
of the Targumist. But, as a rule, the unemphatic form bar ndsh is
used like the German " man," to mean " anyone."
In Daniel (vii. 13) "like unto a son of man," the Aramaic has
the unemphatic form (endsh) without the articular suffix that would
have implied collectiveness or emphasis 3 .
1 Numb, xxiii. 19. Targ. Jer. I. follows Onkelos, see Notes 2998 (iv)rt.
2 Deut. v. 24. As to " the Jerusalem Targum," see References and
Abbreviations at the beginning of this volume.
3 [3069 a] There is no definite article in Aramaic as there is in Hebrew
(which has the prefix ha-). But there is in Aramaic a final -a, which is called
(Prof. Driver, in Hastings iv. 580 a) " the status emphaticus (corresponding to the
72
ARAMAIC AND GREEK INTERPRETATIONS [3070]
[3070] The rules as to the emphatic and non-emphatic use of
the Aramaic " man " (and several examples of bar nash meaning
" anyone ") are given by Prof. Driver with the warning that the
former, though it mostly denotes man in a general or collective
sense, occurs occasionally in an individual sense 1 . And in fact the
rules are repeatedly violated. For example the Targum uses the
emphatic form in Isaiah, and the unemphatic in Jeremiah, to express
the same Hebrew (beti adam}'. Similar variations occur in the
Psalms 3 . In the Aramaic of Daniel "like a man. ..the heart of a
man*," the unemphatic form, but, almost immediately afterwards, in
"the eyes of a man (A.V. man) 5 ," the emphatic form is used.
In Genesis, where the Hebrew has " Let us make adam 6 "
Onkelos has the emphatic " man" and this seems to make the best
sense. But the Jerusalem Targum has "adam" and Prof. Driver
says that, " in Aramaic, adam is not found," adding in a note that
"the Targ., where it has bar adam (as in Ezek., for ben adam, and
occasionally besides) means 'son of Adam 7 .'" It is conceivable
that God should be regarded by the Targumist as naming man
before He made him, although " Let us make Adam " sounds strange
to us.
In Deuteronomy, "in the day that God created adam" both
Onkelos and the Jerusalem Targum retain ''Adam*." On the other
hand in Exodus (Heb.), " Who made the mouth for adam ? "
Onkelos has the emphatic " man" while the Jerusalem Targum has
"Adam" meaning "for first-created man," that is, "Who, in the
beginning, gave Adam [and his sons] the power of speech 9 ?"
def. art. in Heb)." This, when added to enash, theoretically changes the meaning
so that enasha (ib.) "mostly denotes 'man' in a general or collective sense,
though it occurs occasionally (ib. p. 582 b) in an individual sense."
This unsatisfactory looseness of Aramaic usage is confirmed by Dr Schmidt
(Enc. Bib. 4728 quoted in Notes 2998 (xx)) "It is quite possible. ..that the
emphatic ending had already lost its force." In Dan. vii. 13 the status emphatictts
is not used, and it appears from these two authorities that, even if it had been
used, it might not have " its force." The Syr. in Dan. vii. 13 has " men."
1 Hastings iv. 580 a.
2 Is. li. 12, Ivi. 2 3, Jer. xlix. 18, 33, 1. 40, li. 43 (Notes 2998 (v) (vi)).
3 e.g. Ps. viii. 4, Ixxx. 17 (Notes 2998 (ix)b). In Mic. v. 7, Targ. has "the
son of man (emph.)" for Heb. "sons of adam, i.e. man, or Adam."
4 Dan. vii. 4 . 5 Dan. vii. 8. 6 Gen. i. 26.
7 Hastings iv. 5803, n. 8 Deut. iv. 32.
9 Exod. iv. ii (Jer. Targ.) "Who placed speech in the mouth of Adam of
old" (Walton "hominis prioris ").
73
[3071] "SON OF MAN"
[3071] Among instances where adam may mean either " man "
or " Adam " is the passage, partly quoted by our Lord, " I said, Ye
are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High, nevertheless ye shall
die like adam 1 ." Here the Targum has "ye shall die like the sons of
man," but the Midrash explains it as a reference to Adam driven
from Paradise and sentenced to death ; and this is favoured by the
context and by the two other Biblical passages mentioning " like
adam*."
Jeremiah speaks of the signs and wonders of the Lord " both in
Israel and in adam" that is, apparently, " both among the sons of
Israel, the chosen, and among the sons of Adam , out of whom they
have been chosen 3 ." The Targ. has "wonderful things for Israel in
the midst of the sons of man,'" perhaps meaning that both Israel, and
God's signs for Israel, are conspicuous in the midst of the sons of
man, who look on Israel as distinct from themselves. Here, for " in
adam," the LXX has "among the earthborn" This resembles the
distinction in Deuteronomy "When the Most High gave to the
nations their inheritance, when he separated (A.V.) the sons of Adam
(so too LXX, but R.V. "the children of men"), he set the bounds of
the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel, for the
Lord's portion is his people 4 ."
In the Psalms "sons of adam" is twice contrasted with "sons of
tsh" meaning "sons of the lowborn" as contrasted with "sons of
the highborn." In one of these the Targum has "As well the sons
of Adam of old as the sons of Jacob 5 " but in the other it merely
distinguishes " homo " and " vir 6 ." The Greek translations are also
inconsistent in the two passages.
[3072] Perhaps Akiba, in the second century, had some such
contrast in view when he spoke of adam (not ha-adam) in the
1 Ps. Ixxxii. 6 7.
2 The only other Biblical passages that contain " like adam " are Job. xxxi. 33,
Hos. vi. 7. Both of these are rendered in the text of R.V. " like Adam." In
Pesikta Kahana, Wiinsche (p. 43) translates Ps. Ixxxii. 7 " wie Adam sterben."
3 Jer. xxxii. 20.
4 [3071 a] Deut. xxxii. 8 9. For "sons of Israel," LXX has "angels of
God "; Targ. Jer. I. combines "Israel" and "angels" by making the "seventy
angels" of the foreign nations correspond to the "seventy souls" connected with
the going down of Israel to Egypt (Exod. i. i 5).
5 Ps. xlix. I 2, LXX oif re yyyevfTs Kal ol viol TWV dvBputnav, Sym. ij re
dvdpu>ir6TT)s...Kal ol viol ticaffrov dvSpbs
6 Ps. Ixii. 9, LXX ol viol ruv dvOpuirtav (bis), Theod. (om. ol) viol TUV dvOpu-
iruv . . . viol dvdpos....
74
ARAMAIC AND GREEK INTERPRETATIONS [3074]
singular as contrasted with Israel in the plural, thus, " Beloved
(sing.) [is] Adam in that he was created in the IMAOE... Beloved
(pi.) [are] Israel in that they were called sons [belonging] to God ;
[yet] greater love in that it was made known to them that they were
called sons [belonging] to God 1 ."
In the only passage in the gospels where " Israelite " occurs, the
Syriac and Delitzsch's Hebrew version have " son of Israel," and the
same passage mentions "son of God" and also "son of man 2 ."
There, and elsewhere in the gospels, it is necessary to bear in mind
that a Jewish teacher calling himself " son of man " could hardly
refrain from thinking of " son of Adam," even if he did not use the
latter phrase ; and that his teaching about the relation between God
and man must necessarily point back to the account in Genesis of
the relation between Elohim and Adam ; as is indicated by our
Lord's quotation of the first part of the saying in the Psalms " I said,
Ye are [to be] Elohim, but ye shall die like Adam 3 ." The meaning
seems to be, " If ye receive not into your hearts the love of good
and the hate of evil as well as the knowledge of good and evil, then,
though ye were appointed to be Elohim, ye shall die like the first
Adam."
[3073] The statement that God made man in His likeness
was declared by Ben Asai to be a comprehensive principle of the
Law ; R. Akiba said that " thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,"
was a comprehensive principle. We are not to say, If I am despised
I should like my neighbour to be despised. " If you act thus," said
R. Tanchuma, " you must know that he whom you despise is made
in the image of God 4 ." R. Akiba said, "whosoever sheddeth blood
THEY reckon it to him as if he diminished the LIKENESS*."
These traditions give a practical turn to the doctrine of Genesis.
[3074] It will be observed that in all these Hebrew and
Jewish traditions there is no mention or thought of a second
Adam who was to fulfil the broken promise of the first Adam.
1 Aboth lit. 21, 22. The last words ("to God ") refer to Deut. xiv. i " sons
are ye to Jehovah your God" an unusual construction. The Targums have
"before Jehovah your God." It is perhaps intended to distinguish the phrase
from "sons of God " applied to angels or stars.
2 Jn i. 47 51. "Thou art an Israelite... Thou art the Son of God. ..on the
son of man."
3 Ps. Ixxxii. 6 7, quoted in Jn x. 34, see above, 3026.
4 Gen. Rob. (Wiinsche p. 112) on Gen. v. i.
5 Aboth iii. 21, where see Taylor's note.
75
[3075] "SON OF MAN"
The name of Adam is generally associated with the thought
of fall from past glory, not of rise to future glory 1 , and "like
Adam," on the three occasions when the Biblical phrase occurs,
means "like sinful Adam." But Dr Taylor in his edition of
the Aboth quotes Jewish traditions suggesting a doctrine of the
evolution or shaping of Adam so that " the generations of Adam "
may approach more closely than Adam himself to the divine
"image" and "likeness 2 ." By such a thought the way would be
prepared for a pre-eminent Jewish Prophet, or Messiah, to take up
and develop the conception suggested by Ezekiel's vision of One
like an Adam above working through a son of Adam below, and
also of God's flock, not as being Israel contrasted with the Gentiles,
but as being Adam, or Man, contrasted with the Beast 3 .
2. Greek interpretations
[3075] In the LXX " son of man " has no article before either
noun ; but in the gospels the article precedes both nouns : " the son
of the man 4 ." Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian and other early authorities
(but not Origen) have inferred (or assumed) that "the son of the
man" must mean the son of some definite person such as Abraham, or
even Mary the mother of Jesus. They treated "of the man" as "of
the human being" and some seem to have ignored the fact that " of
the " is masculine. Origen on the other hand says, " We ought not
to seek some particular man and to say that the Saviour is that
man's son. But we ought to take our stand on the conception of
God, and on the parables that say He is Man, and thus intelligently
to take in His meaning when He calls Himself Son of the Man 6 ."
The following facts suggest that the earliest Christian com-
mentators may have had before them some vestiges of a tradition
that the original was " son of adam, or Adam." In the first place,
1 [3074 a] Comp. Sir. xlix. 16 "Above every living thing was the glory of
Adam " and Baba Bathra 58 a where it is said that Adam differed from his sons
because the latter were not, as he was, " the express image of God " (Levy i. 395 a
" mein Ebenbild selbst ").
2 Aboth ed. Taylor p. 57.
3 Ezek. xxxiv. 31, see 3048 9 and 3090 b foil.
4 [3075 a] Jn v. 27 is exceptional, "son of man " being predicatively used, so
that the meaning of " because he is son of man " is, " because he is of the number
of sons of man," or "because he is human."
5 See Notes 2998 (xlv) b on \4yovros tavrov viov rov dvffpuirov.
7 6
ARAMAIC AND GREEK INTERPRETATIONS [3076]
adam might be feminine, so that it might represent Mary the mother
of Jesus. In the next place, the sense in a passage of Justin suggests
that this author spoke of Jesus as descended from Adam (as two
editors have conjectured) and not from Abraham (as the present
text reads). Justin begins by saying that Christ has revealed to us
from the scriptures that He is the first-begotten of God and " son of
the patriarchs, having been made flesh through the Virgin who
sprang from their race." For this reason, says Justin, Christ said,
" The son of man must suffer many things...." He then offers
alternative explanations thus : " So He used to call Himself son of
man, either (i) from His birth through the Virgin who was, as I
said, from the race of David and Jacob and Isaac and Abraham, or
(2) because Abraham (? Adam] was the father of those enumerated,
from whom Mary derives her race 1 ."
[3076] Irenaeus does not oscillate, like Justin, but unhesitatingly
adopts the solution that the latter seems to prefer, namely, that " the
1 [3075 ] Tryph. 100. Elsewhere (ib. 124) quoting Ps. Ixxxii. 7 "ye shall
die like men" he says " I mean Adam and Eve" and this is quoted by those
who advocate the reading " Adam " above. In Notes 2998 (xxxvii) d I objected
that Justin seems to regard Adam as inferior to Abraham. But it is possible that
Justin may have followed Luke in tracing up the genealogy to Adam instead
of Abraham, having regard to the ideal Adam.
[3075 c\ As regards Daniel's prophecy (vii. 13) " one like unto a son of man,"
Justin says (Afol. 51) "And how also He is destined to come out of heaven with
glory, hear also what is said thereon by Jeremiah (sic) the prophet. It is this,
' Behold as son of man [He] cometh above the clouds of heaven and His angels
with Him,"' and similarly (Tryph. 31) "How great [will be] His power in
His glorious parousia ! For [He] will come as son of man above clouds, as
Daniel declared, angels arriving with Him." He then quotes Daniel. Trypho
replies " These and similar scriptures compel us to await as a glorious and
great [being] Him who is to receive as son of man from the Ancient of Days the
eternal kingdom." No explanation is here given of " son of man." Clark's series
renders it "the Son of man" except in Trypho's reply. But the Greek is the
same in the four passages. Justin's erroneous mention of " Jeremiah " and
" angels " should be noted.
[3075 d] Origen (Comm. Joann. L 34) when illustrating the statement that
Christ is the Beginning and the End, has a parallelism between (i) "the Man
that He hath taken [an Himself} " and (2) " Adam." But his language is obscure,
" For Christ, the Only-begotten, is (i Cor. xv. 28) ' all and in all,' as Beginning on
the one hand in the Alan that He hath taken on Himself (cis tier ap\T) & $ di>et^rj<f>fv
avffpdrr<?) but on the other hand as End, coming-in (?) in the last of the saints (ws 5
T^Xos ev rip Tf\evraiif rQjv ayiuv STJ\OVOTI Tvy^di'wi') an d [also] in the intervening
[links] (cai ev rots neraty) or else, as Beginning on the one hand in Adam, but on
the other hand as End in the sojourning-on-earth (if TJ
77
[3077] "SON OF MAN"
son of the man" means "the son of the Virgin." His main argu-
ment is that Christ is shewn by the scriptures to have been more
than a mere man, so that He could not have been son of any man.
For this he quotes an early corrupt text of John, using the singular
for the plural, "He who was not born either by the will of the flesh
or by the will of man (viri) 1 ." One or two fanciful passages indicate
the writer's desire to find a female element in scriptural prophecy
about the birth of Jesus, as, for example, where he presses the phrase
" of the fruit of thy (David's) body " so as to infer that, since the
Hebrew for " body " mostly means " womb," the Psalm contem-
plates Mary as David's descendant 2 . Moreover, he likens Mary to
the "virgin" ground (which would be in Hebrew adamaK), from
which Adam derived his substance 3 . The Hebrew adam, " man,"
has no feminine, but if it had one, the form would be adamah,
" ground " ; and when Irenaius speaks of the Word as " gathering up
Adam [into Himself] from Mary," and subsequently frequently
mentions Mary in connection with Luke's pedigree of the Lord
going back to Adam, he gives us the impression of being influenced
by traditions teaching that the ancient title of Jesus was " Son of
Adam " in some mystical sense, and of entertaining the belief that
this was Luke's view.
Neither Irenaeus nor Justin expounds Daniel's "like unto a son
of man " as having originated Christ's self-appellation 4 .
[3077] The Testament of Abraham says "Every man is born
from the first-formed [i.e. Adam] and for this cause they are to be
judged first of all by his son 6 ." From such a tradition the question
would arise what particular son of Adam is meant. The writer
1 Jn i. 13. For this and other quotations see Notes 2998 (xxxix) foil.
2 Iren. iii. 21. 5 quoting Ps. cxxxii. 11.
3 Ib. 10. Comp. Joseph. Ant. i. i. 2 of the ground from which Adam was
shaped as being " the virgin (ira.p6tvos) earth." Clem. Alex, quotes a passage
from Plato (Legg. 844 B) about digging down to the "potter's clay" (/cepo/ufj or
Kepa/MTi^) as "what is called the virgin [earth]" (rfjs irapOevlov [717$] KaXov/dvrjs) .
"Potter's clay" would be a suitable name for the adatnah out of which the
Creator was alleged to have shaped Adam.
4 Iren. iii. 22. 3 4. As to Irenaeus (and Tertullian who follows in his path)
see Notes 2998 (xxxix) (xli). As to Ignatius and Barnabas see ib. (xxxiv). Add
Iren. v. 21. i "ex muliere Virgine...secundum similitudinem Adam...."
5 Test. Abr. ed. James, p. 92 (Recens. A 13) IK TOU viou avrov, v.r. tic rov
rotoi/rou avov, i.e. from the man that is like [Aim]. Comp. Gen. v. 3 "Adam...
begat a son in his own likeness."
78
ARAMAIC AND GREEK INTERPRETATIONS [3078]
answers the question beforehand : " This is [the] son of Adam the
first-formed, u>ho is called Abel." Cain is put aside, and Abel is
called " the son of Adam."
But a much earlier definition of "the son of Adam" is found
early in the second century among the sect commonly called the
Ophites. They are recorded by Irenaeus to have worshipped a
Being called "the First Man," and another called "the Second
Man " terms familiar to us in the Pauline epistles. In Hebrew
these would have been "the First Adam " and "the Second Adam."
That the founder of this sect had Adam in view is indicated by their
connection with the name of Seth, almost casually preserved by
Irenaeus 1 , and by the error of Hippolytus 2 , who calls them "Sithians."
Hippolytus makes no mention of " Seth " as the origin of the name.
Perhaps he did not understand it. But the reason is explained by
the statement in Genesis that "Adam ... begat a son in his own
likeness and called his name Seth 3 ." Here the Jerusalem Targum
says, " Eve had before borne Cain, who was not like him, and Abel
was killed by his hand ; and Cain was cast out," but Seth " had the
likeness of his image and of his similitude"
It appears that these early sectarians regarded Christ as calling
Himself "the son of Adam," who Abel being killed, and Cain
rejected seemed to them to be "Seth (3157 a)."
[3078] A still earlier mention, not indeed of "son of Adam,"
but of " the last Adam " and of "the second Man," is familiar to us
in Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians 4 . But further, whenever Paul
speaks of Christ as " man," in connection with His redeeming man-
kind and building up the Church, he seems to think in antithesis of
" man " as " adam," and therefore of Christ also as, in some sense,
Adam. Substitute (as in the modern Hebrew version) "adam" for
'man," and we find him saying that "through one Adam sin
entered into the world." Then, he adds, "Much more did. ..the
gift by the grace of the one Adam Jesus Christ abound unto the
many*." " One Adam," Adam the first, is regarded as having
effected our downfall and captivity ; " one Adam," Adam the last, as
effecting our rescue and enfranchisement.
Whether Paul did or did not regard Jesus as having called Himself
son of Adam, we certainly find him, as apostle of the Gentiles, laying
1 Iren. i. 30. i 9. l Hippol. v. 14, comp. 3060 a c. s Gen. v. 3.
4 i Cor. xv. 45 7. 5 Rom. v. 1215.
79
[3079] "SON OF MAN"
stress on the descent of all the scattered races of mankind from " one
(man) " that is, Adam and on their destiny to be gathered into
one man " in the mystery of Christ." Concerning this he writes,
" Which in other generations was not made known unto the sons of
men (Delitzsch the sons of adam) as it hath now been revealed unto
his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit, namely, that the Nations
are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body... 1 ." This follows
a description of " Christ our peace, who made both [i.e. Israel and
the Nations] one, and brake down the middle wall of partition... that he
might make the two in himself into one new man, [so] making peace 2 ."
[3079] How is it that we find here the expression, almost unique
in the epistles and occurring only once elsewhere in the whole of the
New Testament "the sons of men " 3 ? The Apostle appears to be
referring to the above-quoted passage in Deuteronomy which describes
the division of " Israel " from " the Nations " by " bounds." " When
the Most High gave to the Nations their inheritance, when he
separated the sons of adam (LXX sons of Adam, but Aquila sons of
man), he set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of
the sons of Israel. For the Lord's portion is his people 4 ." Here the
LXX, instead of "according to. ..Israel," has "according to the
number of the angels of God," apparently meaning that the Nations
had each its several angel as Jehovah's representative, whereas Israel
had Jehovah Himself. Against this view or at all events against
this view as final the speech of Paul on Areopagus appears intended
to protest, "He made from one [man, that is, Adam] every nation of
men... having determined... the bounds of their habitation, that they
should seek, God, if haply they might feel after him and find him 5 ."
This implies that the "bounds" mentioned in Deuteronomy were
intended to be transient, and that "the sons of Adam," in the true
sense of " Adam," include Israel as well as the Nations, because the
wall of partition between them has been broken down by Him who
called Himself the Son of Adam and whom Paul calls the last Adam.
[3080] That Paul could not have borrowed from any Jewish
source this conception of the last Adam as being the Messiah is
indirectly proved by the failure of the most learned commentators to
allege evidence from any ancient source. The only Jewish parallel
J Eph. iii. 5 6. 2 Eph. ii. 1415.
3 It occurs elsewhere only in Mk iii. 28 on which see 3177 foil.
4 Deut. xxxii. 8 9. See 3071. 5 Acts xvii. 26 7.
80
ARAMAIC AND GREEK INTERPRETATIONS [3081]
tradition alleged by Wetstein is one written about 1500 A.D.
"Homo novissimus est Messias... toilet peccatum antiquum, et in
diebus ejus erit resurrectio mortuorum," where, presumably, the
Jewish author wrote "the last Adam 1 ." All Schottgen's illustrations
also are taken from medieval mystical works, some of them even
speaking of three Adams, and one of them says " the Adam that is
above is in the Mercaba, i.e. the Chariot [of Ezekiel] 2 ." Early Jewish
traditions dwell more on the fall of Adam " at first high, then low."
Some of them suggest that the " image " and " likeness " is " that to
which man approximates, and which is found in greater perfection
in 'the generations of Adam' than in Adam himself 3 ." But none
connect " Adam " with the Messiah.
[3081] The most reasonable conclusion, therefore, is that the
connection between Christ and Adam was suggested to Paul by the
knowledge that Christ, in the flesh, had called Himself " the son of
Adam." The name Adam, being almost non-occurrent in N.T.
(outside the Pauline epistles and the Lucan genealogy) and probably
unfamiliar to Greeks, might naturally not be used very freely by the
Apostle of the Gentiles. But he used the thought freely as probably
Jesus frequently expressed the thought, in traditions unknown to us,
concerning the fellow-feeling that bound Him, " the son of Adam,"
to the other sons of Adam. One such tradition, in Greek, unknown
till recently, represents Jesus as saying, "My soul is distressed for
the sons of men*," where the original utterance, if one ever existed,
would probably have represented "the Son of Adam" as mourning
over His fallen brethren, the fallen "sons of Adam 8 ."
1 Wetstein, on i Cor. xv. 21 quoting Neve schalom. ix. 5 and 8.
- [3080 a] Schottgen i. 671 3. Dalman (Words p. 247) adds that a distinction
is drawn on one occasion, with the help of a reference to Dan. vii. 13 and
Ezek. i. 26, between the "higher Adam " and the " lower Adam." The " higher
Adam" is "the highest form of the self-revelation of God " ; the "lower Adam "
is " a synthesis of all the inferior stages of revelation subsumed under the
former."
3 Taylor's Aboth p. 57 n. where, for "generations of Adam," Taylor gives the
Heb. of Gen. v. i " the generations of Adam."
4 The Oxyrhynthus Logia.
5 [3081 a] It is worth noting that the Apocalypse of Baruch (ed. Charles, pp.
vii viii) " written in the latter half of the first century of the Christian era," and
" originally in Hebrew," though it makes frequent mention of Adam in connec-
tion with the destiny of mankind, nowhere contains the thought of a second or
redeeming Adam. In one passage the name is used typically, but as the type of
weakness (liv. 19), "Adam is therefore not the cause, save only of his own soul,
but each one of us has been the Adam of his own soul."
A. s. 81 6
CHAPTER VI
PARALLELISMS BETWEEN EZEKIEL AND JESUS
i. The "opening" of " the heavens"
[3082] So far, our investigation appears to be leading us to
think it probable that in calling Himself " the son of man " Jesus
had Ezekiel's appellation in view. But this probability has been
inferred mainly from the identity of the appellation of the prophet
with the self-appellation of the Messiah, and from the fact that, in the
Bible, the appellation is almost confined to Ezekiel, and from one
or two similarities between the outset of Ezekiel's prophecy and
Christ's Gospel. If it can be shewn further that other circumstances
and doctrines of Ezekiel were uniquely parallel to those of Jesus,
the probability will be increased. Instances of such parallelism will
now be given.
First in importance and in chronological order comes the opening
of the heavens. " Heaven " is not recorded to have been " opened "
for any Hebrew prophet except Ezekiel. It is mentioned in the first
verse of his prophecy : " The heavens were opened and I saw visions
of God 1 ." All the Synoptists make a similar statement as to Jesus,
before they begin their several accounts of His public life. But
they do not mention "visions." John mentions an "opening" of
"heaven " in a prediction (of what the disciples " shall see"), uttered
by Jesus before entering on His public life, " Ye shall see the heaven
opened 2 ." John also adds a promise of visions of " angels." " And
[ye shall see] the angels of God ascending and descending upon the
1 Ezek. i. i.
2 [3082 </] Jn i. 51. On this, compared with the Synoptic account, see From
Letter 640 2 and Joh. Gr. 1958. See also the only vision that mentions the
"opening" of "heaven" in Revelation (xix. n 14) " Behold, a white horse, and
him that sat thereon... called the Word of God. And the armies that are in
heaven followed him upon white horses...."
82
PARALLELISMS BETWEEN EZEKIEL AND JESUS [3083]
son of man." In Ezekiel, the " opening " and the " visions " intro-
duce the "appearance of a man"; in John, the prediction of the
"opening," and of the visions, mentions the appearance of angels
ascending and descending on " the son of man." Origen, in com-
menting on the opening of the heavens to Ezekiel, says " The angels
who ascended and descended on the son of man both came to Him
and ministered to Him," apparently referring to Jesus but implying
that the angels had also descended to Ezekiel as the type of Jesus 1 .
2. "The spirit"
[3083] The " opening of the heavens " is followed, both in the
case of Ezekiel and in that of Jesus, by a mention of " spirit " or
"the spirit/ 1
At this point the Synoptists differ, both from one another and
from the fourth gospel, as to the precise definition of " spirit," and as
to whether it came down as a dove " to (or, into) " Jesus, or " upon ''
Him*. These differences cannot be discussed here. Quite inde-
pendent of any such discussion is the fact that Ezekiel is the only
one of the prophets concerning whom this coming of " spirit " is
mentioned in the preface to his prophecy : " And he said unto me,
Son of man, stand upon thy feet and I will speak with thee. And
[the] spirit entered into me, when he spake unto me, and set me
upon my feet 3 ."
In this sentence, where our Revised Version and the Targum
have "the spirit? the Hebrew has "spirit" ("roach") without the
article. " The spirit" ("ha-ruach ") occurs previously in the vision of
the four living creatures : " Whither the spirit was to go, they went,"
emphasized afterwards by a repetition, " Whithersoever the spirit was
to go, they went ; thither was the spirit to go." The writer adds
twice, "[M/J spirit of the living creature (or, of the life) 4 was in the
1 Origen, Horn. Ezek. i. 7, quoting Jn L 51, Mt. iv. 11. The punctuation
is uncertain.
3 See From Letter 662 84, which also (686 724) discusses the Johannine
addition of "abiding" to the Synoptic tradition about the "descending" of the
"dove" (Mk i. 10 eis, Mt. iii. 16 and Lk. iii. 22 l-ri, Jn i. 32 (newer evl).
3 [3083 a] Ezek. ii. 2 "The spirit," so R.V. and Targ., but Heb., LXX and
Sym. " spirit " without the article.
4 [3083 ] Ezek. i. 20, 21. (In this sentence "spirit" is denned by the
following genitive.) Gesen. 312 favours "living creature," and adds "life,
only in late poetry." But it mentions Ezek. vii. 13 as twice using the word
83 62
[3084] PARALLELISMS
wheels " " wheels upon the earth " having been previously mentioned
as "beside the living creatures 1 ."
The details of what is commonly called Ezekiel's Vision of the
Chariot have been made the subject of much inconclusive specula-
tion ; but one conclusion seems clear, that it describes the pervading
influence of spirit in the universe, and the predominance of a human
element, the latter being represented by a throne, above which is " a
likeness as the appearance of a man."
[3084] The extent to which Ezekiel carries out his conception of
an all-pervading, and yet in some sense human and humanising,
spirit of life, is somewhat obscured by the fact that the Hebrew
" ruach " is rendered in English sometimes by " spirit " but some-
times by "wind." In reality, "spirit" comes on the stage, so to
speak, in the very first sentence describing the vision. "And I
looked, and behold a spirit of storm... a. great cloud, with a fire. ..and
out of the midst thereof. ..four living creatures (or, beasts)."
Such is the first view, one suggestive of turbulence, and brute
force, and destruction. But, as we look longer, glimpse after glimpse
is given of a man-like element, and then a vision of one controlling
spirit of humanity, and finally a glorious rainbow of hope for man :
" They had the hands of a man under their wings," " they had the
face of a man 2 ," "whither the spirit was to go they went" (repeated
afterwards), "the likeness of a throne... and upon the likeness of the
throne a likeness as the appearance of a man upon it above," " as
the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so
was the appearance of the brightness round about."
[3085] Thus the vision is somewhat like that of Cowper, "a smiling
face" behind "a frowning Providence." It begins with storm-cloud
and fire, emblems of God's wrath, and ends with "the bow," the
recognised pledge of His promise that wrath should not end in
utter destruction. One " spirit " gives life to the whole, and " the
appearance of a man" suggests that some human influence is "riding
in the sense of "life." The singular may be used in order to imply the unity
of the spiritual "chariot."
1 [3083 c\ Ezek. i. 15 "Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one
wheel upon the earth beside the living creatures for each of the four faces
thereof."
2 A distinction seems intended between "they" in the clause about "the
face of a man," and " they four " meaning " they four severally " in the clauses
about the other faces.
84
BETWEEN EZEKIEL AND JESUS [3086]
on the storm " and directing the course of the non-human " living
creatures."
This same "spirit" is apparently described as entering into
Ezekiel and as sending the prophet with God's message, of threaten-
ing and of promise, to His rebellious people. If we ask what that
promise is, the question cannot be fully answered without again
repeating the word "spirit": "I will gather you out of all the
countries... and I will sprinkle clean water upon you. ..a new heart
also will I give you, and a new spirit (ruach) will I put within you...
and I will put my spirit within you... and ye shall dwell in the land
that I gave to your fathers 1 ."
Then follows a vision of the fulfilment of this promise the gift
of this " spirit " to the " dry bones," and the restoration of Israel to
their land. And here, once more, the part played by the Hebrew
word " spirit " is somewhat obscured in the English Bible, where our
Revised Version (sometimes of necessity) renders the Hebrew ruach
now by " breath," now by " wind," now by " spirit*."
[3086] Ezekiel's combination of external cleansing with " water,"
and internal cleansing by inspiring a new " spirit," is the closest
approximation afforded by the Old Testament to the doctrine of
John the Baptist, concerning " baptism with the spirit " which was to
follow baptism with water. It must be reserved for a future treatise
to shew how Ezekiel also teaches the sterner aspect of purification
1 Ezek. xxxvi. 24 8.
[3085 a] If "ruach" were always translated "spirit," Ezek. xxxviL i 14
would run thus : " The hand of the Lord was upon me, and he carried me out
in the spirit of the Lord... Thus saith the Lord God unto these bones, Behold
I will cause spirit to enter into you... And I beheld, and, lo,...skin covered them
from above ; but there was no spirit in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy
unto the spirit... and say to the spirit .. .Come from the four spirits [comp.
Ezek. i. 21 "the spirit of the living creature," where each of the four living
creatures may be regarded as having its "spirit," and yet the "four spirits" are
"one spirit"] O spirit, and breathe into these slain... and the spirit came
into them and they lived and stood up. ..an exceeding great army." Then the
Lord repeats to the prophet that this vision represents the restoration of Israel,
"Ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves.. ..And
I will put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I will place you in your
own land." See 3107 m.
[3085 b\ As regards " four spirits," see From Letter 668 a, referring to
Schottgen's collection of Kabbalistic traditions. The most remarkable is
(Schottg. ii. 332) " Inferius autem Michael, Gabriel, Nuriel, et Raphael, sunt
vestimenta seu involucra quatuor spirituum."
85
[3086] PARALLELISMS
or baptism by fire, sword, and wind 1 , on which the Baptist is said to
have laid stress 2 . Here it must suffice to add that no doctrine of
Christianity is more prominent than that of "a new spirit" and that
this phrase occurs thrice in Ezekiel 3 , and nowhere else in the whole
of the Old Testament 4 .
A word must be said here and more hereafter about the
"inspiring" or "in-breathing" of this spirit; for it is not as our
Revised Version says, breathed upon the dead. It is breathed in, or
into, them 6 . Similarly God "breathed in, or into, the nostrils" of
Adam " the breath of life." " Breathed upon " might imply hostility.
" Breathed in " implies inspiration. This bears on the Johannine
tradition that Jesus, when sending forth the disciples into the world,
" breathed in\to them\ " and said " Receive the Holy Breath, or
Spirit 6 ."
1 [3086 a] See Ezek. v. i 4, 12, Zech. xiii. 9. Comp. Virg. Aen. vi. 740
" aliae panduntur inanes suspensae ad ventos," where wind, water, and fire,
are mentioned as purifying agents. See 3622 b.
2 Mt. iii. 10 12, Lk. iii. 9, 16 17.
* Ezek. xi. 19, xviii. 31, xxxvi. 26.
4 [3086 b~\ A minor circumstance of similarity is that Ezekiel, after receiving
the spirit, is described (Ezek. iii. 12 14, viii. 3) as being transported by the spirit
hither and thither. Such a transportation is suggested by Mk i. 12, Mt. iv. i
(immediately after the descent of the Spirit) but is apparently negatived or
softened by the parall. Lk. iv. i. In the Temptation, however, both Luke and
Matthew recognise supernatural transportation ; but they represent it as being
the act, not of the Spirit, but of Satan (no doubt, overruled by God and
accomplishing God's will). In particular, Ezek. xl. 2 "He. ..set me down upon
a very high mountain" has a close verbal similarity to Mt. iv. 8 " taketh him
unto an exceeding high mountain " (om. by parall. Luke).
6 [3086 <r] Ezek. xxxvii. 9 10 (lit.) "...breathe in (or, into) them. ..and the
breath came in (or, into) them," R.V. "upon" and "into" but LXX '$ and e&
(and so Toy "into... into"), Targ. "come into. ..came into." Rashi appears to
assume the meaning "into." Jerome has "super... in" but gives no reason for
the variation. His very long comment suggests that he may have been influenced
by doctrinal considerations.
See Gesen. 656 a. The same Heb. verb, with "in," is used of "blowing in,
or into," a fire (Is. liv. 16, comp. Hag. i. 9). "Blow," with Heb. "on" occurs
in Ezek. xxii. 20 21 " to blow fire on it to melt it... blow on you with the fire of
my wrath." In Gen. ii. 7 " breathed in his nostrils the breath of life," the LXX
has "into (e/s) his face (TO Trp6<rwiroi> ai/roD)," but "the rest" have "into, or in,
his nostrils."
[3086 d] The Heb. "nostril" (Gesen. 60 a) sometimes means "face" in Heb.
and almost (but not quite) always "face " in Aramaic (see Levy Ch. i. 53(1 referring
to Gen. ii. 7 and Lam. iv. 20, to which Gen. vii. 22 might have been added ; and
Thes. Syr. gives the Syr. as "nostrils" in Gen. vii. 22, Exod. xv. 8).
8 [3086 <;] Jn xx. 22 R.V. " breathed on them." " On them " is not in the original.
86
BETWEEN EZEKIEL AND JESUS [3088]
3. Redemption for captives
[3087] According to Luke, the first sentence publicly uttered by
our Lord, after He had begun His mission, declared that God had
sent Him to preach "release to the captives*." Somewhat similarly,
the first sentence of Ezekiel's prophecy calls attention to the fact
that he was "among the captives " ; and he receives the command to
go to "them of the captivity*"
It is of course true that the " captivity " mentioned by Ezekiel is,
primarily, political, not spiritual, and different from that contemplated
by our Lord. But still Origen seems to be right in tracing some con-
nection between the " captivity " of Israel in the days of Ezekiel and
(the supposed) Daniel and the appellation of " son of man " given to
both these prophets ; for it is an axiom with all the Hebrew prophets
that Israel cannot be enslaved by a foreign nation except as a
punishment for unfaithfulness to Jehovah 3 . Ezekiel depicts "seventy
men of the elders of the house of Israel " as worshipping " creeping
things and abominable beasts 4 " ; and even apart from special
instances of idolatry, the nation, being in a retributive slavery, might
be regarded as falling away as Israel in the wilderness fell away to
worship the golden Calf serving the Beast and not the Man.
[3088] Israel was "captive, 1 ' but Ezekiel and Daniel (says
Origen) were not captives 5 , being the prophets of the Lord and
'EfjL<f>vffdu (Steph. TAes.) regularly means "blow into." The omission of the
object is extremely harsh but probably serves a deliberate purpose. SS, using the
Syriac of Gen. ii. 7, says " blew in their faces" obviously alluding to the creation
of Adam, and it cannot be doubted that John is alluding to it. 'Efupvffdw is rare
in O.T. and non-occurrent, except here, in N.T. See 3623^ foil.
1 Lk. iv. 18 quoting Is. Ixi. i foil.
2 Ezek. i. i "I was among the captives," iii. 10 n "Son of man. ..get thee
to them of the captivity, unto the sons of thy people."
3 [3087 a] He calls attention (Horn. Ezek. i. 3, 4, Lomm. xiv. 15 foil., and
also Lomm. xiv. 179 81) to Ezekiel as the type of Christ, and to the fact that
Daniel and Ezekiel are the only prophets called " son of man " and the only
prophets sent to Israel in captivity, and he implies that " son of man " is a title
honourably distinguishing them from the rest of their generation. The nation as a
whole is described as playing the harlot (Ezek. xvi. 15 foil, and xxiii. i foil.). We
shall hereafter have to discuss the phrase " adulterous generation " used by Jesus
in connection with ' ' the son of man " (as reported by Mark and Matthew but not
by Luke). See 32156.
4 Ezek. viii. 10 u.
5 Comp. Origen (on Ezek. i. i, Lomm. xiv. 180) "I having nothing of the
captive in me, was in the midst of the captivity," and Jn viii. 32 " the truth shall
make you free " (with its context).
87
[3089J PARALLELISMS
servants to none but Him. Hence it is perhaps that Ezekiel (often)
and Daniel (once) alone among the prophets are addressed from
heaven as though they were detached, in some sense, from the
people, and yet responsible for the people, as when the Lord says
to the former " Get thee unto them of the captivity, unto the sons of
thy people 1 ."
The phrase " sons of thy people " appears intended to remind
the free prophet that, although he is free, yet the enslaved and
degenerate nation belongs to him and has claims upon his affection
and help 2 . It suits well with the accompanying " son of man," as
though the meaning were, "Thou, too, art of the earth and frail,
being a son of man. Yet thou art free because thou hast seen the
vision of One above, like unto a son of man, who sits upon the
throne in heaven and controls the Beasts. Get thee to the sons of
thine own people, who are not free, and, as my ambassador, carry to
them the gospel of freedom."
4. The connection between "captivity" and "beasts"
[3089] The connection between the captivity of Israel and the
prayer to be delivered from " beasts " is not so easily seen by modern
readers as by Origen, who says, " The Jews say that, when wolves or
other beasts attack men's houses and devour them, ...it is a sign of
God's wrath from heaven 3 ."
1 Ezek. iii. n, xxxiii. i, 12, 17, 30 etc., also Dan. xii. I. Gesen. 766, to
illustrate "sons of my, thy, etc. people, " gives Numb. xxii. 5, Gen. xxiii. u,
Lev. xix. 18, Judg. xiv. 16, 17, Ezek. xxxiii. i, 12, etc. This does not mention
" sons of thy people " separately, nor does it indicate that the expression is
peculiar to Ezekiel and Daniel among the Hebrew prophets. It may be added
that the abbreviated phrase, "thy people," uttered from heaven to a prophet, and
meaning Israel, occurs in Daniel ix. 24, x. 14, xi. 14, xii. i, and -apparently in no
other prophet.
2 [3088 a] When God says to Moses (Exod. xxxiv. 10, Deut. ix. 12) " tAy
people, " He means that Israel has deserted Him and that the responsibility for
them rests on Moses. But Lev. xix. 18 "Thou shall not take vengeance nor
bear any grudge against the children of thy people" implies that the "people" have
a claim on, because they belong to, the person addressed (without any implication
of deserting the Lord).
When God says to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in turn (Sabb. 89^) " Thy
children have sinned against me," Isaac alone ventures to expostulate, "Lord of
the World ! My children ? Are they not also thy children ? "
3 [3089 a] Horn. Ezek. iv. 7. Comp. Sanhedr. 38 b (on Ps. xlix. 1-2) "when
men behave like cattle they are overpowered by wild-beasts." Epictetus bids men
88
BETWEEN EZEKIEL AND JESUS [3090]
Especially might they say this, in view of the tradition that when
Samaria was colonised by mixed races, " so it was, at the beginning
of the dwelling there, that they feared not the Lord ; therefore the
Lord sent lions among them, which killed some of them " ; and this
went on, so the historian says, till the king of Assyria sent a priest of
Israel to teach the people "how they should fear the Lord 1 ."
[3090] In Ezekiel, " beasts," together with sword, famine and
pestilence, make up God's "four sore judgments' 2 ." There is no
other prophet so permeated with the thought of "beasts" as a
scourge of Israel, and yet a scourge under God's control. Prophets
and singers of Israel, who had heard of, or sometimes even seen,
friends of their own devoured alive by beasts, or their dead bodies
given by their murderers "unto the beasts of the land 3 ," would pray
with a personal as well as with a national feeling, "Deliver not the
soul of thy turtle-dove unto the wild beast 4 ."
In these special circumstances amidst the spectacle of beast-like
idols in a foreign land, and stories of beast-worship secretly practised
by his own countrymen in Jerusalem, and the literal devastation of
large districts of his native land by beasts it becomes more easy to
understand the special form in which a vision of celestial Power
revealed to Ezekiel the consoling truth that, above the visible
dominance of brute force in the world, there is an invisible pre-
dominance, symbolized by " a likeness as the appearance of a
man 5 ."
beware of acting (ii. 9. 3 4) "like a sheep" as well as of acting " like a wild-
beast." In either case, he says, " Thou hast lost the MAN."
1 i K. xvii. 25 8. 2 Ezek. xiv. 21, comp. Rev. vi. i 8.
3 Ps. Ixxix. i.
4 [3090 a] Ps. Ixxiv. 19 (R.V. txt.) LXX 0ijpfa and Gesen. 3130 "wild
beasts." The plural or singular seems to make little difference. R.V. marg. has
"unto the greedy multitude," Targ. " Do not deliver to the nations, which are
like unto the beast(s) of the forest, the souls of those that teach thy Law." For
the latter part, Symmachus has "(the soul) that thou hast taught the law."
Compare Ps. xxii. 21 "from the lion's mouth etc.," Targ. "from the lion's
mouth, and from kings powerful and lifted up like the unicorn."
" YE, MY SHEEP, THE SHEEP OF MY PASTURE, ARE MAN "
5 [3090 b] It is perhaps from an undercurrent of this thought that we must
explain the difficult passage above quoted (3048 9) in which God says to Israel
(Ezek. xxxiv. 31) " Ye are Adam, or Man." It seems to come as an encourage-
ment after an enumeration of national evils. The shepherds of Israel, says the
prophet (xxxiv. i foil.), have been faithless to their charge, and the sheep have
been scattered as a prey to the beasts. But this shall cease, (ib. 23 31) " I will
89
[3090] PARALLELISMS
set up one shepherd... and I will make with them a covenant of peace, and will
cause evil beasts to cease out of the land... and they shall no more be a prey to the
heathen, neither shall the beast(s) of the earth devour them.... And ye, my sheep,
the sheep of my pasture, are man (adam), and I am your God, saith the Lord
God."
Why does not Ezekiel say what Isaiah says (v. 7) "The vineyard of the Lord
of hosts is the house of Israel '," only putting "sheep" for "vineyard"? "Ye, my
sheep, are the house of Israel" would not this make a more usual and intelligible
sense? The answer appears to be that the prophet means something different
and more inclusive "Ye, my sheep, are adam, and, like Adam, made in my
image, and therefore belonging to me as I to you. Ye are mine and I am yours."
On i S. xxiii. 3 " One that ruleth over man (adam)" Rashi says (Breithaupt)
" dominator hominis, i.e. Israelitarum, qui vocantur 'homo'; dicitur enim ' Vos
estis homo' 1 '''' a reference to Ezek. xxxiv. 31 " Ye are man." The thought is,
that the earthly ruler over adam must be like the heavenly Ruler who framed
adam in His image ; and Jewish commentators assume that this ideal adam, whose
face is engraved on the throne of God, is Israel (Notes 2998 (xii) foil.).
Adam, " man," is distinguished from Israel, but apparently described as joined
with Israel, in Zech. ix. i (lit.) "for to Jehovah [is] the eye [of ] man (adam) and
all the tribes of Israel," R.V. text " the eye of man and of all the tribes of Israel
is toward the Lord," marg. " the Lord hath an eye upon men and upon all the
tribes of Israel," Targ. " coram Domino manifesta sunt opera filiorum hominum et
sibi complacet in omnibus tribubus Israel," Rashi "Nam illo die spectabit homo
ad Creatorem suum...et associabunt se ipsi eorumque urbes urbibus Israelitarum "
(and similarly Kimchi, who, like Rashi, quotes viii. 23 "ibimus vobiscum ").
Jerome, as a paraphrase of "Domini est oculus hominis...,'" gives " Domini est
quicumque et de gentibus respicit Deum...." All the renderings substantially
agree in Jerome's summary, li templum Dei de utroque populo construendum est,"
i.e. adam and Israel are to be made one.
Mechilta (on Exod. xix. 21 "lest. ..many of them perish") quotes this passage
of Zechariah to shew that even a single human being, if in danger of perishing, is
more precious in the sight of the Lord than all the universe. This suggests
a comparison with Zech. ii. 8 "he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his
[i.e. God ; s] eye."
[3090 c] For " beast (s) of the earth," Targ. has "the kingdoms of the earth"
and Baba Metzia 114 b takes the same view with a reference, probably, to Rome.
The Jewish twofold interpretation of " beasts " would be made very intelligible
to Christians by the experiences of their martyrs. But, where the Jews thought of
nations, Christians would think of evil spirits, or of persons possessed with evil
spirits. "I know," says Origen (Horn. Ezek. iv. 7), "saints delivered to -wild
beasts for persevering in the faith, who have consummated their martyrdom by
being torn to pieces. But they have not ceased to be blessed. For they had not
been delivered to the spiritual and invisible beasts etc." Comp. i Cor. xv. 32 " If
I fought with wild beasts," and Ignat. Rom. 5 " I fight with wild beasts from
Syria to Rome... bound to ten leopards," that is, Roman soldiers. Where the
Targum on Ps. xxii. mostly explains the "bulls," "dogs," etc. as referring to
persons or peoples, Origen explains them as referring to different classes of
spiritual beings.
[3090 d\ Elsewhere Origen indicates that casting out " demons " or " evil
spirits" would be closely connected with domination over beasts (De Orat. 13,
9
BETWEEN EZEKIEL AND JESUS [3091]
5. The "one shepherd"
[3091] Isaiah represents the Shepherd of Israel as feeding and
guiding the sheep and carrying the lambs; but Ezekiel does more.
He represents the Shepherd as also seeking out the lost sheep 1 , and con-
tending for the sheep against the beasts that would destroy them and
against the false shepherds that starve them. " The sheep," he says,
"were scattered because there was no shepherd, and they became
meat to all the beasts of the field 2 " ; Jesus, too, describes the search
for the lost sheep, and is said to have had compassion on the
multitudes because they were "abandoned and ' worried 3 ,' as sheep
that had no shepherd."
Out of all this oppression and disorder, there is to be " a
covenant of peace" for the sheep, says the prophet, because God
will "set up one shepherd over them 4 ." The fourth evangelist also
speaks of "one flock, one shepherd''" These two writers are prac-
Lomm. xvii. 136) "Why describe... how many beasts infuriated against us, [that
is to say] evil spirits and savage men, they have met, and yet muzzled them
(comp. Mk i. 25 (to an evil spirit) and iv. 39 (to the sea) (lit.) " Be thou muzzled")
oftentimes with their prayers ? "
[3090^] On Ps. Ixxiv. 19 "unto the wild-beasts" (quoted in 3090 a) Origen
says "If demons are here called beasts...." Jerome's comment indicates that,
though he read " beasts," he knew the reading " Beast " : " O thou Devil,
O ministers of the Devil, ye that would devour not the body but the soul ! For
then is the soul devoured by the mouth of the Beast when it connives at the
Devil's will."
[3090 /] Baba Metzia 1146 restricts adorn in Ezek. xxxiv. 31 to Israel.
Perhaps a similar assumption is implied in Sanhedr. 58 b, playing on adam in
Prov. xx. 25, and saying " whoso smites the cheek of an Israelite is as one smiting
the cheek of the Shechinah." But it is only fair to add the broader saying hi
A both iv. 4, "Who is honoured? He that honours (lit.) the [human] creatures,
for it is said (i S. ii. 30) ' For them that honour me I will honour, and they that
despise me shall be lightly esteemed.'" On "the creatures" meaning ''man-
kind " see Levy i. 265 b.
1 Ezek. xxxiv. n " I myself, even I, will search for my sheep," rep. ib. 16.
3 Ezek. xxxiv. 5, comp. ib. 6 8.
3 [3091 a] " Worried," Mt. ix. 36 ttrKvXfUroi. Comp. Mk vi. 34. There is
also, perhaps, a suggestion of Matthew's parable of the sheep and the goats in
Ezek. xxxiv. 17, comp. ib. 16 and 20, where the "fat cattle" and the "rams
and he-goats " (see Targum) are regarded as oppressors.
4 Ezek. xxxiv. 25, 23, comp. xxxvii. 24. Eccles. xii. 1 1 has an entirely different
context.
6 Jn x. 16.
9'
[3092] PARALLELISMS
tically alone in the Bible in their mention of the ''one shepherd"
The words in Ezekiel, "Ye, my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are
man 1 ," appear to be a protest for the dignity of man that finds a
parallel in the saying of Jesus, " How much is a man of more value
than a sheep ! 2 "
[3092] There can be no doubt that Mark, who only twice men-
tions the word "sheep "in his gospel*, fails to represent an important
aspect of Christ's work an aspect that He Himself habitually kept
in view. It is perhaps to this fact that we owe John's Parable of the
Good Shepherd, which, though probably not uttered by Christ in
that form, yet truly as well as beautifully expresses Christ's doctrine
and makes up for Mark's deficiency.
In behalf of Mark, however, it may be said that, although he
never represented Jesus as saying that He contended for the sheep of
Israel against " the beasts," yet he represented Him as doing so in
fact. The word " beasts," indeed, Mark never mentions except in
the Temptation 4 . But it may very probably mean " evil spirits "
there. And there is every reason to believe that (as Origen's view
suggests) the evangelist would regard himself as describing Christ's
victory over the Beast whenever he described Him as " casting out a
devil, or, an unclean spirit."
6. " Bearing iniquity"
[3093] Of no other prophet except Ezekiel is it said that he is to
" bear the iniquity " of Israel. This phrase is applied in the Law to
priests 5 . The opening of the prophecy ("Ezekiel the priest 6 ")
1 Ezek. xxxiv. 31 (on which see Rashi). 2 Mt. xii. 12.
3 [3092 a] Mk vi. 34, xiv. 27 (quoting Zech. xiii. 7). In the parall. to
Mt. xv. 24 " I was not sent save unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel,"
Mk vii. 27 omits these words. See 3353 (iii) a foil.
The metaphor of "sheep" (as distinct from the simile, e.g. Mk vi. 34 "as
sheep") is not found in Mark. Epictetus ridicules even the simile, and says (ii.
9. 3) " See thou do nothing like a wild-beast... nothing like a sheep."
4 Mk i. 13 " He was with the wild-beasts (0rjpiui>)." This is the only passage
where Ot)plov occurs in the gospels. 5 Lev. x. 1 7, comp. Exod. xxviii. 38.
" IN THE THIRTIETH YEAR "
6 [3093 a] Ezek. i. i 3 " Now (lit. And) it came to pass in the thirtieth year,
in the fourth month. ..as I was among the captives...! saw visions of God. (2) In
the fifth day of the month. ..(3) the word of the Lord came expressly unto Ezekiel
the priest, the son of Buzi..., in the land of the Chaldeans... and the hand of the
Lord was there upon him."
92
BETWEEN EZEKIEL AND JESUS [3093]
prepares us to recognise his priestly character. But the typical acts
by which Ezekiel is said to perform this vicarious service are very far
removed from the usual sacerdotal acts of sacrifice and purification.
"Lie thou upon thy left side," says the voice of God to him,
"and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it... and thou shalt
lie on thy right side and shalt bear the iniquity of the house of
Judah; forty days, each day for a year, have I appointed it unto
thee 1 ." He eats and drinks, before his exiled countrymen, such
food as the besieged city of Jerusalem was at that moment forced to
resort to. His hair and beard are to be divided into three parts, to
represent the people devoted to destruction. One part is to be
[3093(5] "The thirtieth year" is taken by Origen (Lomm. xiv. 179, comp.
ib, if) !j) as referring to the prophet's age "literally (KOTO, ro aiff&Jir6v)"
besides being typical of Christ's age (Lk. iii. 23 "about thirty years of age").
Jerome, while saying that " most people " took it so, follows the Targum which
dates "thirtieth" from the Finding of the Law.
[3093 c] Perhaps Ezekiel's text is disarranged, and we ought to place verses
2 and 3 before verse i, so that "Ezekiel the priest the son of Buzi..." will
precede, instead of following, " the thirtieth year." This would accord with the
openings of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and almost all the prophets. No other Hebrew
prophet begins with the first person.
[3093 d~\ Thus rearranged, " thirtieth year " might refer to " the thirtieth year "
(Numb. iv. 3 " from thirty years old and upward ") appointed for the sons of Levi,
of whom Ezekiel was one, for the beginning of their service. The objection
that " thirty years old " would be expressed differently, e.g. " son of thirty years,"
would not then apply. For then the meaning would not be exactly personal, " he
was thirty years old,'' but rather official, thus, "The hand of the Lord was there
upon him. And it came to pass in the [i.e. my] thirtieth year [appointed for
the beginning of a priest's service]... that [lit. and] I [was] among the captives by
the river Chebar, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God."
Graetz (ii. 385) mentions Akiba as forbidding the study of the "higher
wisdom," which apparently included "the cloud-chariot of Ezekiel," until
disciples had " passed their thirtieth year." But I have been unable to find any
authority for this in Chagiga 1 1 ff., which is, I am told, the only Talmudic
reference given by Graetz in his German edition.
[3093 <?] The context, the interpretation of Origen, the admission of Jerome
as to the opinion of "many," and the far-fetched nature of the Targumistic inter-
pretation suggested as an alternative, make it probable that, in the first century,
"thirtieth year" was supposed to refer to the age of Ezekiel. If this was
the case, and if Jesus also began His public career in His thirtieth year, this would
add one more to the parallelisms between Ezekiel and Jesus.
[3093/] Prof. W. H. Bennett informs me that Ezek. i. a, 3 is regarded by
most scholars as " a later addition." But here, as elsewhere, if" a later addition"
to a prophecy was recognised in the first century as a part of the text, it may for
our purposes be considered a part of the text.
1 Ezek. iv. 4 folL
93
[3094] PARALLELISMS
burned, another is to be smitten with the sword, a third is to be
scattered to the wind and even of the small remnant left out of
these some are to be burned with fire.
[3094] Later on, a message of bereavement comes to the prophet,
"I take away from thee the desire of thine eyes with a stroke." But
he is not to mourn. "So I spake unto the people in the morning,"
he says, "and at even my wife died 1 ." When the people ask the
meaning of all this, he explains to them that it means the destruction
of the Temple. " Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will profane
my sanctuary, the pride of your power 2 , the desire of your eyes... and
ye shall do as I have done... ye shall not mourn nor weep, but ye
shall pine away in your iniquities and moan one toward another."
No closer approximation than this can be found in the Old
Testament to that extraordinary comment made by the fourth
evangelist on the words of Jesus, " Destroy this temple and in three
days I will raise it up " namely, " He spake of the temple of his
body" The precedent of Ezekiel indicates that a Hebrew prophet
could regard himself as the type of his country, its scapegoat so to
speak, destined to bear its iniquities : " Thus shall Ezekiel be
unto you for a sign ; according to all that he hath done shall
ye do 3 ."
[3095] A similar feeling is latent perhaps in several words of Jesus
(or traditions expounding His words) in response to the demand for
" a sign " : for example, in the reply " There shall no sign be given
them but that of the prophet Jonah." Jonah was, in a sense, Israel.
Israel was plunged in adversity and captivity and scattered abroad
among the Gentiles to preach the true God. Jonah was cast into
the sea to save the lives of his companions, and was raised up that
he might preach to the men of Nineveh. And such a Jonah, or
such an Israel, was " the son of man." Such a prophet also, or such
an Israel, or such a suffering Servant of the Lord, had been pre-
dicted by Hosea and Isaiah. All these characters appear to be
illustrated by the words of Ezekiel, speaking in the name of the Lord,
" Thus shall Ezekiel be unto you a sign ; according to all that he hath
1 Ezek. xxiv. 15 foil.
2 To illustrate "pride," comp. Mk xiii. i "What manner of stones and what
manner of buildings !" and Mt. xxiv. i, Lk. xxi. 5.
* Ezek. xxiv. 24. Comp. Is. xx. 3 "my servant Isaiah hath walked naked
and barefoot... for a sign. ..upon Egypt...," and see 3068 (iv).
94
BETWEEN EZEKIEL AND JESUS [3096]
done shall ye do ; when this cometh, then shall ye know that I am
the Lord God 3 ."
[3096] In this light we can better understand, not only the
Johannine saying about "raising up the temple," but also the
Pauline, Petrine and Johannine doctrine that the " temple " is Christ's
" body," or that He is the " living stone " in it to which the other
stones (His disciples) must be indissolubly united. Jesus appears
to have identified Himself and His body with Jerusalem, not less
closely but more closely than Ezekiel did ; and, like Ezekiel, He
measured out and planned in His mind a New Temple only a
spiritual structure, a human Temple.
In this light also we can understand Christ's saying to His
disciples, in effect, that what had happened, or was about to happen,
to Him, must also happen to them, and that they would be united
with Him : ' If they persecuted me they will also persecute you," " If
I have done great works ye shall do greater works," " I go before
you to Galilee/' "In my Father's house are many mansions...! come
again and will receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye
may be also 2 ." If He died for His disciples, so that they too died,
in Him as the Pauline epistles 3 teach how could it be other than
just and natural that His resurrection should be in their behalf, and
no less vicarious than His death ? Whether He was to " receive "
them in " Galilee," or in His Father's " house," or in some
"mountain 4 " that He had "appointed" to His disciples, all these
traditions about their future meeting, and about their future unity
with Him, appear to receive light from Ezekiel's words, if, instead of
his name, " Ezekiel," we substitute his appellation, " son of man," as
follows, " Thus shall the son of man be unto you a sign. According
to all that he hath done shall ye also do."
1 [3095 a] Ezek. xxiv. 24. Isaiah and his children are also (Is. viii. 18)
" signs " in Israel (and comp. Jer. xxvii. i foil.) ; but there is no other prophet who
is so frequently called "a sign" as Ezekiel, either in his own person, or in his
typical actions, Ezek. iv. 3, xii. 6 n " I have set thee for a sign unto the house
of Israel. ..say, 'I am your sign; like as I have done, so shall it be done unto
them ; they shall go into exile, into captivity.'"
2 Comp. Jn xv. 20, xiv. 11, Mk xiv. 28, Mt. xxvi. 32, Jn xiv. i 3.
3 i Cor. v. 15.
* Mt. xxviii. 16.
95
[3097] PARALLELISMS
7. The adoption of the Gentiles
[3097] The adoption of the Gentiles is touched on by Ezekiel in
a spirit rather more like that of Jesus (in some passages of the
gospels) than in the corresponding passages to be found in other
prophets. Isaiah, it is true, has, on this subject, much that antici-
pates an expansive Judaism in which the Gentiles are to be the
willing subjects and servants of the spiritual Israel. But there is
perhaps nothing in Isaiah that quite comes up to the feeling of
fraternity in the following passage of Ezekiel : " So shall ye divide
this land unto you according to the tribes of Israel. And it shall
come to pass that ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto
you and to the strangers that sojourn among you, who shall beget
children among you : and they shall be unto you as the homeborn
among the tribes of Israel.... In what tribe the stranger sojourneth,
there shall ye give him his inheritance, saith the Lord God 1 ." This
resembles the prediction of Jesus, " Many shall come from the east
and from the west and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac
and Jacob 2 ."
[3098] Ezekiel's only mention of Abraham 3 is one that dis-
courages the Jews from looking to him as their special patron whose
merits must needs descend upon his degenerate descendants.
A similar feeling perhaps inspired John the Baptist when he
warned his countrymen that they must not think to save themselves
by pleading that they were " children of Abraham." God was able,
he said, to "raise up from the stones children unto Abraham 4 ."
This is a spirit of justice, like that which prompted Ezekiel to say
that no man should be saved by the merits, nor lost by the demerits,
of others 5 . But does it not also this putting aside of the fleshly
claims of " the sons of Abraham " in a special way harmonize
with Ezekiel's consciousness that a Voice from heaven is teaching the
prophet to regard himself as something more than a son of Israel 6 ?
1 Ezek. xlvii. 21 foil. On "stranger," Rashi says " Qui scilicet proselytus
factus est in exilio in eadem tribu [Israelitica]."
2 Mt. viii. n, comp. Lk. xiii. 28 9.
3 Ezek. xxxiii. 24, see 3113. 4 Mt. iii. 9, Lk. iii. 8.
'" Ezek. xviii. 2 foil.
6 [3098 a] Another parallelism, minor but not unworthy of note, relates to
Sodom. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Amos, go so far as to place Israel or Jerusalem as
low, or nearly as low, as Sodom, in respect of sinfulness. And the Lamentations
96
BETWEEN EZEKIEL AND JESUS [3100]
8. The New Temple
[3099] Another point of similarity between Ezekiel and Jesus
if at least we accept the testimony of three evangelists, against the
silence of Luke refers to predictions concerning the Temple.
Ezekiel is the only one of the prophets to predict in clear terms
the construction of a new temple as well as the destruction of the
old one. Jesus also is said by John, and implied by Mark and
Matthew, to have predicted construction as well as destruction.
But this prediction introduces also a point of dissimilarity. Every-
thing in the prophet's description of the new structure implies that it
is to be a material one even though the picture of it is blended
with the apparently poetical symbol of the river of living water that
is to flow down from the Eastern gate of the new temple, into the
Arabah, and there to " heal " the sea of Sodom.
Here, it may be said, the prophet does not mount to the same
altitude of thought as is attained in Isaiah : "Thus saith the high
and lofty one that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy : I dwell
in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and
humble spirit," and again, " the heaven is my throne and the earth is
my footstool; what manner of house will ye build for me?... But to
this [man] will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite
spirit 1 ."
[3100] Doubtless it is so. There are no indications that Ezekiel
had been led to believe that there could ever be any real restoration
of captive Israel without a simultaneous restoration of the material
temple. On the other hand, the very last sentence of his prophecy
says (iv. 6) "The iniquity (marg. punishment of the iniquity) of the daughter
of my people is greater than the sin (marg. punishment of the sin) of Sodom "
(on which see Rashi and Sanhedr. 104 6). But no prophet ventures to say to
Jerusalem, with Ezekiel, in a detailed comparison of Jerusalem (xvi. 46 56) with
her "sisters," Sodom and Samaria (ib. 52 3) "They are more righteous than
thou," and to add, in God's name, " / will turn again their captivity, the
captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her
daughters." Nothing in the whole of the Bible comes so close as this does to the
tradition of Matthew (x. 15, xi. 24) and Luke (x. 12) that the "judgment" on
Sodom shall be, not "less heavy," but "more tolerable" than for the cities in
Palestine that reject the Gospel.
See also 3553 i for the expression, peculiar to Ezekiel, " the stumbling-block of
their iniquity," as illustrating the Gospel doctrine of "offence" or "stumbling."
1 Is. Ivii. 15, Ixvi. i 2.
A. s, 97 7
[3101] PARALLELISMS
quaintly combines the literal with the spiritual in such a way as to
shew that the latter is all-important : " It shall be eighteen thousand
[reeds] round about. And the name of the city from that day
shall be, 'The Lord is there.'"
If this did not imply, it at least suggested, that a temple was, in
fact, a divine presence. We have to read these final words, this
name of the new Jerusalem, THE LORD is THERE, in the light of the
vision of ' the appearance of a man " above the throne. We have to
think of THE LORD is THERE in connection with the motions of the
one " spirit," and along with the subsequent vision of the breathing
of that " spirit " into the dry bones of desolate Israel. Then it will
be perceived that, even if Ezekiel himself could not emancipate him-
self from the thought of the necessity of a literal temple of stone for
Jehovah, yet at least he prepared readers in future ages for such an
emancipation. "The spirit," in Ezekiel, did not mean all that it
means for Christians, but it went a long way toward the Christian
meaning.
[3101] It was a natural inference that in the time to come such
Jews as discarded unrighteous claims based on mere physical
descent from Abraham and gave preference to pious Gentiles, would
meditate on this new name, THE LORD is THERE, and would say
" Wherever a few righteous souls are gathered together in the name
of righteousness ' the Lord is there,' and consequently the Shechinah
is there 1 " to which some might add, "And the Shechinah con-
stitutes the Temple."
This spiritual doctrine of the presence of the divine with the
human may be taught in two opposite expressions of material motion.
The human may be described as being lifted up into the divine
presence, "Where I am, ye shall be." Or the divine may be
described as coming down to the human presence, "Where ye are, I
will be." Either way, the same fundamental truth is taught. When
therefore we hear Him who called Himself " son of man " saying
" Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there
1 [3101 a] Comp. Aboth iii. 9, which quotes Scripture to prove that when ten,
or five, or three, or two, or even one, is studying the Law, the Shechinah is
present; also ib. 6 "Three that have eaten at one table and have said over it
words of the Law are as if they had eaten of the table of THE PLACE (i.e. God)
blessed is He ! For it is said, And he said unto me, This is the table that is
before the Lord (Ezek. xli. 22) ; also ib. ii. 17 " Make not thy prayer an ordinance
but an entreaty before THE PLACE, blessed is He...," and see Taylor's note on
PLACE (i.e. space) as a name of God. See 3378 a, 3587, 3589 a.
98
BETWEEN EZEKIEL AND JESUS [3103]
am I in the midst of them 1 ," we are justified in tracing back the
thought to Ezekiel's vision of Humanity enthroned in heaven and to
Ezekiel's name for the City to be built on earth.
9. Parables
[3102] Our English Concordance gives " parables," in the plural,
as occurring nowhere in the Old Testament except in Ezekiel:
" Then said I, Ah Lord God, they say of me, Is he not a speaker of
parables 2 ?" The prophet is twice bidden expressly as no other
prophet is to speak a parable to rebellious Israel*. Moreover,
without mention of the word " parable," he is bidden to be, in effect,
a parable to them : " Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of the
rebellious house, which have eyes to see and see not, which have
ears to hear and hear not... therefore..." and then follow instruc-
tions to him to "remove" his "stuff" and "dig through the wall" of
his house, so making himself a " sign unto the house of Israel " that
they may realise the capture of Jerusalem*. To no other prophet
does the command come with so much emphasis, that he is to be
a " sign," that is, a human parable, " Say, I am your sign," and again,
"Thus Ezekiel is unto you a sign*."
[3103] The words " which have eyes to see and see not " remind
us of similar words uttered by Jesus in connection with the Parable
of the Sower, and open up the difficult question as to His reason for
speaking in parables. According to the quotation given by the
Synoptists from Isaiah, parables were to be used in order that the
hearers might not understand. But Ezekiel is bidden to make him-
self a sign to the people that " have eyes to see and see not," that
they may understand : " // may be they -will consider, though they be
a rebellious house 6 " ; and this is the view taken by one of Matthew's
two versions of the prophecy about " not seeing 7 ."
Elsewhere Matthew explains Christ's action in teaching by
parables by quoting part of the following: "Give ear, O my people, to
my law.... I will open my mouth in a parable. I will utter dark
1 Mt. xviii. 20.
* Ezek. xx. 49. 3 Ezek. xvii. i, xxiv. 3.
4 Ezek. xii. i foil. 5 Ezek. xii. n, xxiv. 24. See 3094 6.
8 Ezek. xii. 3.
7 Mt. xiii. 13 "because they do not see" is parall. to Mk-Lk. "in order that
they may not see," but Mt. xiii. 14 afterwards quotes Isaiah in full and by name.
See 33545.
99 72
[3104] PARALLELISMS
sayings of old 1 ." The Psalmist's " parable " proceeds to give a
history of the redemption of Israel from the Exodus to the time of
David, who was taken " from following the ewes that give suck " to
be the shepherd that "fed" the nation "according to the integrity of
his heart."
[3104] It belongs to a treatise on the Fourfold Gospel to com-
pare the different evangelistic views of Christ's parables. Here we
have merely to note that Matthew's last quoted conception of a
parable seems to be that of a plan of redemption, a spiritual Exodus
from a spiritual Egypt 2 . It is the revelation of a New Law which
the Psalmist, the type of Christ, calls "my law" "Give ear, O my
people, unto my law"
According to this view, the Parable of the Sower includes the
Parable of the Redemption of Mankind. It means what it is
commonly supposed to mean, but it means more. It inculcates the
necessity of receiving and not stifling the seed, but it teaches also
that the seed must, in some sense, " die." The seed is the type of
humanity dying and rising again. This, if suggested at all by Mark,
is very faintly hinted at by the saying which almost immediately
follows the Parable of the Sower that nothing is hidden except that
it may be manifested 3 , if that may be taken as referring to the hiding
of the seed in the ground. But John, in his parable of the seed or
grain of corn, puts the truth more plainly "if it die it bringeth
forth much fruit 4 "; and he distinctly connects it with the coming of
the Greeks to Jesus.
[3105] Our present point is merely this, that Ezekiel in the Old
Testament, and Jesus in the New, are uniquely connected with
parables ; that, as Ezekiel presents himself for a visible parable or
"sign," so does Jesus, if He speaks of Himself in connection
with "the sign of Jonah 5 ," and (according to John) in connection
with the destruction of the Temple and the " sign " of raising it up in
three days 6 . Whether we agree or not with Matthew's wide sugges-
1 Mt. xiii. 35, quoting Ps. Ixxviii. 2, has "in parables," and "things hidden
from the foundation of the world."
2 So Jerome ad loc., perhaps following Origen (on Proverbs, Lomm. xiii. 226).
3 Mk iv. 22. On "the doctrine of hiding" see Notes 2998 (Iv) d m, and
comp. Mt. xiii. 33, Lk. xiii. 21.
4 Jn xii. 24. 5 Mt. xii. 39 foil.
6 Jn ii. 1819 "What sign workest thou ?... Destroy this temple and I will
raise it up in three days. "
BETWEEN EZEKIEL AND JESUS [3106]
tion as to the scope of Christ's parables revealing " things hidden
from the foundation of the world " we can hardly fail to recognise
that, in teaching thus through parables, Jesus would have in view
the prophet who was expressly bidden to teach in parables, and
who, more than any other prophet, discerned in earthly things the
parables, parallels, or counterparts, on earth, of ideals in heaven 1 .
10. The "ww heart" and "new spirit"
[3106] Above, at the conclusion (3086) of the section on " the
spirit," attention was caUed to the fact that "a new spirit" is men-
tioned thrice by Ezekiel and by no other prophet It must here be
added that Ezekiel twice mentions " a new heart " and also " a
heart of flesh " as contrasted with " the stony heart 2 ." Isaiah pre-
dicts that God will "create new heavens and a new earth 3 ," Jeremiah
predicts " a new covenant 4 ," but Ezekiel predicts a "newness" more
like that of the gospels when he suggests that not even a "new
heaven and earth " will make man new unless his " heart " and
"spirit" are changed.
The gospels preach the doctrine of Ezekiel under a new
metaphor. Instead of having the old heart taken out and replaced
by a new one, man is to be made anew, to become as a little child,
or receive the nature of a little child, or be born from above. The
language is entirely different, but the thought is the same and it
permeates Christ's teaching.
A characteristic of " the stony heart " was that it trusted in what
may be called " things of stone " either in the Law of the Tables of
stone when fulfilled to the letter, or else in the Temple of stone
when duly attended thrice in the year with the due offering of
sacrifices. Jeremiah says, "Trust ye not in lying words, saying,
' The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the
Lord, are these,'" and then, "I will do unto the house... and unto
the place which I gave to you. ..as I have done to Shiloh 5 ."
1 [3105 a] Dissatisfaction with the Synoptic treatment of ' ' parables " appears
to be implied in the Johannine substitution of the word " proverb," rapoinia., on
which see Jn x. 6, xvi. 25, 29, andfoA. Voc. 1721 a d.
On a parallelism between "the elders" in Ezekiel and "the elders" in the
gospels, see 3184 c foil.
2 Ezek. xviii. 31, xxxvi. 26. 3 Is. Ixv. 17. * Jer. xxxi. 31.
5 [3106 a] Jer. vii. 4 14 (Targ.) "Trust not in the lying words of prophets,
who say, ' Ye worship before the temple of the Lord, ye sacrifice before the
101
[3107] PARALLELISMS
Ezekiel does not warn his countrymen against trusting to the
Temple. He could not well do this. For the old Temple was
destroyed, and it would have been unseasonable to warn them
against the new Temple, not yet in being, which was to stand in
the city called " The Lord is there." But he does warn a man
against ''trusting to his own righteousness^? as though the man could
store up a supply of merit by his works, and, on the strength of that,
commit unrighteousness with impunity. The expression is rare in
the Old Testament and it recalls Luke's description of the Pharisees
as men who "trusted in themselves that they were righteous" This
warning is a part, the negative part, of the doctrine of the " new
heart." Those who have the " new heart," the " heart of flesh "
which is plastic, always open to, and dependent on, the influence of
the "new spirit" will not trust in anything but the Spirit and
Presence of the Lord.
[3107] In conclusion, it may be added that the influence of the
prophecy of Ezekiel on the Jewish theology of the first and second
centuries must not be measured by modern estimates of certain
portions of the book (such as deal with the architecture of the
New Temple) which are, for us, more curious than edifying, nor by
the number of quotations from it in our Lord's teaching. The book
does not lend itself to quotation. Its visions and types and thoughts
temple of the Lord, ye adore before the temple of the Lord. Thrice in the year
do ye appear before Him.' " "The place" in Jer. vii. 14 appears to mean "the
temple " or its precincts. The passage says, in effect, " Trust not in the Place of
stone, but (it. 6) ' oppress not... shed not innocent blood.' " For " place " meaning
"temple," or "holy place," comp. Acts vi. 14, xxi. 28 (Mt. xxiv. 15 "holy
place") and especially Jn xi. 48 (the words of the chief priests and Pharisees in
"council") " If we let him alone. ..the Romans will come and take away our
place and our nation."
This is an instance of Johannine irony. The words of the speakers who are
in effect " the elders of the Jews" are, in one sense, like "the lying words of
prophets," not to be "trusted." They put above all things "the Place" of
stone, and prepare to "shed innocent blood" for its sake.
1 [3106*] Ezek. xxxiii. 13, comp. Lk. xviii. 9. Comp. also Jn v. 45 "There
is one that accuseth you, Moses, on whom ye have set your hope (A.V. in whom
ye trust)." That is to say, the Jews had reduced the humane Law of God, given
through Moses, to a Law of stone. And now they claimed Moses as their witness
that they were righteous because they obeyed that Law. But the man, Moses,
stood up, not to defend them, but to accuse them, because they had petrified
the spirit of the Law of God so as to make it a mechanical means of acquiring
a righteousness of their own, apart from God's Spirit.
IO2
BETWEEN EZEKIEL AND JESUS [3107]
are to be absorbed rather than its words to be quoted 1 . We must
measure its influence by the extent to which its imagery permeates
the Johannine Revelation, and its thoughts the Johannine gospel,
while some of its deepest teaching is also to be traced in the
Synoptic gospels. Nor must we forget, in addition to the definite
coincidences of circumstance above enumerated between the Prophet
and the Messiah, that the whole of Ezekiel's prophecy, like the
whole of Christ's Gospel, bears on the Building of the New Temple,
which, in the Old Testament, one called " son of man " predicts, and,
in the New Testament, one calling Himself " son of man " performs 2 .
1 [3107 a] ( i ) For Ezekiel's only reference to Abraham, the superstitious and
immoral belief that Abraham's merits must apply to his degenerate descendants,
and for the parallel between this and the fourth gospel, see 3113.
(2) A parallel referring to judgment may perhaps be found in Ezek. xx. 4
" Wilt \hoMjudge them, son of adam, wilt thou judge them ? Cause them to know
the abominations of their fathers...," xxii. i "And thou, son of adam, wilt thou
judge, wilt thou judge, the bloody city...?" xxiii. 36 " Son of adam, wilt thou
judge Oholah...?" compared with the Johannine statement (Jn v. 27) that Jesus
had received "authority to do judgment" because He was " son of man."
(3) On the mention of " my table " by God (Ezek. xliv. 16) practically
unique in O.T. and by Christ (Lk. xxii. 30) unique in N.T. see 3278 c.
2 [3107 b\ Ezekiel nowhere mentions "a new law." Apart from a condem-
nation of " the priests " (vii. 16 tl the law shall perish from the priest," xxii. 26 "her
priests have done violence to my law") he hardly mentions " law " (sing.) except
in xliii. 11 " This is the law of the house : upon the top of the mountain the whole
limit thereof round about shall be most holy. Behold, this is the law of the house."
The twofold repetition (Joh. Gr., Index " Twofold ") suggests a mystical meaning,
and so does the use of " this" (ib. " This").
[3107 c] Rashi ad loc. says that the building was not according to Ezekiel's
pattern owing to the sins of the Jews ; but he does not tell us what was to have
been " the law of the house"
Origen's comment is lost. But Jerome's comment ad. loc. which, like many
of Jerome's sayings, reads as if borrowed*from Origen implies that " the law of
the house " is to be (i) its height (Mt. v. 14 " a city set on a hill cannot be hid "),
(2) its holiness, issuing from it like a stream (Ezek. xlvii. i 12, Ps. xlvi. 4, to
which might be added Jn vii. 38), (3) the breaking down of the distinction between
"holy" and "most holy." Henceforth all is to be " most holy " "the whole
limit round about." This agrees with the name given to the whole city (Ezek.
xlviii. 35) "the Lord is there." On the mention of "the Law" in the gospels see
3493 a.
[3107 d~\ Elsewhere, however, Ezekiel (xl. 19 foil.) seems to imply a denial
that "all is to be 'most holy'" by repeatedly mentioning the "inner court."
The Hieronyman view must therefore be regarded as a mystical interpretation of
a single passage of Ezekiel, important only so far as it indicates the view that might
be taken by a Jewish reformer who conceived that all the sons of the spiritual Israel
were to be (Rev. i. 6) "a kingdom, priests...," and identical with the sons of the
103
[3107] PARALLELISMS
spiritual Adam. The book of Revelation is permeated with a mystical adaptation
of Ezekiel's conception of the Temple, and, if Revelation was written (at all events
in large measure) by John the Apostle, the book confirms the supposition that
Jesus also had Ezekiel's Temple often in His mind. See 3588 foil.
"HE THAT HEARETH LET HIM HEAR 1 '
[3107 e\ The following remarks ought to have been placed at the beginning of
this section. For there is something more important than mere verbal similarity
in the parallelism between Ezek. iii. 27 "But when I speak with thee, I will open
thy mouth, and thou shall say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God : He that
heareth let him hear (or, he -will hear}... " and the words, several times repeated
in the Synoptists, " He that hath ears to hear let him hear"
No prophet but Ezekiel uses these words. Wetstein, Schottgen, and Horae
Hebraicae do not illustrate the Synoptic phrase from any Jewish tradition, nor
from Ezekiel. Yet the phrase in Ezekiel appears to have been regarded, in the
first century, as capable of several interpretations, some of which might bear on the
gospels. Rashi, on Ezekiel, says that "Thou shalt say...' Thus. ..God'" means,
"Thou shalt say all the words of my message [i.e. the message I give thee to
Israel]." Then, concerning the words " He that heareth let him hear (or, he will
hear)," he adds " These are not words of the message. But the Holy Spirit says to
the prophet, ' Say unto them my message. And he that he hears among them,
let him hear (or, he will hear), and he that desists (desistit) let him desist (or, he
will desist). For I know that not all are about to hearken, since they are a
rebellious house.' "
[3107 f\ It will readily be perceived that Rashi 's caution, italicised above,
" These are not "words of the message," is by no means superfluous. Apart from
Ezekiel's context, we might naturally have inferred that the prophet was instructed
by God to begin his prophecy with the words, u ffe that heareth let him hear"
so that these were " words of the message " of God delivered by the prophet. But
the context disproves this. Ezekiel is repeatedly warned by God that he is to
persist with his message, though Israel is (Ezek. ii. 3, 6, 7, 8 etc.) "rebellious."
The command is given (ii. 7) "Thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether
they will hear or whether they will forbear ; for they are most rebellious," (iii. 1 1)
"Speak unto them and say unto them, 'Thus saith the Lord God,' whether they
will hear or whether they will forbear." It is clear from this last passage that
" Thus saith the Lord God" is to be repeated publicly by the prophet to the
people ; but "'whether they will hear or whether they will forbear' 1 '' is not to be
repeated. It is uttered privately by God to the prophet. And the same thing
applies to the later utterance (iii. 27) "He that heareth let him hear (or, he will
hear) and he that forbeareth let him forbear (or, he will forbear)." It is the
saying of God, and it is uttered privately to the prophet.
[3107 ] But, if this is God's saying, and if the verb is imperative, can we
suppose that God would use an imperative, or a quasi-imperative (''let him
forbear") as regards a disobedient sinner, saying, in effect, " If he is disobedient
let him be disobedient"! On the other hand, if the verb is future, what sense,
worthy of God, can be extracted from " He that heareth will hear, and he that
forbearelh will forbear " ?
The Targum meets this difficulty by supplying "from sin " after "forbear " in
Ezek. iii. 27, thus, " He that receiveth let him receive the teaching, and he that
forbeareth let him forbear from sin." Similarly, in Ezek. ii. 7 taking the
104
BETWEEN EZEKIEL AND JESUS [3107]
Hebrew " /" (or " whether") as " if [perchance]" it has "Thou shalt prophesy
the words of my prophecy to them, if [perchance] they shall receive the teaching
and if [perchance] they shall forbear from sin"; and again (ib. iii. n) "Thou
shalt say unto them ' Thus saith the Lord God ' if [perchance"] they shall receive
the teaching, and if [perchance'] they shall forbear from sin." The Vulgate has a
similar interpretation.
[3107 A] That the difficulty was an early one is indicated by Aquila's two
renderings of the passage under discussion (Ezek. iii. 27) rendered by LXX "he
that heareth let him [continue to] hear and he that is disobedient let him [continue
to] be disobedient (6 ireiOuv a-ireiOeiru) " (where continuance is implied by the
pres. imperative). Aquila has, ist ed., "and he that ceaseth let him continue-to-
cease (6 iravb/Atvos trav^o-Ou (v.r. -ffdffOu)), 2nd ed., "He that heareth shall be
heard, and he that leaveth [alone] shall be left [alone]." This second version has
come down to us only in Jerome's Latin " Qui audit audietur ; et qui relinquit
relinquetur."
Ezekiel has perhaps been imitated in Daniel (xii. 10) " Many shall purify
themselves... and be refined, but the wicked shall do wickedly." There is no
imperative here. But Theod. has dvofj-Jiffwriv (v.r. -aovffw) avofj.cn. and LXX has
afjuipTUffiv oi anapTuXoi. The Greek subjunctives, when taken by themselves in
quotations, lend themselves to the rendering "let the sinner continue to sin." And
we find the Elders of the Church of Vienne writing (Euseb. v. i. 58) "That the
scripture may be fulfilled, ' Let the lawless do lawlessness still (6 dvo/uos opo/iijo-aTw
frt) and let the righteous be made-righteous still (KOI 6 Sf/ccuos 5i/ceuw0i7rw )."
This is like Theodotion's version of Daniel, but still more like Rev. xxii. n "He
that is unrighteous let him do-unrighteousness still (6 adiKwv d8iKi)<ra.Tu frt) and he
that is filthy let him be made-filthy still, and he that is righteous let him do
(rotijo-dTw) righteousness still, and he that is holy let him be made-holy (ayiaffBrrru)
still."
To these facts others might be added, e.g. various interpretations of the
imperatives italicised in Is. vi. 9 " Hear ye indeed but understand not," and hi
Prov. xxviii. 17 "...shall flee unto the pit, let no man stay him " (Vulg. "nemo
sustinet" Targ. Walton "non comprehendent"). But enough has been said to
shew the difficulty caused to scribes and interpreters by the thought that God
"lets" the wicked "do-wickedly," or says, about the disobedient, "let them
continue-to-disobey. " The hypothesis of such a difficulty may explain, at least in
part, why Luke (vi. 39) may have omitted " let them alone" when he wrote his
own version of Mt. xv. 14 "Let them alone. They are blind guides. But if the
blind lead the blind both shall fall into a pit."
[3107 1] Our present point, however, is the apparent probability that part of
Ezekiel's unique saying unique at least in O.T. is reproduced allusively in our
gospels. I have not indeed been able to find an instance of an early Christian
commentary identifying the saying in N.T. with the saying in O.T. either as a
coincidence or as a quotation ; but Jerome comes near it. For in his commentary
on Ezek. iii. 27 he not only mentions the varieties of the interpretation of the
Hebrew, but also shews how one interpretation of the Hebrew harmonizes with a
saying of Christ's that has at least a close connection with the parable of the
Sower. " But what we have set down," says Jerome, " ' He that heareth let him
hear, and he that desisteth [from evil] (quiescit) let him desist '...is thus translated
by the second edition of Aquila, l He that heareth will be heard, and he that leaveth
off [to hear] will be left [to himself and forsaken by God}.' And [then, this] is the
[3107] PARALLELISMS
sense (Mk iv. 25, Mt. xiii. 12, Lk. viii. 18) ' He that hath, to him shall be given
(Mt. + and he shall have abundance) ; but he that hath not, even that which he
seemeth to have (Mk-Mt. that which he hath) shall be taken away from him.' "
[3107/] This saying, "he that hath," is quoted by Jerome from an utterance
of Jesus, as to which Luke agrees with Mark in placing it after His explanation of
the parable of the Sower privately to the disciples, whereas Matthew (xiii. 12)
places it before this explanation. Luke, however, differs from Mark in the
following respect. Mark connects "he that hath" closely with "he that hath ears
to hear," thus (iv. 23 5) u If anyone hath ears to hear let him hear; and he
began-to-say (or, used-to-say) (t\eyev) to them Take heed what (Lk. viii. 18 how)
ye hear. In what measure ye mete... For he that hath, to him shall be given ; and
he that hath not... taken from him"; but Luke separates (viii. 8) " he that hath
ears" from (viii. 18) " he that hath" by a wide interval. In Mark, the two
sayings are part of Christ's private warning to the disciples at the conclusion of
His explanation of the parable ; in Luke, " he that hath ears " is a public " cry "
(viii. 8 " saying these things he cried") to all the people at the conclusion, not of
the explanation, but of the parable itself; while "he that hath'' comes at the
conclusion of the explanation, and is a private warning intended for the disciples
alone.
[3107 ] It might appear then at first sight that Mark differs altogether both
from Matthew and from Luke in that he treats "he that hath ears" as a private
x utterance somewhat as "he that hearetk" in Ezekiel was regarded (3107 e) by
Rashi. But that is not the case. For we have passed over (while following the
clue given by Jerome) an earlier Marcan use of the phrase, where Mark agrees
with Matthew and Luke :
Mk iv. 8io Mt. xiii. 89 Lk. viii. 8
"...and sixty and a "...and some sixty and "...a hundredfold,
hundred. And he began- some thirty. ' He that While-saying (\tyuv)
to-say (ZXeyw) ' He that hath ears let him hear?" these things, he cried
hath ears to hear, let him (e^oWt) 'He that hath
hear.'' And, when he ears to hear let him
was alone...." hear.'"
All the Synoptists immediately proceed to describe the disciples as questioning
Jesus (Mk-Lk.) about the meaning of the parable or (Mt.) about Christ's reason
for teaching in parables. Mark emphasizes, by contrast, the privacy of the
questioning of the disciples by adding "when he was alone." Luke emphasizes,
by contrast, the publicity of the supposed cry of Jesus ("he that hath ears etc.")
by prefixing to it " he cried." Matthew abstains from either emphasis.
It looks as though the evangelists were dealing with a saying of Jesus known
by all the early evangelists to be connected in some way with the parable of the
Sower and its moral, and with Christ's doctrine about "hearing" the Gospel; but
in what precise way it was connected they seem not to have known. Hence we
find Mark here, according to his custom of "conflating" that is combining two
traditions of one original repeating " he that hath ears" twice, first as a public
utterance at the end of the parable of the Sower itself, and then as a private
utterance at the end of the explanation of the parable. Matthew and Luke use
it only once in the parable of the Sower.
But Matthew also inserts it once (xi. 15) in connection with Elijah and John
the Baptist and once (xiii. 43) in his parable of the Tares. Luke also inserts it
106
BETWEEN EZEKIEL AND JESUS [3107]
once (xiv. 35) in connection with the doctrine about "salt" losing its savour.
Some authorities add it in Mark (vii. 16) about that which "defileth the man."
[3107 /] These just-mentioned instances of "he that hath ears" peculiar to
Matthew and Luke shew that the phrase had come to be regarded by some as
being little more than a teacher's summons to his pupils to be "attentive." But
if Jerome is right in his comment above quoted on Ezekiel (iii. 27) Christ's
meaning was very different. It was, in reality, a difficult and mysterious saying,
not unlikely to be confused with that in Revelation (xxiL 1 1) " He that is
unrighteous let him do unrighteousness still... and he that is righteous let him do
righteousness still," which Origen (on Jn xiii. 10 foil.) quotes along with the
Synoptic tradition "He that hath."
In this note, the main points have been, in the first place the parallelism
between the saying in Ezekiel and some instances of the saying in the gospels, and
in the next place the confusions apparently caused by the doubt in the minds of
evangelists whether the saying was a "public" or a "private" one, parallel to the
doubt about the saying in Ezekiel. It has been a secondary consideration, yet it
is a far more important one, that Jesus may have actually said, in the parable of
the Sower, not, "He that hath ears to hear let him hear," but "He that heareth
with his ears" that is (as Isaiah (vi. 10) uses the phrase), heareth indeed and in
earnest "he [and he alone} will hear" that is, "he alone will continue to
progress in hearkening and understanding."
If this was our Lord's meaning, then we can better understand, in the expla-
nation of the parable of the Sower, His reference to Isaiah's warning to his
countrymen about "hearing with their ears." Then, too, we can understand why
Mark, and Mark alone, begins this parable with the cry of Jesus (iv. 2) " Hear ye."
It will then be seen that the saying "He that hath ears will hear" is only a
particular form of the general saying "He that hath, to him shall be added." It
is an exemplification of the principle of the germ, taught by Jesus in the parables
of "the mustard-seed" and "the leaven" as well as in that of "the sower."
Naturally such a saying might have many applications and might be used on
many different occasions. Sometimes it might teach the disciples themselves to
be careful how they "heard." Sometimes it might teach them to warn others
to be thus careful. Sometimes it might teach them to preach on patiently as
Ezekiel prophesied, whether men "heard" or whether men did not "hear," since
the "hearing" did not rest with the preacher. But in any case the words of Jesus
seem to have always meant something more than a mere summons to attention ;
and there is also strong reason for concluding that they derive their meaning
from the precedent in Ezekiel "He that heareth will hear.' 1 ''
ADDENDUM ON "SPIRIT"
[3107 m~\ Gen. i. 2 "And the spirit (ruach) of God moved upon the face of the
waters" is interpreted by Philo (i. 265) and Josephus (Ant. i. i. i iwOev for 0eoO)
as referring to "wind" ; and it is alleged to have been quoted by high authority
("Rab") in Chag. 12 a as a proof that "wind and water" were created on the
first day. Ben Zoma (ib. 14^) who, when "considering the interval between the
upper and the lower waters," is said to have regarded ruach as the Spirit of God
"brooding as a dove," was described by R. Joshua as being "out of his mind."
These facts bear on the interpretation of Jn iii. 3 8 HvwQev (bis).
107
CHAPTER VII
A WORKING HYPOTHESIS
i. The divinity of Man
[3108] Before proceeding to the detailed examination of the
evidence afforded by the gospels as to the meaning of "the son
of man," it will be well to define something of the nature of a
working hypothesis derivable from the facts stated above. We take
it as proved that the term was not recognised as a Messianic title
before Jesus began to use it 1 . And we take it as a probable, or
at least as a reasonable hypothesis, that He would call Himself,
in accordance with the Targumistic appellation of Ezekiel, Bar
Adam. But can we put aside or keep in suspense without entirely
rejecting the hypothesis that He used some form of the Aramaic
bar nash(a) ?
Bar nash(a} might have been used in such a hypothetical
utterance as " The son of man shall not live by bread alone,"
meaning " man in his right relation to God " where Deuteronomy,
and our gospels, have literally "the man," and the Jerusalem
Targum has " the son of man," meaning mankind 2 .
It is also conceivable that Jesus, beginning by using some form
of bar nash(a) in sayings about the duty and authority and destiny
of the Man, gradually came to apply them to Himself as representing
the Man, at first rejected and smitten but finally raised up and
enthroned. And Christ's predictions of the enthronement of "the
son of man," having some verbal resemblance with Daniel's Aramaic
prediction of the enthronement of "one like unto a son of man"
might naturally (it would seem) use the Aramaic term.
1 After Christ's death it was of course recognised as Messianic by Christian
Jews, but only as the result of its being identified with Christ.
2 Deut. viii. 3 quoted in Mt. iv. 4, Lk. iv. 4. See 3126, 3127 a.
108
A WORKING HYPOTHESIS [3110]
[3109] Against this explanation, however, there are two important
considerations. One is, that the early translators of the gospels into
Syriac (which is a form of Aramaic) do not appear satisfied with
idiomatic Syriac or Aramaic, but resort sometimes to idioms unused
elsewhere in their language 1 . Another is, that the Aramaic "son of
Adam" not only covers the ground (so to speak) covered by the
Aramaic "son of man" but also covers more ground, and may
explain the difficulty felt by Syrian commentators who may have
had a vague sense that "man " referred to a definite person.
[3110] On the one hand, the Aramaic "son of man" is not
known to have been ever applied to any definite person as a title.
On the other hand, in addition to the fact that the Aramaic "son
of Adam " is known to have been applied to Ezekiel in the Targum,
we have found, between Jesus and Ezekiel, many striking parallel-
isms, in respect both of circumstance and of doctrine, such as cannot
be alleged between Jesus and any other prophet.
The hypothesis of an original " son of Adam " has been shewn
to explain the Pauline mention of Christ as "the last Adam" or
"second Man"; and Luke's "son of Seth, son of Adam, son of
God " ; and the worship of Christ, in the second century, by the
Sethians, under the name of "Seth." It has also helped us to
explain the feeling of the earliest Christian commentators that some
definite " man " was intended, and, in particular, some patriarch.
It is true that Origen protests against the supposition that any
" definite man " is intended ; but he would not have protested
1 [3109 a] See also 3011. To this it may be added that modern trans-
lations of N.T. into Hebrew (and also the Clementine translation) use ben
ha-adam, of which Dalman says incidentally (p. 238) "bar enasha, just like
ben ha-adam, is quite unheard of in the older Jewish Aramaic literature."
Delitzsch (1878) habitually has ben ha-adam. But in Mk viii. 38 (parallel to
Mt. xvi. 27, Lk. ix. 26) and in Mt. ix. 6 (parallel to Mk ii. 10, Lk. v. 24) he has
ben adam, against ben ha-adam in the parallels. He also has ben adorn in
Jn v. 27 "because he is son of man." There he may have deliberately omitted
the article in Hebrew to correspond with the omission of the article in Greek.
But in the first two instances the omission of the article appears to be a misprint
or an inconsistency.
[3109 b} Ben adam would most naturally mean " a common man," " a low-
bom man," and it might well seem absurd to say, "that ye may know that
a common or low-born man has power to forgive sins." Bar Adam would not
be so open to this objection because it would suggest a definite person, like
Barabbas or Barjesus. But, if Matthew's gospel was written in Hebrew, as
ancient tradition asserts, the evangelist might think it necessary to translate bar
into ben, without considering the confusion that would result.
109
[3111] A WORKING HYPOTHESIS
against the supposition that Adam was intended, if "Adam" was
used in its fullest sense, as representing not only fallen humanity
but also the likeness of God and the divinity of Man. Origen himself,
as we have seen (3075), bids us consider " the man " in the light
of those passages of scripture in which God is said to be "a man."
[3111] The title Bar Adam should be compared with Bar David,
Bar Jesse, Bar Israel, Bar Abraham. To those who heard it for
the first time it would perhaps merely suggest one who called himself
what every human being may call himself, but by a strange peri-
phrasis. To others sinners perhaps or publicans it might suggest
son of sinful Adam. To others, in time, it might suggest very much
more a title of conspicuous honour. Bar Jesse had come to mean
the Son of Jesse, David. Bar David had come to mean the Son of
David, the Messiah. So might Bar Adam come to mean the Son
of Adam, the Heir and Champion of the house of fallen Man. A
few might go still further (though hardly till after His death) and
say, " He called Himself son of Adam, as though He were one of
ourselves. And so He was, in His love of us. But He was also
that Son of Adam who summed up in Himself all that fulness of
God's image which God designed to be in Adam. He was Son of
Adam, Son of God."
[3112] Our sense of the fitness of the self-appellation "son of
Adam " will depend partly on our sense of Christ's attitude towards
Adam as representing Man, and towards the ancient doctrine that
Adam was made in God's image, implying the divinity of Man.
This of course must be deduced mainly from the gospels, and to
discuss the evidence of the gospels here would be premature. But
in view of the striking parallelisms already demonstrated between
Jesus and Ezekiel it is not premature to ask the reader to keep his
mind open to others, and to the possibility of a general parallelism
or affinity between the visions and voices that came to this prophet,
and the underlying revelations and principles of the good news
proclaimed by Christ. In particular, we may note in Ezekiel a
breadth, a justice, a freedom from favouritism, a sense of the
universality of God's righteous dealings, which may be shewn here-
after to characterize special doctrines both in the prophecy and in
the gospel.
[3113] Take, for example, the single mention of Abraham made
in Ezekiel: "Son of man, they that inhabit those waste places in
the land of Israel speak, saying, Abraham was one, and he inherited
no
A WORKING HYPOTHESIS [3115]
the land ; but we are many ; the land is given us for inheritance 1 ."
The prophet replies that these degenerate descendants of righteous
Abraham, who "stood upon the sword" and worked abomination,
and yet expected the merits of their ancestor to descend on them-
selves, should themselves " fall by the sword." The passage strongly
resembles one in the fourth gospel where those who claim descent
from Abraham are warned that they shall die in their sins, are
accused by Jesus of seeking to kill Him, and are declared to be sons
of Satan 2 . And the tone of both these Abrahamic passages accords
with that general spirit of justice in which Ezekiel protests that " the
soul that sinneth shall die," and that Noah, Job, and Daniel, shall
save no souls but their own.
Isaiah speaks of " the Lord who redeemed Abraham," and says,
"Look unto Abraham your father," and introduces Jehovah as
saying " the seed of Abraham my friend 3 " ; but Ezekiel's vision of
one like Man or Adam, controlling the Universe, gives an ampler
view, including that of Isaiah, but excluding from the privileges of
Abrahamic descent those who failed to conform themselves to the
pattern of the true Adam.
[3114] As regards the relation of the Man to the Beast, either
" the son of Adam " or " the son of man " might be used in Aramaic
doctrine to express it. But the former title seems more appropriate
to describe the dominion or authority given to Man over those
spiritual powers of darkness which the Bible often calls serpents or
scorpions. "The son of man" might indeed be taken to mean
" every man " with a suggestion of a proper name, like " Everyman "
in the old English play so called. But even then it is not so
appropriate as " the son of Adam " ; for the name of Adam reminds
us of the Fall, and of the Promise after the Fall, that the serpent
that wounded Adam should be crushed by Adam's Son.
2. The humanity of God
[3115] Let us briefly revert to Origen's dictum (3075) that, to
understand the meaning of " the son of man," we must " take our
stand on the conception of God and on the parables that say He
1 Ezek. xxxiii. 24. See 3098 and 3107 a.
2 Jn viii. 21, 24, 40, 44. For "die in your sin(s)," the marg. of viii. 21 refers
only to Ezek. iii. 18 and xxxiii. 8.
3 Is. xxix. 22, li. 2, xli. 8.
Ill
[3116] A WORKING HYPOTHESIS
is Man." Paradoxical though it sounds, it is at least in accordance
with Christ's spiritual use of what we may call fundamental words
in His doctrine, such as "bread," "water," "fire," "leaven,"
"seed," "harvest," and so on. We may take it as certain that
" Man," in Christ's self-appellation, whether it was originally "Adam"
or " man," always meant something more than physical " man." In
answering the question "what more?" we have arrived at the
conclusion that Jesus included the meaning " Man in the image of
God," and that He had in view the vision of Ezekiel. What then
was the "conception of God" formed by Ezekiel, so far as we can
gather it from his vision ? Was it one that could be taken by itself
as embodying Christ's conception ?
[3116] Not as embodying it, but as preparing the way for it, with
a preparation much more direct than that which appears on the
surface. The prophet seems to have conceived of God as typified by
Man riding on the Chariot of the Universe. In this Chariot there are
four Beasts (or Living Creatures) and there are wheels corresponding
to them. These apparently typify animate and inanimate nature;
"living creatures/' as distinct from the life-giving spirit 1 ; the con-
trolled, as distinct from the controlling power of the universe ; those
moving things which, when obeying the Mover, are like horses in a
well-driven chariot, but, when disobeying, like wild beasts in a jungle.
The winds and the flames and the waters, the fields and the forests
and the ever-changing earth, are not excluded; for all these move,
and all that moves has a kind of life.
But motion is not real life unless it is willing motion. The
motions of an animal have a better claim than the vital processes of
a plant to be called life, because the animal moves less regularly and
more freely, seeming to move by its own will. Yet in proportion as
it moves less regularly, and seems more free, so much the more does
it need control it may be external control, it may be internal, but,
in some way, control. And of all living creatures that seem most
free and yet most in need of control, the freest and neediest is
Man.
In accordance with these conceptions, the whole of Ezekiel's
Chariot and Team bears the impress of humanity. For, though the
Beasts or Living Creatures come out of a storm-cloud and a fire, and
seem to forebode nothing but ruin, they are speedily described as
1 i Cor. xv. 45.
112
A WORKING HYPOTHESIS [3117]
having " the likeness of a man," " the face of a man," and " the hands
of a man," The Beasts have (of themselves) no power of turning ;
they can only go " straight forward " ; but the whole is moved by
a "spirit" which is "in the wheels." The noise of the wings of the
Beasts is " like the noise of great waters, like the voice of Shaddai."
This appears to mean the waters of heaven in a storm; and the
voice of Shaddai is thunder. This is appropriate to the beginning
of the vision, with its "spirit of storm," and "great cloud," out
of the midst of which came the likeness of the four Beasts. But
at the end comes the suggestion of the controlling Charioteer, and of
the rainbow of calm after storm a voice above the firmament that is
over the heads of the Beasts, and a throne above this firmament,
and " upon the likeness of the throne a likeness as the appearance
of a man upon it above." Round about the Man there is brightness
" as the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of
rain." Then comes the voice saving "Son of man, stand upon thy
feet, and I will speak with thee."
[3117] Thus the Man on the throne in heaven addresses the
prophet as " son of man " on earth, as much as to say, " Thou,
made in my image, art destined to be superior to the Beasts on
earth, as I am superior to them in heaven ; and thou art to go as
my messenger to deliver Israel from the Beasts. Thy countrymen
are even now worshipping Beasts in my Temple 1 , and Beast-Gods
of Babylon and Egypt have seemed to dominate the long-suffering
and tenderhearted God of Israel Yet these empires are but my
instruments, like the four winds, or like my four sore judgments, the
sword, the famine, the noisome beasts, and the pestilence 2 . A
1 Ezek. viii. 10 n. On Shaddai, see 3120 a c, 3123 a.
2 [3117 a] E7.ek. xiv. 11. Comp. Rev. vi. i 8 where the second, third, and
fourth of the " living creatures " (which correspond to Ezekiel's '* living creatures "
or "beasts"), appear to call upon War, Famine, Pestilence and Wild Beasts.
The first of the four living creatures summons One " conquering and to conquer.''
The Seer may wish to convey the impression that the " sore judgments " are sub-
ordinated to the Conqueror. But there is perhaps some confusion as to the scope
of "four." For the second living creature summons one to whom is given "a
great sword," that is, seemingly, War ; the third clearly summons Famine ; the
fourth and here there is an ambiguity latent in " them, " summons one whose
name was Death (Rev. vi. 8) "and Hades followed with him; and there was
given unto them (?) authority over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword,
and with famine, and with death (marg. pestilence), and by the wild beasts of the
earth." " Them" perhaps means "Death and Hades" in conjunction with the
previously mentioned second and third avengers, so that " Death and Hades " kill
A. s. 113 8
[3118] A WORKING HYPOTHESIS
human Spirit controls them all, and to thee, son of man, I give
charge to proclaim this Gospel to human beings."
This aspect of Ezekiel's vision, and the parallelisms of circum-
stance and doctrine between him and Jesus, and the identity of the
appellation of the former with the self-appellation of the latter, are
among the most important data for determining the meaning, or the
various meanings, of " son of man " in the gospels. But they must
not lead us to depreciate the debt of the Christian Church to other
books of scripture. We cannot assert for example that the doctrine
of the Fatherhood of God, beautifully expressed in Isaiah, is taught
in the vision of Ezekiel, or in any part of his prophecy.
[3118] The truth is, however, that the title "Father" applied to
God, may be, and often is, so worn down as to mean no more than
Maker, Originator, or Source. What is the use of calling God
Father in heaven, if the Father in heaven is no more like a father on
earth than the Dogstar is like a dog ? We need to shew that a
human Father is meant human, at least, in this sense, that He is
capable of something corresponding to what we, human beings, call
love and sympathy. And it is this notion of a common element
between God and Man which is brought out in Ezekiel's vision of
the appearance of a Man above revealed to one called " son of man "
below.
Probably no one would deny that our Lord has developed the
doctrine of Isaiah (whom He so often quotes) concerning the divine
Fatherhood. But it is not so generally recognised that He appears
to supplement the words and definite doctrines of Isaiah by under-
lying thoughts suggested in the visions of Ezekiel.
His avoidance of the term " Jehovah " (expressed in Greek and
English by " Lord ") seems to indicate a desire to go forward from
the Mosaic revelation of God as the i AM or i WILL BE to a more
anthropomorphic and personal relation such as we find suggested by
the friendly relations between God and Abraham, and developed in
the prophecies of Isaiah, but somewhat subordinated in the Law.
[3119] Yet the Law, too, has passages that bear strenuous
testimony to this anthropomorphic and personal relation, as in the
words "Thou hast seen how that the Lord thy God bare thee, as
by means of "death (i.e. pestilence)" and "wild beasts," and the second and the
third kill by means of sword and famine. If " them " means Death and Hades
by themselves, they would appear to kill over again those who are already killed
by War and Famine.
114
A WORKING HYPOTHESIS [3120]
a man doth bear his son, in all the way that ye went 1 ." These
words indeed (as has been stated above) have been selected by
Philo as an instance of the doctrine adapted for "the duller sort,"
whereas (says Philo) the truer doctrine is that of Balaam : " God
is not a man that he should lie, nor the son of man that he should
repent"
The object of Christ's life, lived in the character of " the son of
Adam," was apparently to teach "the duller sort" whom He called
His "little ones" or "babes" and preferred to "the wise" and to
infuse into them a twofold truth. On the one hand He accepted the
limitations of earthborn mortal humanity Adam destined by his
fall to return to the adamah, the earth from which he had been
shaped. On the other hand He led us to look forward to the
exaltation of this earthborn creature to heaven, and to contemplate
Man as heir to eternal life and as the Son in the image of the
eternal Father, the first Adam being developed into the last Adam,
whose archetype was God. Embodying this conception of the Man
in His own person, Jesus might be regarded as saying in language
antithetical to that of Balaam, " God is Man that He should pity,
and the Son of Man that He should love " ; or, in the language of
the fourth gospel, " He that hath seen me hath seen the Father."
[3120] In teaching this doctrine, Jesus summed up, as He
repeatedly said, all things that are written, not in Isaiah alone, nor
in Ezekiel alone, but in the scriptures as a whole, concerning the
relations between God and Man. For example, we cannot doubt
that Abraham was always present to His mind, as God's repre-
sentative and "friend-," hospitably welcoming the Nations to the
feast of the spiritual Israel. If we may judge from the Pauline
Epistles, and from what Jesus said about the Law in connection
with men's "hardness of heart," it would seem that He laid as much
weight on the revelations of God to Abraham in the giving of the
Promise, as on those to Moses in the giving of the Law.
To Abraham, for example, God revealed Himself as "shield"
and "reward," and then as "El Shaddai" with the precept "Walk
before me and be thou perfect 3 ." This seems to mean "Be thou
1 Deut. i. 31.
2 Is. xli. 8.
3 Gen. xv. i, xvii. i. The command to be "perfect" is repeated in Deut.
xviii. 13. But see 3482 foil, for the reasons pointing to the conclusion that the
precept in the Sermon on the Mount refers to Genesis (see also 3486, 3491).
115 82
[3120] A WORKING HYPOTHESIS
perfect as I am perfect," and it resembles the precept " Ye therefore
shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect 1 ." What relation
existed in our Lord's mind between the " perfectness " of El Shaddai
and that of the heavenly Father ? In the Sermon on the Mount He
teaches His disciples how to become sons of God. They are to imitate
God, who gives His rain and sunshine to the evil as well as to the
good ; and the words suggest the thought of God as the Giver of
good to men. So does the prayer, " Give us this day our daily
bread," which corresponds to God's utterance in the Psalms, " I am
the Lord thy God, who brought thee up out of the land of Egypt :
open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it 2 ."
1 Mt. v. 48 "Ye shall be " is best taken as a precept, see 3394/ and 3482 a foil.
At all events it implies a precept.
2 [3120 a] Ps. Ixxxi. 10. The thought of God as El Shaddai in connection
with " perfect," and the thought of "perfect" in connection with the gift of rain
and sunshine, raise several questions as to the meaning of " Shaddai."
One is, What did the word originally mean ? Another is, What did the word
mean to the composers of Genesis? Another is, What did it mean to Jesus?
The third alone concerns us. And, as to that, the evidence is very strong that
in the first century it was not taken as meaning " Almighty " (the rendering
adopted in our English Bible) but as implying some kind of beneficence. The
translators of the Pentateuch often render it by a personal pronoun (comp. the
use of " my God " in N.T.) as though it denoted a personal and friendly connection
between God and man. Aquila and others, misled perhaps by false derivation,
rendered it Sufficient (not, as Gesen. 994 <$ tl (^insufficient"}. See 3123,7.
[3120 b\ Robertson Smith took it as meaning the Raingiver (Gesen. 995 a,
comp. Levy Ch. ii. 455 b). Some meaning of this kind, only a little broader,
so as to include Lightgiver as well as Raingiver, would best suit the conception
of God in the Sermon on the Mount and in the gospels generally. The word
is said by some to mean "shoot" or "send forth" and to be applied to the
sending forth of arrows, and lightnings as well as rain and sunshine. This might
be illustrated by the Greek conception of Apollo and might explain the use of
Shaddai, in Job and other books, where God is apparently sending forth arrows
to chastise or destroy. Gesen. 994 5 points out that the alleged derivation in
favour of " a\\-mighty " would rather justify " &\\-destroying. "
[3120 c\ But the point, for us, is Jewish interpretation of Shaddai in connec-
tion with Abraham, and on that point the conclusion appears safe, that Jesus
would regard Shaddai as signifying the Perfect God, the Giver of Good. The
Blessing of Jacob (Gen. xlix. 25) connects Shaddai with Shadaim "the breasts,"
thus: "By Shaddai, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above,
blessings of the deep that coucheth beneath, blessings of the breasts and of the
womb." Origen (Horn. Jerem. ix. 3, quoting Gen. xvii. i " thy God" where
Heb. has Shaddai} says " God graciously gave Himself to that Patriarch." These
thoughts harmonize with Hebrew conceptions of God as the Nursing Father and
with Christian conceptions of the Father as giving Himself to men through the
" flesh and blood " of His Son.
116
A WORKING HYPOTHESIS [3122]
[3121] These passages of scripture point to a conception (not
prominent in Ezekiel) of God regarded as the Nursing Father of
Israel, and hence to two conclusions about " the son of man." In
the character of the Son of the divine Adam, the Son of the Nursing
Father of Israel, Jesus had to be both dependent and imitative. As
being dependent, He daily received food and guidance from God
ah aspect of the relationship between the Father and the Son much
less clearly described in the three gospels than in the fourth. As
being imitative, He had to give to the other sons of man that bread
of Heaven which He Himself was continually receiving.
[3122] Another aspect of the divine Adam, or the Humanity of
God, is more difficult to treat of, and much less clearly defined in
scripture. Deuteronomy speaks indeed of Him as bearing Israel
like a Father. But this scarcely implies the bearing of a heavy
burden, much less of a painful one. Genesis describes God as
promising to be Abraham's u shield 1 "; and a "shield" receives
blows. But a shield does not feel blows. There is nothing here to
indicate that God suffers. The Law repeatedly describes God as
being "provoked" and as feeling "wrath" with rebellious Israel,
but not as suffering pain in their behalf.
It is reserved for Isaiah to say that in all the affliction of Israel
the Lord was Himself "afflicted 2 ." This interpretation of the words
is disputed, but it is confirmed by the same prophet's pathetic
description of the Suffering Servant of Jehovah on whom the Lord
" laid the iniquity " of others, the whole of which implies that in the
sorrows of His Servant Jehovah Himself experienced something that
in God is equivalent to sorrow in Man 3 . There will be found
1 Gen. xv. i.
2 [3122 a] Is. Ixiii. 9. It need hardly be said that by "Isaiah" is meant
" Isaiah as read in Jewish synagogues in the first century," not (Is. i. i) "Isaiah
the son of Amoz in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of
Judah." The former is quite distinct from the latter. The former alone concerns
us. The composite nature of " Isaiah " does not affect its influence on Jesus. To
say "book of Isaiah" in this treatise whenever that was meant, would often be
needlessly lengthy. The reader is therefore warned that, apart from indications
to the contrary, "Isaiah " always means " the book of Isaiah."
On the interpretation of Is. Ixiii. 9 see 3518/, 3560 a.
3 [3122 b\ In the Mechilta (on Exod. xix. 21) God is represented as saying, in
effect, that if a single being falls away, he is, in His sight, all mankind ; if a single
being is saved, he is, in His sight, the whole creation. The editors (Winter u.
Wunsche p. 204) add, " Das ist ein Beleg dafiir, dass im Judentum schon in sehr
friiher Zeit die Lehre von dem unendlichen Werte einer Menschenseele vor Gott
bekannt war." See Origen on God's "mourning" over sin (3032 b).
[3123] A WORKING HYPOTHESIS
abundant evidence to shew that this prophecy was continually before
Jesus, and perhaps too the very words of Isaiah concerning the aspect
of the Servant, whose visage was to be marred " more than all the
sons of adam 1 ."
[3123] In conclusion, then while not denying that Jesus may
sometimes have used forms of bar nasha to express His doctrine
about the destiny and duty of Man, with whom He identified Him-
self we assume as a working hypothesis that Jesus called Himself
Son of Adam, and that He had in view the fact that Ezekiel was
similarly called, after he had seen a vision of One like -a Man above
the throne in heaven. But we do not exclude other references of a
different tendency, such as imply the mortal and imperfect nature of
Man or Adam, his need of redemption, and the conflict and suffering
through which he must pass to his exaltation.
In this latter aspect, the title seems likely to have led, sooner or
later, to the suggestion that the Son, the second Adam, comes to the
rescue of the first Adam. But the fundamental meaning seems to
have been (according to our working hypothesis) that Jesus, though
knowing Himself to be akin to the Humanity of God in heaven
from whence He heard Himself hailed as Son of God, preferred to
dwell on the thought that He was akin to the divinity of Man on
earth. In this character, He desired to make Himself loved, trusted
and reverenced with an unconscious worship so deeply rooted in the
hearts of His disciples that they could not eradicate it when the
departure of His bodily presence in death, and the outpouring of
His compensating Spirit after death, forced them to recognise Him
consciously and worship Him consciously, as being still indeed Son
of Man, but of such a Man as could not be separated from God*.
1 Is. Hi. 14.
ADDENDUM ON "SHADDAI"
2 [31230] Gesen. 994 gives the Rabb. interpr. of "Shaddai" as "(self-)
sufficient." But Resh Lakish explained it (Chag. iia) "I am He who (W) said
to the world, Enough (*"!)," that is, He said to each element, "Thus far and no
farther." Rashi, on Gen. xvii. i, explains it as "Sufficing in my divine nature for
every creature," but, on Gen. xliii. 13, combines this with a form of Resh Lakish's
explanation. It would seem that the Rabbis did not take it as "self-sufficient."
Nor did Aq., Sym., and Theod., apparently, since else would they not have
rendered it avrApKys (instead of iKavbs)? For H meaning (Gesen. 191 a, not as
R.V.) God's "sufficiency" and connected with "rain" see Mai. iii. 10, (where
Targ., following Taanith 90, lib, Sabb. 32 b etc., also takes the meaning to be
"enough," though in diff. context).
118
BOOK II
"SON OF MAN"
IN MARK, MATTHEW, AND LUKE
CHAPTER I
MARK, HOW FAR TO BE FOLLOWED
i. Mark's order to be followed
[3124] We pass from the pre-Christian to the evangelistic usage
of " the son of man." Here we must, as a rule, discuss first those
passages that are attested by most evangelists. As there are none
attested by the four 1 , we must begin with those attested by the three,
the Synoptists 2 .
These must be taken in the order of Mark for the following
reasons. First, Mark's order is mostly followed by Matthew and
Luke ; and, though sometimes Matthew and sometimes Luke differs
from Mark's order, we never find Matthew and Luke agreeing
together against it. Secondly, Mark is generally recognised as being
and can indeed be proved to be the author of the gospel that
contains our earliest evangelistic traditions of Christ's acts and
shorter sayings traditions from which Matthew and Luke have
independently borrowed (see Corrections 314 30).
[3125] It will be found that the utterances common to Mark,
Matthew, and Luke, range themselves roughly under three heads,
representing "the son of man," first, as wielding authority or dominion
on earth ; secondly, as destined to endure humiliation and death, and
to pass through death to life : thirdly, as destined to be enthroned as
judge of mankind in heaven.
1 [3124 a] No Johannine instance is parallel to any one of those in Mark, or
in Matthew, or in Luke.
- [3124 ] Where "son of man" happens to be omitted by one of the three
parallels owing to some difference occurring in the midst of an otherwise similar
context, the passage will still be included. But classification is sometimes difficult
and passages may need to be repeated under different headings. The repetition,
when not indicated in the text, will appear from the scriptural Index (at the end of
the book) which will shew several instances quoted both in Book II and in Book
III, and some of these repeated in Book IV.
121
[3126]
The first of all these utterances took place on the occasion when
Jesus who is not recorded by the Synoptists to have used the term
hitherto on any public occasion declared before all the congregation
of the synagogue in Capernaum that " the son of man " had
" authority " upon earth to forgive sins. With this, therefore, strictly
speaking, we ought to begin.
[3126] But it is impossible for reasons that will be given later
on to avoid the conclusion that Mark has omitted some preceding
utterances about " the son of man " which would have thrown light
on the meaning here. Mark seems to assume that his readers know
a great deal that we, modern readers, cannot always be expected to
know. He appears to be treating us as abruptly here as earlier,
when he introduces, as part of Christ's first public utterance, " Believe
in the gospel," without saying what " the gospel " means, or what it
meant to those who first heard the command to "believe."
Here, then, is a case for the intervention of a fourth gospel 1 .
And John does intervene. John tells us that Jesus had previously
mentioned the term in a promise about "angels ascending and
descending on the son of man 2 ." Also the double tradition of
Matthew and Luke recording the Temptation, though it does not
mention "son of man," yet represents Jesus as quoting from
Deuteronomy words that actually, in the Jerusalem Targum, run
thus, " The son of man " better perhaps "Man's son " (Etheridge
"man," Walton "homo"} "shall not live by bread alone 3 ." Here
are two early alleged utterances that might throw light on the later
one about "authority to forgive."
This being the case, we will not, at starting, bind ourselves by
our customary rule of arrangement. It will be better, as regards
these two utterances, to subordinate weight of attestation to con-
siderations of chronological convenience and to discuss them first.
We shall not be departing from Mark's chronology but only supplying
his deficiency. The tradition in Matthew and Luke, being doubly
attested, will be discussed before that in John.
1 [3126 a] On the canon of "Johannine Intervention," i.e. that John often
intervenes where Mark has left some point in obscurity or difficulty and especially
where Luke has omitted or contradicted some Marcan tradition seefok. Grammar,
Index, "John, intervention of."
3 Jn i. 51.
3 Mt. iv. 4, Lk. iv. 4, Deut. viii. 3. See 3043, 3108, and 3127 foil.
122
MARK, HOW FAR TO BE FOLLOWED [3128]
2. The gap in Mark, how supplied by Matthew and Luke
[3127] Matthew and Luke agree in saying that the first utterance
of Jesus after His baptism related to the duty of Man, as set
forth in Deuteronomy. The Hebrew has " Man (ha-adam lit " the
man," i.e. mankind) doth not live by bread alone, but by all that
cometh forth [from] the mouth of the Lord doth Man (ha-adam)
live 1 ."
This is a reply to the Tempter. It is introduced by the formula
"It is written." This suggests that, even if the narrative of the
Temptation were originally in Aramaic, the quotation would be not
in Aramaic but in the " written " Hebrew. But we cannot be sure of
this. And if the quotation were in Hebrew it would need to be
Targumized, i.e. interpreted in Aramaic, for those who knew no
Hebrew. The Targum might, or might not, substitute " son of man "
for " man." It is safest to lay no stress on the original Aramaic for
" man " in this tradition if there was any original Aramaic at all
but to dwell on the thought, which is Man, meaning " Man in his
right relation to God."
[3128] We have seen above that " man " and the " son of man,"
when expressed by " adam " and the " son of adam," have a twofold
meaning : first, man in his right relation to God, that is, willingly
obeying ; secondly, man in his right relation to beasts, that is,
dominating (3000 37). Have we any reason to think that this
second relation is suggested as being included here?
We have the following reason. Mark, in his parallel account of
the Temptation, says that Jesus " was with the beasts." Moreover,
Mark and Matthew mention " angels " in their context. Now the
eighth Psalm, according to Jewish tradition, turns on the relation
between God, Man, beasts and angels. And " angels " is actually
used (for "God") by the LXX in the expression " a little lower than
God." Hence, in the Temptation, the combined mention of
(i) " Man " or " the son of man," (2) " beasts" (3) " angels" suggests
that the narrative is based on an account of Christ's meditations on
the relation of Man to God and to beasts as described in that
Psalm.
1 [3127 a] Deut. viii. 3. Here the Aramaic of Onkelos has "man" (with
articular suffix), but that of the Jerusalem Targum has " son of man " (with articular
suffix to " man " but without possessive suffix to " son " ; see 3063 a foil., 3069 a).
123
[3129] MARK, HOW FAR TO BE FOLLOWED
[3129] Another detail points in the same direction, shewing that
our Lord's thoughts on such an occasion might naturally be directed
to "the beasts." Satan is said to have quoted to Him from the
Psalms the words, " He shall give his angels charge over thee...lest
thou dash thy foot against a stone." Here Satan stops short. The
following words are, " Thou shalt tread upon the lion and the adder :
the young lion and the serpent shalt thou trample under feet 1 ."
That means, in brief, "Thou shalt have dominion over the wild
beasts " : and that may have a spiritual as well as a literal meaning.
Mark's brief tradition (although doubtless taken by him literally)
appears to have been originally based on a spiritual interpretation of
"wild beasts." Like Ezekiel, who was to dwell " among scorpions 2 ";
or like Daniel, who was supposed to have been literally "among
lions " ; or like the Seventy, to whom though they were but
"babes 3 " Jesus gave "authority to tread upon serpents and
scorpions and over all the power of the enemy 4 " ; or like Paul and
the Psalmist, who were "delivered from the mouth of the lion 5 ," so
1 Ps. xci. 13.
2 Ezek. ii. 6. * Lk. x. 21. 4 Lk. x. 19.
5 [3129 a] 2 Tim. iv. 17, Ps. xxii. 21, comp. the complaint of Ignatius
(Rom. 5) concerning the cruelty of the "ten leopards" (that is, Roman soldiers) to
whom he is "bound."
[3129 b] The Hebrew scriptures, and the Targums (so far as Levy indicates),
appear to contain few or no instances of " beasts " used to mean powers of Sin or
Satan. For example, in Ps. xxii. 20 21, "the dog" and "the lion" are ren-
dered literally by the Targum ; and " the horns of the wild-oxen ( A. V. unicorns) "
is paraphrased as "kings powerful and lifted up like a unicorn." In Ps. Ixxiv.
18 19, the "turtle dove" becomes, in the Targum, "those that teach thy Law";
and " the beasts " becomes " the peoples that are like the beasts of the forest."
Schottgen (on 2 Thess. ii. 3) quotesy"a//frw/ Rubeni Ixxii. 3 " Vae illi cui bestia [ad-
fectus pravus, i.e. evil desire] imperat, ille est impius. Qui vero bestiae imperat,
ille est Justus perfectus." But that is no authority for Talmudic usage. Succah
52 a does not include "Beast" in its "seven names" for the "adfectus pravus."
[3129 <:] But The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, without exactly repre-
senting " Satanic powers " as " beasts (8r)pla)," parallels the two in such a manner
as to prepare the way for such representation -.Issachar vii. 7 "Every spirit of
Beliar shall flee from you, and no deed (irpais, ? practice, in the sense of plotting)
of wicked men shall dominate (xupiewret) you, and every savage (dypiov) beast shall
ye cause utterly to serve you (KaraSovXuffere) " : Napht. viii. 6 "him that doeth
not that which is good... the devil maketh him his own (olKtiourat twrbv) as his
peculiar instrument, and every beast shall utterly dominate him (KaraKvpitvo-ei
atfr<) " : Benj. iii. 4 5 (not in the Armenian version) " He that feareth God and
loveth his neighbour cannot be smitten by the spirit of Beliar, being shielded by
the fear of God. And from (airb) the plotting (^wi/3ot/\7?s) of men or beasts he is
124
MARK, HOW FAR TO BE FOLLOWED [3130]
Jesus was with " wild beasts," " the power of the enemy," and
trampled them under foot.
[3130] The words quoted by Satan from the Psalms, " lest thou
dash thy foot against a stone," are paraphrased by the Targum "lest
thy foot stumble against the evil Desire (Yetzer) which is as a stone,"
that is, a stone of stumbling. This Yetzer, or Desire, mostly evil, is
said by Jewish tradition to be a "stone" in Ezekiel and a "stumbling-
block" in Isaiah 1 . Against such a stone of stumbling Moses may
be said to have stumbled when he exclaimed to Israel "Shall we
bring you forth water out of this rock 2 ?"
Apparently the first of Christ's three temptations exhibits Him as
triumphing where Moses had fallen. Satan, appealing to the human
appetite of the Saviour, as well as to His consciousness of a divine
sonship, bade Him, as Luke says, " turn this stone into bread 3 ."
Jesus, in His reply, asserts the absolute dependence of Man (or "the
son of man ") upon God, and also Man's supremacy over the animal
appetite, that is, over the " Living Creature," or " Beast." This
evil Yetzer is not said to have been itself called the Beast except in
late Hebrew tradition 4 ; but the occasional identity of the Greek
" Beast," with "Serpent," and hence with the thought of "Satan,"
brings the tradition of Mark into parallelism of thought, though
not of word, with the traditions of Matthew and Luke 5 .
not able to be utterly-dominated (KaTaKvpievOijvai), being helped... by the love that
he hath toward his neighbour": ib. v. i "If ye continue doing-well both (KCU)
the unclean spirits will flee from you and (KO.I) the beasts will fear you," where the
next words seem to indicate that " beasts " are regarded as connected with " dark-
ness" ("for where there is. ..light in the mind, even darkness fleeth away from
him").
1 [3130 a] Levy Ch. i. 342 a referring to Ezek. xxxvi. 26, Is. Ivii. 14. The
Ytzer is called "evil" in Gen. viii. 21. In the Talmud it is called "the
strange god that dwells in the body of men," and "Satan."
2 Numb. xx. 10.
3 [3130 ] Lk. iv. 3. Mt. iv. 3 has "these stones." On Numb. xx. 10 "this
rock," Numb. Rab. and Rashi endeavour to explain the meaning of "this."
* [3130 c] See 3129 b. Ps. Ixviii. 30 "rebuke the wild beast" is interpreted
in Exod. Rab. (on Exod. xxvi. 15, Wxinsche p. 267, comp. Levy ii. 41 b) as
" Rome" under the name of Edom (as usual). It is accused of forcing Israel to
idolatry and to the things of the Evil Desire (Wunsche " der bose Trieb," see also
Midrash on the Psalm).
5 [3130 </] Comp. the names of Satan who inspires the profane Elihu in
Testamentum Jobi 4 i "Satan," 42 "beast (6t)plov)" 43 "serpent "and
"dragon." In Acts xxviii. 4 (A.V.) "the [venomous] beast," (R.V.) "the beast,"
refers to ib. 3 "a viper."
[3131] MARK, HOW FAR TO BE FOLLOWED
[3131] The narrative of the Temptation represents Jesus as at no
pains to answer the doubt concerning His divine sonship implied in
Satan's " if." Absorbed in the will of God, which is the redemption
of the sons of man, He shews anxiety rather (if we may so express it)
to prove that He is " man " man in the truest sense, not claiming
any exemption from the sufferings of humanity, but going forward to
meet them if He can thereby save those with whom He has cast in
His lot.
Amid all the uncertainty that surrounds the narrative of the
Temptation, as to its origin as a whole, and its variations in detail,
we may safely say that the quotation from Deuteronomy, as alleged
to have been used by Christ, harmonizes with the view that He
assumed the self-appellation of "son of man" as the result of
meditations on the right relation of Man to God, and on His own
foreordained task of accomplishing the dominion of the Man over the
Beast by conforming the human image to the divine.
[3132] Something corresponding to the " living creatures " or
" beasts " seen by Ezekiel, when " the heavens were opened " and he
" saw visions of God," is perhaps to be regarded as having descended,
in the Temptation of Jesus, to the earth. The domination over the
Beasts exercised by the Man above has to be exercised by the Messiah
below, and this, in actual life, as Man not merely seen as One like
a man, as by the prophet, in a vision of what is going on above.
Nay, more, whereas in the prophet's case it was apparently ' the Spirit
of God that carried him hither and thither to see his visions, in the
Messiah's case it is the Ruler of evil Desire, Satan, Adversary, or
1 [3132 a] There is no "carrying" or "lifting" at first in Ezek. i. i "The
heavens were opened and I saw visions of God." But afterwards we read in Ezek.
iii. 12 "spirit (not "tAe spirit"} lifted me up," ib. 14 "spirit lifted me up and
took me away ; and I went in bitterness, in the heat of my spirit." Previously
Ezekiel inserts the article in i. 12, 20 "the spirit," interpreted by Rashi as the
Will of God. Jerome gives two explanations of " my spirit " ; but neither of them
agrees with that which is suggested by the context and favoured by Rashi, namely,
that the prophet's own " spirit " was reluctant.
[31323] Mk i. 12 "the Spirit driveth him forth (<?K0d\Xei) " and Mt. iv. i
"he was led up (cu^xOri) by the Spirit" should be compared with the parallel
Lk. iv. i "turned back from the Jordan, full of the Holy Spirit, and was being
led (iryero) in the Spirit in the wilderness." Luke appears to desire to make it
clear that "the Spirit " was a good one and not coercive. I have not been able to
find an instance of i/yeTo meaning "was being led." It is used in the middle in
Herodotus and the Odyssey, but presumably it is passive here.
126
MARK, HOW FAR TO BE FOLLOWED [3134]
Tempter, who has power to carry Him now here, now there, in order
to tempt Him, as also Israel was tempted in the wilderness.
[3133] Piecing together what is peculiar to Mark (about the
"beasts") with what is peculiar to Mark and Matthew (about
the ministration of "the angels" or "angels 1 ") and what is
peculiar to Matthew and Luke (the quotations "man shall not live"
and " he shall give his angels charge ") we have added to the last of
these that is to say, to the quotation from the Psalms the context
in the original (about " treading upon " the " lion " and " adder " and
" serpent "). Thus we have arrived at the conclusion that the implied
taunt of Satan, "//"thou art the Son of God, God will give the angels
charge over thee, and they shall lift thee up... that thou dash not thy
foot against a stone," was met, in the original story, somewhat as
follows :
" He who called Himself the Son of Man was really being lifted up
all the while by the angels, or rather they were in attendance on Him 2 .
He did not, as Moses did, dash His foot against any stone of
stumbling. For He knew that every son of man must live by that
which cometh continually from God, so that He was proof against
the evil Desire, the Tempter, the powers of the Beast. Even while
He was being reproached by Satan as though He was forsaken by
God, He saw the heavens opened and the angels in attendance and
the Beast on the point of being trampled beneath His feet."
3. The gap in Mark, how supplied by John *
[3134] We have seen that Mark's and Matthew's accounts of the
Temptation of Christ mention "angels" as ministering to Him.
But they appear to differ as to whether the angels ministered during,
or after, the Temptation. And Luke makes no mention here of
"angels" at all.
Perhaps there was some doubt as to the nature of these "angels."
The Epistle to the Hebrews says, " When he bringeth the Firstborn
1 [3133 a] Mki. 13 "the angels were ministering (BiijKorovr) to him," Mt. iv. n
"then the devil leaveth him, and behold angels approached and began to minister
(dujKorour) to him," appear to be the distinctions demanded by the Greek text.
[3133 b] This is what Mark suggests, not Matthew, see last note. Matthew
suggests that the angels did not come till the Temptation was concluded.
s Jn i. 5 1 " Ye shall see the heaven opened and the angels of God ascending
and descending on the son of man. " For a fuller discussion of this passage and
of the question of its claims to be regarded as historical, see 3374 foil.
I2 7
[3135] MARK, HOW FAR TO BE FOLLOWED
into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him 1 ,"
and the First Epistle to Timothy says, " He was pronounced
righteous in the Spirit [and] appeared unto angels " two passages
that may be explained as based on poetic traditions that Jesus, after
being "pronounced righteous" by the descent of "the Spirit" at
His baptism, was " manifested to angels " in the wilderness 2 . In
both these epistles the " angels " are taken as good angels. But it is
very doubtful indeed whether the Psalm apparently quoted by the
former epistle took them thus. Luke, too, may have had his
doubts.
[3135] As the fourth gospel omits all mention of the Temptation,
we could not fairly expect that in this case the evangelist would
adhere to his general rule of intervening to explain any important
passage of Mark which Luke has either altered or omitted.
But he does appear to have intervened in this case, not solely for
the purpose of indicating that the " angels " mentioned by Mark and
Matthew were good angels, but also, and more especially, for the
purpose of fixing the reader's attention on the true relation between
"angels" and "the son of man" at the outset of his gospel 3 . The
Epistle to the Hebrews does the same thing in its opening words,
taking pains to shew that "the son," although for a time made "a
1 [3134 a] Heb. i. 6 "angels of God" appears to be freely quoting Ps. xcvii. 7
"worship him, all ye Gods" with an intermixture of LXX, "worship him, all his
angels." R.V. marg., on Heb. i. 6, says "cited from Deut. xxxii. 43 (Gk) cp.
Ps. xcvii. 7." This is doubtful. Deut. xxxii. 43 (Gk) is "Let the sons of God"
(not "angels") " worship him," followed by "and let all the angels of God be strong
in him"; and the whole of this is a Greek interpolation.
[31343] Ps. xcvii. 7 is interpreted in the Targum, "All the nations that
worship idols shall worship Him," "elohim" being taken as meaning the gods
worshipped by the Gentiles. Comp. J. Aboda Zara iv. 7 (Schwab vol. xi. p. 228)
" tous les faux dieux se prosterneront devant lui." The Midrash on Ps. xcvii. 7 has
(Wiinsche p. 95) "Vor ihm werfen sich nieder alle Cotter." Compare the Gospel
of Pseudo-Matthew, 23, "And it came to pass, when the most blessed Mary went
into the temple with the little child, that all the idols prostrated themselves on the
ground." Luke, in the Temptation, may have taken "angels" in a bad sense, see
Notes 2998 (xi) foil.
2 r Tim. iii. 16.
3 [3135 a] The relation is one of subordination. "Angels" in this gospel are
thrown quite into the background. They are mentioned only thrice, once here,
once in Jn xii. 29 where some of the multitude mistake God's voice for that of an
angel, and once in Jn xx. 12 " she beholdeth two angels."
In Ps. xci. ii quoted by Mt.-Lk., the angels "bear up," in Jn they are
apparently "borne" upwards and downwards.
128
MARK, HOW FAR TO BE FOLLOWED [3137]
little lower," is nevertheless superior to "the angels of God 1 ." But
the author of the epistle mentions " the son " throughout, as being
the Son of God; the fourth evangelist, in the utterance now to be
considered, has, apparently as Christ's self-appellation, "the son of
man"
[3136] The Johannine utterance is a reply to Nathanael, who
being apparently astounded by Christ's knowledge of some secret
experience of his (experience at least that he had deemed secret)
" under the fig-tree " exclaimed " Rabbi, thou art the Son of God,
thou art King of Israel."
There is no "if" here, as there was in the address of the
Tempter, " If thou art the Son of God." It is a frank confession
curiously illustrating the tendency of any man to deify anything that
is merely wonderful, simply because it is wonderful and especially
if it makes a personal appeal to that particular man. No doubt, the
indescribable power of the personality of Jesus on Nathanael is to be
regarded as explaining in part what even the evangelist regards as the
premature outburst of the latter. But Jesus gently rebukes him thus,
" Because I saw thee under the fig-tree believest thou ? Thou shall
see greater things than these."
Then Jesus turns to Nathanael's companions, including them in
the following promise, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye shall see
the heaven opened [and remaining open 1 ] and the angels of God
ascending and descending on the son of man."
[3137] The Synoptic narrative of the opening of the heavens at
Christ's baptism, a temporary vision, manifested apparently to none
but John the Baptist and Jesus or to one of these, for this is not
clearly stated by the Synoptists had been followed, according to
Mark and Matthew, by an account of " angels ministering " to Jesus.
But they did not clearly state the period of the ministration*. John
intervenes here to describe as mentioned in Christ's first utterance
to a group of the earliest disciples a future ministration of angels
to be connected with " the son of man " in such a way as to shew
1 Heb. ii. 7, comp. i. 6.
1 " Opened [and remaining open] " : for this attempt at rendering the perfect
participle see From Letter 642 and 646 a.
3 [3137 a] Mk i. 13 "were ministering" would naturally mean "were
ministering throughout the forty days"; Mt. iv. n, which prefixes "came unto
him," suggests that the following imperfect should be rendered " began to
minister." See 3133 a b,
A. S. 129 n
[3138] MARK, HOW FAR TO BE FOLLOWED
that it must be regarded not merely as a past act but also as a
future series of acts, perhaps we should say, as a spiritual custom or
law, a regular course of angelic mediation, through " the son of
man" acting as mediator between earth and heaven.
4. John's allusions
[3138] This saying about " ascending and descending angels "
clearly refers to Jacob's dream, " And he dreamed, and behold a
ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven, and
behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it 1 ." Jewish
commentators differ greatly in their attempts to explain how it is
that the angels are described as first " ascending " instead of
" descending." According to the two Jerusalem Targums, the
ascending angels are those who had accompanied Jacob from the
house of his father. These go up to those in the high heavens
and say, " Come ! See Jacob the pious, whose likeness is inlaid in
the throne of glory, and whom you have so greatly desired to
behold 2 ." According to one of the Targums, these ascending angels
are the fallen ones.
Such an interpretation of " angels " though possible when the
context did not define the word, as in the narratives of Christ's
Temptation ought to have been rendered impossible (one might
have supposed) in Jacob's Dream by the qualifying phrase "of
God." John at all events does his best to remove ambiguity for
Christian readers by inserting the qualification here. They are
" angels of God" and they are to be "ascending and descending on
the son of man " not " with " Him, as often described in the
Synoptic gospels, but "on" Him (3379^).
[3139] Doubtless the evangelist would have admitted the truth
of the Synoptic tradition that " the son of man " would also hereafter
come " with " the angels ; but throughout his gospel he seems to be
keenly alive to the danger of all stereotyped phrases localising divine
action. The customary '''with" might induce some to regard
" angels " as independent co-assessors with the Son in the Day of
Judgment. He preferred to regard them as spiritual Ministrants
going up from man to God, perhaps in the forms of Faith and Hope
1 Gen. xxviii. 12.
2 So Jer. I. Jer. II is almost identical. See Notes 2998 (xii). Comp. i Pet.
i. 12 " which things angels desire to look into."
130
MARK, HOW FAR TO BE FOLLOWED [3140]
and human Love, and coming down from God to man in the forms
of Righteousness and Peace and divine Love, and, in either case,
whether ascending or descending, borne on " the son of man."
[3140] "What meaning, then, did this for the first time used
appellation, ' the son of man,' convey to Nathanael and his com-
panions?" It is impossible to answer this question, because it is
impossible to prove, and it would be unreasonable to expect students
to believe, that these precise words were actually uttered by Jesus on
this or any other occasion. We know that the fourth evangelist
makes a rule of not aiming at reproducing the exact words of Jesus
as the three Synoptists apparently aim at doing; and there is no
reason to believe that these words form an exception to the rule.
But it is possible to answer the question when put in a slightly
different form, What meaning did the evangelist probably intend
to convey to his readers in the way of comment, warning, or
illustration as to Christ's doctrine about "the son of man"?
The detailed answer to this question must be deferred till we
discuss the Johannine evidence in its entirety. Meantime we may
safely say that the writer intends us to take into account two things,
first, that Nathanael, to whom this promise has been made, has been
called by Jesus " an Israelite indeed," that is, a genuine son of the
purified Jacob to whom it was given to see the face of God and to
receive the new name of "Israel" which included " God 1 " ; secondly,
that Jesus is referring to the vision seen by Jacob, before he had
been thus purified and called " Israel." The writer also assumed that
"Israel" in Christ's lips did not mean Israel after the flesh, but
Israel after the spirit. That means, in the fourth gospel, the Church
1 [3140 d] " El," in " Isra-el," is universally admitted to mean God, although
opinion is divided about the rest of the name. Jerome, Quaest. Genes, (on Gen.
xxxii. 28) rejects the explanation given in what he calls the Book of Names, i^.
" seeing God," although (he says) it is familiarly used by everybody, and supported
by the great authority and eloquence of men "whose mere shadow is overwhelming
(et ipsorum umbra nos opprimat)." Does he mean Origen as well as Philo?
Comp. Orig. Comm. Matth. xi. 17, Lomm. Hi. 115 r6v /tr> 'Ier/xi7j\ fi.T]8t diopa.Tiicoi'.
[3140 6] Origen says (Comm.Joann. ii. 25, Lomm. i. 147) " If any one accepts
the treatise entitled JosepKs Prayer, one of the apocryphal works that are current
among Hebrews," it will be found to support his (Origen's) views. Then he
quotes from it, " I [am] Jacob, he that was called by men Jacob ; but my [true]
name [is] Israel, he that was called by God Israel, a man seeing God (eb^jp bpdiv
Mr)...." This testifies to a Jewish adoption of the derivation "seeing God," and
it conveys the impression that Origen did not dissent from this derivation. See
Joh. Gr. 2766, Notes 2987, and 3219 d.
131 92
[3140] MARK, HOW FAR TO BE FOLLOWED
of God, or perfected humanity, or Man on earth identified with the
ideal Man in heaven. Using the Hebrew or Aramaic title we might
describe this as " the son of man " on earth identified with the Son
of God in heaven.
These conclusions harmonize well with the hypothesis, supported
by previous considerations, that " son of man " meant " man in his
right relation to God," or "man inspired by the Spirit of God."
They also agree with the conclusion arrived at in the last section,
that in the course of the Temptation, He who called Himself " the
son of man " was regarded as seeing " the heavens opened, and the
angels in attendance, and the Beast on the point of being trampled
beneath His feet."
13*
CHAPTER II
"THE SON OF MAN" CLAIMING AUTHORITY
i. "Authority^ to forgive sins"
[3141] By far the most important problem suggested by the
" authority " of " the son of man " relates to " authority to forgive,"
connected by all the Synoptists with the phrase " on, or over, the
earth," but with some variations of context as given below 2 .
"Authority to forgive on the earth" may be different from
"authority over [the people of] the earth to forgive [them]." And
the slight differences of order given below assume importance in
view of the fact that, when Matthew and Luke agree in verbal
alterations of Mark, they seem generally to be intending to make
Mark's language clearer, or to free it from some defect. But a
decision as to their intention is in this instance rendered doubtful by
the fact that we are not certain what Mark's order is.
2. The problem
[3142] The following questions suggest themselves :
What is "authority" (which the Revised Version places in its
margin) ? How does it differ from " power " (which the Revised
Version places in its text)?
1 R.V. text and A.V. have "power," but R.V. marg. "authority," see
3143 foil.
- [3141 a] Mk ii. 10 (txt.) ...&TI eovffiav x et *>&* T v avOpurrov d<t>ievai
d/xaprtas eirl rip yfjs, Mt. ix. 6 ...5ri Qowriait x w^ TOW avdp^ov rl rrjs yTjt
aupitvcu dyuapTias and so Mk marg., Lk. v. 24 ...3ri 6 uioi rov ardpwTrov efowria* ?x ei
ifl T^J 777$ a^i&cu a/xapriaj : "on," or "over," is trl. In Rev. ii. 16, xx. 6,
eowia twi means "authority over" (like ovffia e-raru in Lk. xix. 17) but "on"
is favoured by Mt. xxviii. 18 "authority in heaven and on earth (<hrl [r^s] yi}i)"
and by the frequency of t-rl yiji meaning " on earth." See also 3166 foil.
[3143] "THE SON OF MAN"
What is " forgiving " ?
Why does Jesus here call Himself for the first time in Mark and
Luke 1 "the son of man"?
What is meant by the modifying phrase "on (or, over) the earth,"
and what by the difference of its order ?
The contexts represent Jesus as addressing the paralytic
differently in the three gospels: (i) (Mark) "Child!" (2) (Matthew)
" Be of good cheer, child! " (3) (Luke) " Man ! "
Which is right? How are the differences to be explained?
What light does the appellation throw on Christ's attitude toward the
paralytic ?
How could the healing of paralysis prove that the healer had
authority to forgive sins ?
Why was this " authority " not exercised before ? Or, if it was
exercised, why was it not proclaimed before?
All the evangelists place before Christ's first words to the paralytic
the statement that He "saw their faith," apparently meaning the
faith of those who brought the paralytic, and the faith of the
paralytic himself. Are we to infer that the faith of the bearers was
one of the causes of the cure ?
An attempt will now be made to give direct answers to some of
these questions and thereby to answer the rest indirectly.
3. The meaning of "authority" here
[3143] " Authority," in Greek, is even more ambiguous than in
English 2 . Sometimes it means the power of a despot to do as he
likes, but sometimes power based on a good law of nature. Epictetus
says that, in times past, kings and tyrants, even when themselves
evil, received from their body-guards the power of rebuking and
punishing those that did wrong, but that the ideal Cynic derives " this
1 [3142 a] In Matthew, there is a previous mention, Mt. viii. 20 "the son
of man hath not where to lay his head." In Luke, this is placed after the saying ~"
under discussion. On this see 3337 foil.
2 [3143 a] For "authority" in English poetry, see the Concordances to Shake-
speare, Milton, Pope, Cowper, Shelley, and Tennyson. The differences of use will
be found to be, in some cases, characteristic of personal feeling. "Authority," in
this book, will always be used as the rendering of tl-ovffla. The Greek, however,
does not etymologically correspond to the English but rather suggests that which
is "permitted." Luke seems to differ sometimes from Mark and Matthew in his
view of the word. Its meaning must often depend upon its context.
134
CLAIMING AUTHORITY [3145]
authority " from " the conscience 1 ." The Cynic is a natural king ;
he goes about like a Hercules destroying noxious beasts, and like an
vEsculapius healing diseases Warrior and Physician in one. In
both these capacities he receives from God authority over men, and
men recognise it in him, because they perceive him to be their
benefactor and deliverer 1 .
[3144] This definition or description, which Epictetus applies to
Diogenes the Cynic, might be accepted as applying to the "authority"
of Christ. But there was the following difference. When Epictetus
descends to detail, he is not able to shew that Diogenes was much
more than a prescribing physician, doing good to those afflicted with
sickness of mind by diagnosing each disease and ordering the
appropriate remedy, but not applying it The Synoptists on the
other hand represent the remedy as being applied by their Physician,
Christ, and this, more especially, in the healing of the possessed or
demoniacs, and in the forgiveness of sins.
This might seem altogether to the advantage of Christ, since it
exalted His power over that of the Cynic. But if the power of
Christ consisted mainly in exorcism which was supposed to depend
largely on the knowledge of magic names and charms and incanta-
tions what became of the part assigned by Epictetus to "the
conscience"? It disappeared, and "authority" disappeared with it,
supplanted by mere " power." Moreover this " power " was tainted
by pretenders, such as the professional exorcists, described in the
Acts and elsewhere 3 .
[3145] As a fact, the "authority" of Christ was based upon
"the conscience," and yet it was also more than that of "the
prescribing physician."
Matthew was right in connecting it with the authoritative teaching
of the Sermon on the Mount, and with the emphatic " I " in the
refrain, "Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time... but /
say unto you." This means, in effect, " I do not argue, I do not
1 Epict. iii. 22. 94. "This authority (TTJV t^ovaiajr ravnjf)." Epictetus speaks
of these kings and tyrants as past and obsolete, but of the reign of the Stoic
as present. Comp. Jn x. 8.
* See Silanus the Christian pp. 20 i, and the Notes, which give references
to Epictetus. For the use of ' ' authority " in the gospels, seefoA. Voc. 1562 foil.
3 [3144 a] Acts xix. 13 " certain also of the strolling Jews, exorcists." Comp.
Joseph. Ant. viii. i. 5 on the exorcist who made an evil spirit throw down
a bucket of water in the presence of Vespasian.
135
[3146] "THE SON OF MAN"
quote scripture on my side. I seem perhaps to go beyond scripture.
Yet you know, in your hearts, that I am your true Teacher. You
feel that your true life will consist in living by my word and your true
freedom in obeying me. You recognise that I have the words of
eternal life."
But, on the other hand, Mark and Luke were also right in saying
that, in special cases, a personal influence might pass from Jesus into
a man possessed with what was called an unclean spirit, appealing to
his conscience in such a way as to restore the sufferer to sanity and
moral health.
The misfortune is, that, at the very outset of the gospel, when it
was particularly desirable (one would suppose) to give the reader
clear views on Christ's twofold authority, Matthew, on the one hand,
has omitted the cure of the man with the unclean spirit, commonly
called exorcism, while Mark and Luke, on the other hand, have
so arranged their subject-matter as to give the impression that
"authority" refers, or may refer, to exorcism alone^.
[3146] Amid these differences of view, there was a suitableness
for Johannine intervention. Accordingly the fourth evangelist is at
great pains to shew his readers what is meant by " authority " in the
right sense and also (as a foil) in the wrong sense. For this purpose
he connects the term with such contexts as to shew that it comes
from God, and implies service to man.
The first mention of it describes " authority to become children
of God" as being given to those who receive the Logos 2 . This
" authority " is to reside in the children of God in the same lorm in
which it resides in the supreme Son of God. It implies service,
giving one's life for man. "I have authority" says Jesus, "to lay it
down 3 ," where the "it" means His own life. The "authority," then,
1 [3146 a] Compare:
Mk i. 12 7 Mt. vii. 27 9 Lk. iv. 326
"He was teaching " '...and great was the " And they were amaz-
them as one having au- fall thereof.' And... the ed at his teaching, be-
thority and not as the multitudes were amazed cause his word was in
scribes. '...A new teach- at his teaching; for he authority...' 1 What is this
ing! With authority doth was teaching them as one word.thatinawAfor/Vyand
he command even the un- having authority and not power he commandeth
clean spirits 1 "' as their scribes." the unclean spirits...! '"
Note that Luke omits the clause in Mk-Mt. about "scribes." The omission
makes it more natural for the reader to refer "authority " solely to exorcism.
s Jn i. it. * Jn x. 18.
136
CLAIMING AUTHORITY [3147]
is that of the Cross. Elsewhere Jesus speaks of "authority to do
judgment" as given to Him because He "is son of man 1 ." But He
implies that this is a secondary object The primary object is to give
life and to save : " I came not to judge the world but to save the
world 2 ." Hence, the very passage that mentions "authority to do
judgment" says first, "As the Father hath life in himself, even so gave
he to the Son also to have life in himself" ; and later on, it is said,
" Thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that all that thou hast
given him, to them he may give eternal life 3 ."
The final Johannine instances imply a protest against the worldly
abuse of the word. In the mouth of the princes of this world it
means "doing what one likes." This is Pilate's way of using it.
" Knowest thou not," says the Roman governor to Jesus, "that I
have authority to release thee and have authority to crucify thee?"
to which the reply is, "Thou wouldest have no authority against
me except it were given thee from above 4 ."
" Authority," then, in the fourth gospel, is the authority of the
shepherd over the flock in that ideal sense in which Homer speaks
of the true king as being the shepherd of his people. So the
Psalmist cries to Jehovah, as "shepherd of Israel 5 ." And according
to John, this kind of shepherd, face to face with " the wolf," feels
that part of his " authority " consists in " laying down his life " for
the flock.
4. Forgiving
[3147] The application of the Johannine doctrine of "authority"
to the Synoptic doctrine that "the son of man hath authority to
forgive" seems all the more difficult because, in the fourth gospel,
the word "forgive" is not mentioned before Christ's resurrection 6 .
But, though the word is not mentioned, the thought is present
before. Perhaps John's belief was that "forgiveness," in the full
sense of the term, was not possible till the Holy Spirit had been
given by the risen Saviour. But meanwhile Jesus was preparing the
1 Jn v. 27. 2 Jn xii. 47. * Jn v. 16, xvii. i.
4 Jn xix. 10 ii, on the meaning of which see Paradosis 1390 2.
5 [3146 a] Ps. Ixxx. i. Epictetus iii. 22. 72 connects the Stoic with the King,
" who has many cares." But they are not personal or private cares, they are the
cares of "all the nations." Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 28 "the care of all the churches."
6 [3147 a] John does not mention the noun "forgiveness" at all. "Forgive"
he does not mention till Jn xx. 23 " If ye forgive (a.<tnJTe) the sins of any."
137
[3148] "THE SON OF MAN"
disciples to receive it by giving them "words of eternal life."
Forgiveness, in the full sense of the term, must be regarded not
as a negative act ("I will not punish you ") but as a positive one,
such as might be called " saving," " healing," " causing to live," or
" making clean." Accordingly Jesus says to the disciples " Already
are ye clean because of the word that I have spoken unto you 1 ."
[3148] When John describes the healing at the pool of Bethesda,
which corresponds in many points to the Synoptic healing of the
paralytic, he records Jesus as saying, not the Synoptic words, uttered
before the healing, "Thy sins are forgiven thee" but "No longer be
sinning" uttered after the healing 2 . The evangelist seems to suggest
that even if, in some sense, the man's sins have been forgiven, it is,
at all events, not in the full sense. The man goes to the Temple,
perhaps to give thanks for being healed ; but he has taken no pains
to find out or thank his healer. It would be in accordance with the
tenor of the fourth gospel to regard the relief from past sin and the
feeling that it has been blotted out, as a negative feeling. The
evangelist's mind would rather be set on that which is positive,
namely, the divine bestowal of what Ezekiel calls "a new heart" and
"a new spirit 3 ." The Psalmist comes near to the same conception
when he cries " Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew
a right spirit within me 4 ."
[3149] Whence is this "new heart" and " new spirit " to come
to the penitent sinner ? Ezekiel is bidden to summon the Universal
Wind, Spirit, or Breath, to breathe life into the dry bones of Israel 6 .
But the fourth gospel implies that the Holy Spirit could not come 8
till the Son had laid down His life and then returned to breathe into
His disciples the power of forgiving 7 . This accords with the Hebrew
doctrine concerning God, as being the Giver, from the beginning
who gave something out of Himself at the creation of man, when
He "breathed into his nostrils 8 ," and who afterwards became the
1 Jn xv. 3, comp. xiii. 10 "ye are pure." On the Johannine theory of for-
giving see 3413 9.
2 [3148 a] Jn v. 14. He adds "lest a worse thing befall thee." Comp. Mt.
xii. 45, Lk. xi. 26, which describe the return of an unclean spirit with " seven
other spirits" to its former home, which it finds (Mt.) "empty (<rxo\afoi'Ta)."
3 Ezek. xi. 19, xviii. 31, xxxvi. 26. 4 Ps. li. 10.
* Ezek. xxxvii. 9 " Come from the four winds, O Wind."
6 Jn vii. 39, xiv. 12 16 foil.
7 Jn xx. 223, see 3623 foil.
8 Gen. ii. 7.
138
CLAIMING AUTHORITY [3151]
Nursing Father of Israel, feeding them from His breast, and being
"afflicted in their affliction 1 ."
[3150] Hence, when Jesus says to the Father concerning the
Son, "Thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that, [as regards]
whatsoever thou hast given him, to them he should give eternal
life 1 ," the meaning is a development of what was said earlier where
"authority" was expressly inserted as to "doing judgment," but only
implied as to "life" "As the Father hath life in himself, even so
gave he to the Son also \authority\ to have life in himself [in order
to give it to others} and he gave him authority to do judgment...*."
It is assumed that whatever the Father does the Son must do : " As
the Father raiseth the dead and causeth them to live, even so the
Son also causeth to live whom he will*." The Father is perpetually
giving. So therefore is the Son. The Father gives from Himself.
So therefore does the Son. The Father cannot give His life,
directly, but He can, through the Son, indirectly.
[3151] Among many kinds of divine "giving," there is one so
the gospels appear to teach in which the divine Giver pours
Himself, or His Spirit, into the midst of a diseased, corrupt, sin-
possessed human being, and drives out the Evil, substituting the
Good not without pain to the Good 5 . This "giving" we call
"forgiving," and it is the most royal and divine of all the acts of
divine Royalty or Authority. The pain that the Son feels when thus
giving Himself to Man, and for Man, must be regarded as corre-
sponding to something, for which we have no adequate name, felt by
the Father when He "gives" His Son for the salvation of the world.
1 Is. briii. 9. On the " Nursing Father," see 3426 foil, and 3800 foil.
I Jn xvii. i. 3 Jn v. 267. 4 Jn v. 11.
5 [3151 a] This expulsion of evil by infusion of the good is called by Isaiah
(vi. 10) being " fuaUJ." Mark (iv. 12) paraphrases this as "forgiving," a
"healing" of the soul, "lest. ..it should be forgiven them." Matthew (xiii. 15)
has " lest. ..I should heal them." Luke omits the clause. John has (xii. 40) " that...
not. ..and I should ^a/them."
I 1 has been suggested to me that pain need not be an element in forgiveness.
For example, in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, the father would feel no pain in
forgiving his son. But pain must have preceded. The father could not have for-
given the son in the full sense of the term, unless he had been previously pained
by his conduct. And, the greater the pain, the more effective the forgiveness. If
he had regarded the young man's conduct as a mere peccadillo, he might have
killed a score of fatted calves for him, but could not have " forgiixn " him in the
sense in which Jesus used the word.
139
[3152] "THE SON OF MAN"
5. Why did Jesus call Himself "-son of man " here ?
[3152] Everyone knows that Jesus generally called Himself " I "
and not " son of man." In Mark, He has already said, " Follow me
and / will make you fishers of men 1 ," " Let us go into the next
villages that /may preach there also, for thereto came /forth 2 ." In
Matthew, who places the Sermon on the Mount before the Healing
of the Paralytic, "/" has abounded. In Luke, the first public words
of Jesus are a quotation from Isaiah, "The Spirit of the Lord is
upon me, because he hath anointed me." The question arises, "Why
does He, for the first time 3 , call Himself not ' I ' but ' son of man,'
here ? What, if any, is the special fitness of the self-appellation for
this special occasion ? "
An answer is suggested indirectly by a Jewish commentary on the
eighth Psalm. It represents God as saying to the angels, when they
shew jealousy of earthly man and desire to keep the Law to them-
selves in heaven, "The Law cannot find a place with you 4 ." The
reason given is, that they do not know death, or disease, or
uncleanness, or any thing that the Law forbids. In the same way it
might be said to angels, "You cannot make allowance for temptation,
for you do not know what temptation is; you cannot forgive, or bear
the burden of the sins of the sons of man, for you know not what it
is to sin."
[3153] The above-mentioned commentary quaintly represents
this as an imperfection, or defect, in the angels : Like the case of a
man apprenticing to a spinner a son who has lost a finger; the father
comes to the Master expecting to find that the boy can spin; but the
Master replies "This work needs every finger." So the Law of
Moses that is the moral deduced "needs every finger." And
among these " fingers " is imperfection ! This " imperfection " is
what the Epistle to the Romans would call "vanity 5 ," that is, frailty
or corruption to which the whole human race is subjected for a
time in order that it may ultimately triumph over it, when the sons
of man, having all things put under their feet, "shall be delivered
1 Mki. 17.
2 Mk i. 38. There is also Mk i. 41 " I will (W\w)."
3 On Mt. viii. 20 as not really previous, see 3142 a and 3337 foil.
4 Tehillim, Wiinsche p. 76 on Ps. viii. 2.
5 Rom. viii. 20.
140
CLAIMING AUTHORITY [3153]
from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the
children of God 1 ."
The power to receive and exert this " authority " has attached to
Man ever since he fell into evil and, by falling, rose to "know
good 2 ." But when "the son of roan" came, the primeval "au-
thority" was manifested in so great and new a degree that the
"authority" itself seemed though it was not so to be new in nature.
This, then, may be one reason why the first public mention of
Christ's self-appellation is connected with the forgiveness of sins on
earth. It is because of the exceeding marvel of the paradox that so
great a work, the greatest of all works on earth, should not be
performed directly by God Himself, nor indirectly through ministering
angels, but by " the son of man." It is the paradox of the eighth
Psalm. God has set His glory above the heaven 3 by giving to "the
son of man " on earth an authority that He has not given to the angels.
Authority, however, such as this, is not attained or exercised
without effort and conflict. If the ideal "son of man" is to be a
mediator, above all "angels," between the other sons of man and
God, so also is he to be a champion between the other sons of man
and the Beast. This is dimly suggested in the eighth Psalm, but
more clearly in the Psalm that describes the " trampling " of the Son
on ''the lion and the adder 4 ."
This suggests a second reason for the use of the self-appellation
here. It is because forgiveness, in Christ's sense of the term,
implies a war waged for us by the Forgiver against what the Epistle
to the Romans calls " the law of sin in my members," that is, the
Beast. The forgiving of the paralytic follows a succession of spiritual
acts in which Jesus has been casting out those unclean spirits or
devils who could be called the powers of the Beast. Whatever war
" angels " may typically wage in heaven, they cannot wage this war
on earth and in the heart of man so at least the Christian religion
teaches except so far as they come to us as the spirits of the
departed or as the humanised representatives of One more human
than themselves. To wage this war is the prerogative of " the son
of man."
1 Rom. viii. i. * Gen. iii. 11.
* Ps. viii. i (R.V. marg.) "who hast set thy glory above the heavens."
4 Ps. xci. 13 (R.V.) "Thou shall tread upon the lion and adder; the young
lion and the serpent shall thou trample under feet."
141
[3154] "THE SON OF MAN"
[3154] Another reason for the use of "son of man" here, is
probably this, that Jesus wishes to reserve a claim for a whole
class 1 for every "son of man" whom God should hereafter "visit"
and bless with that divine power which He desired ultimately to
impart to others. Had Jesus said, "That ye may know that
a prophet, or, that the Messiah, hath power to pronounce the forgive-
ness of sins," it is doubtful whether the Pharisees would have at once
accused Him of blasphemy 2 .
1 [3154 a] This explains Mt. ix. 8 "the multitudes... glorified God who had
given such authority to men (SS. the sons of man)." Origen's comment is lost.
Jerome passes the expression over. Chrys. takes it as indicating the ignorance, or
merely partial knowledge, of the multitude. Cyril (Cramer ad loc.) explains it
as referring to human nature. Theodoras says, "They recognise the action as
Divine, but the Doer they see [before them] a man." He seems to agree with
Chrysostom. If they were right, Matthew was wrong. He should have written
" glorified God, who had as they ignorantly supposed given such authority
to men"
JEWISH VIEWS OF FORGIVENESS
2 [3164 U\ Every Jew knew that Nathan the prophet had said to David (28. xii.
13) "The Lord hath put away thy sin." But there is a great difference between
this and "authority to forgive sins." Concerning the statement that "no op-
ponent of Jesus had any doubt that the Messiah had full power to forgive sins "
Dr Dalman says (Words p. 262) "Judaism never, from Old Testament times to
the present day, has ventured to make any such assertion in regard to the
Messiah." Those who say that the words implied a Messianic claim ought to
answer this challenge, and to give grounds for the statement. Others, who admit
that the claim was not Messianic, but assert that it was made, not indeed by
Jesus for (they say) He never uttered the words but by His disciples or
evangelists, who imputed the words to Him, ought also to explain how the
evangelists came to impute to Him a non-Messianic claim with the view of
proving that He claimed to be the Messiah.
[3164 c\ At the same time it is only fair to remark, in view of the reference
made above to i S. xii. 13 "the Lord hath put away thy sin, thou shalt not die,"
that the Hebrew for "put away" (also retained in Aramaic) is not the usual word
for "forgive," but " cause-to-pass-by" Levy Ch. ii. 198 a gives two ways of
rendering the Targum of this, one of which supplies the preposition " over "
(comp. Mic. vii. 18). "Pass over" occurs (Gesen. 717 l>), as well as "cause to
pass by" (ib. 719 a), in this sense, of God "passing over sin." When the word
is causatively used in 2 S. xii. 13, xxiv. 10 (Gesen. by error xxiv. 20) (parall.
i Chr. xxi. 8) punishment is inflicted on David's child or people, though David
is spared.
The word has many interesting renderings in LXX (among which Amos vii.
8, viii. 2, R.V. " pass by them (lit. him, i.e. Israel)," ira.pt\8dv a.Mv, Field " con-
donare ei," "pardon him," may be noted as possibly bearing on Mk vi. 48 "pass by
them" (Joh. Voc. 1735 b) if Mk is based on poetic narrative). When it implies
" passing-over " rather than " full forgiveness," it would be called, in classical Greek,
142
CLAIMING AUTHORITY [3154]
But Jesus meant more than this. He meant that God had sent
down from earth to "the son of man" that "new spirit" which
Ezekiel himself called "son of man" had been the first to predict
Primarily it had come only to Jesus Himself. Ultimately it was to
be imparted, through Him to the disciples, and through the disciples
to the world; that is, to all the sons of man that could receive Him,
and, with Him, the "authority to become children of God 1 ."
rather rdpeira than a#rij. Much discussion has been caused by the use (unique
in the Bible) of rdp&rit in Rom. iii. 25 A.V. "for the remission of sins," R.V.
" because of the passing ewer of the sins." All these facts bear on Jn v. 14 " No
longer continue in sin lest a worse thing befall thee, "which seems to mean, "You
have received a rdpfffit, but it is not an d^>m for all your sins for all time."
[31M d~\ In the only other instance in which Jesus pronounces to an individual
the words (Lk. vii. 48) " Thy sins are forgiven," the woman is expressly said to be
(i6. 37) "a sinner." And it is reasonable to suppose that the paralytic would also
have been called by the authorities of the synagogue a "sinner." According to
the Targum on Ps. ciii. 3, "Who forgiveth all thine iniquities, who healeth all
thy diseases," any sick person was unclean till he had risen from his bed three
days, so that (it would seem) the mere entrance of this man into an assembly
where the Law was being taught was in itself a violation of the traditions of legal
cleanness by the man or his friends such a violation as might be expected from
one who was a "sinner" outside the congregation of the synagogue. If so,
Christ's words "Thy sins are forgiven" may have included the meaning, "I cancel
the excommunication pronounced against thee."
[3154 e\ Dr Dalman has some most interesting and instructive remarks ( Words
pp. 213 4) on Jewish traditions that God, as it were, binds Himself to ratify the
decisions of Israel on earth when Israel interprets His Law ; and he also quotes
from/. Taanith 67 a a statement that God even "makes His determination invalid
if it contradict the determination of a pious person," bat this is by no means so
strongly expressed in the parallel b. Sabbath 63 a. He also quotes b. Motd K. 166
" I, God, rule over men ; who rules over Me ? The pious for I enact and he
annuls." This is based on i S. xxiii. i 3 as interpreted by R. Abbahu. But
the Talmudic context (interpreting "on-high" as "yoke") speaks of David as
"taking on himself the yoke of repentance," and Ezekiel (xviii. 11 foil.) emphati-
cally recognises that repentance annuls God's decrees. It is interesting to add
that Rashi (on i S. xxiii. 3) while giving this as the explanation of " Rabbini
nostri," places first the explanation "juxta genuinum sensum."
These Jewish traditions appear mostly to concern interpretations of the
Levitical Law, and overt acts, and to have very little to do with insight into
motive, and with the power of conveying what may be called heart-to-heart for-
giveness.
1 Jn i. 11.
143
[3155] "THE SON OF MAN
6. " On earth" why added 1
[3155] Different shades of meaning might be deduced from the
variations (Mark) "authority to forgive sins on (or, over) earth" and
(Matthew and Luke) "authority on (or, over) earth to forgive sins
(3141-2)." In either case, "on earth" is ambiguous. It might
imply, " on earth [but not in heaven ; the judgment in heaven must be
left till the Day of Judgment]." But it might imply the opposite,
" On earth [yes, on earth, and what the son of man forgives on earth
shall be forgiven in heaven],"
That the latter is the meaning is indicated by the tenor of Christ's
doctrine emphasized by Matthew indicating the correspondence
between earth and heaven, as in the Lord's Prayer, "as on earth so
in heaven," and in the tradition " Whatsoever ye bind on earth shall
be bound in heaven," and also in Luke's Song of the Angels, "Glory
in the highest to God, and on earth peace."
[3156] We have to consider the circumstances of the "sinners"
whom Christ is found calling around Him immediately after this
proclamation. These men, many of them, appear to have been
despised, if not cast out, by a section of the Scribes and Pharisees
as "people of the earth 1 ," wn had neither leisure to study the
Rabbinical traditions nor opportunity to attain perfect Levitical
purification. Others were of loose life, and others of vicious life.
And all these classes were included (sometimes together with
all Gentiles in a mass) as "the multitude which knoweth not the
Law," and consequently "accursed 2 ." Not all the Pharisees took
this view, but the testimony of the gospels indicates that many of
them did.
The " sinners," thus left by many of the rulers of Israel to what
may be called "the uncovenanted judgments of God," lost hope and
trust and love. What they knew of " the Law " of the God of Israel
caused them to turn from that God instead of turning to Him.
Could they comfort themselves with the thought of a Day of
1 [3156 a] Comp. Aboth ii. 6 (lit.) ' the people of the land are not pious,"
where Taylor comments on "the people of the land" as a term "used in
Rabbinic to denote the vulgar herd," and he compares Jn vii. 49. Some classes
of the Pharisees (comp. Hor. Heb. on Mt. iii. 7) are severely censured in several
Jewish traditions ; and the Pharisees generally, or such as were in power, may
be supposed to have been at a low level during the manhood of Christ. See 3602.
2 Jn vii. 49.
144
[3157]
Judgment when all that was wrong would be made right ? That
was far off. And even if they tried to regulate their lives with a
view to that Day, what hope had they that the Judgment would
differ from that of their rulers, who appeared to know the Law,
"This multitude, which knoweth not the Law, are accursed"?
[3157] Placing ourselves among such "sinners" as these, and
imagining such a shepherd as Jesus among such lost sheep as these
sheep that in many cases belonged, by right, to the true flock of
Israel, but unpastured, untended, and worried by "the wolf" can
we wonder that He, feeling able to give them food and protection,
felt Himself called by the voice of God to give it? The food and
protection, in the case of this paralysed man in Capernaum, Jesus
perceived to be "forgiveness of sins upon earth." This, then, He
gave.
But, if He had the right to give it, why did He not give it before?
So precious an "authority 1 " as this, if justly claimed why was it so
long, at least so comparatively long, left unused ? Why do we not
find in Mark in the first trumpet notes of the Gospel along with
"Repent !" and along with "Believe!" the cry "The son of man
hath authority on earth to forgive sins " ? And why does Jesus heal
so many bodies before He publicly and expressly declares that He
heals a single soul? These questions we must now try to answer.
THE "APPOINTMENT" OF THE MESSIAH TO HAVB "AUTHORITY"
1 [3157 a] The epistle to the Hebrews speaks of Christ as being (L i)
"appointed (fthjce*)" by God heir of all things, indicating that "appointment"
conveys "authority." This conception will illustrate the remarkable name of the
very early sect called (3077) "Sethians," who apparently regarded the Messiah as
"Seth" (somewhat as Ezekiel (xxxiv. 23 etc.) speaks of the future King of Israel
as "David"). For "Seth" means "appointed" The first three instances of
"appoint" in the Bible are these: (Gen. iii. 15) "I will appoint enmity... between
thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head...," and (iv. 25) "she called his
name Seth (i.e. Appointed) for, [said she,] God hath appointed (Aq. tB^Kt) for me
another seed." R. Samuel said (Gen. Rob. on Gen. iv. 25) that Eve "saw," in
Seth, ' King Messiah." Onkelos in Gen. iii. 15 substitutes, as usual, "sons" for
"seed," (Jer. 1 " seed of sons"). But Paul, to the Galatians (iii. 16), insists on
"seed" ("not seeds") as meaning a single person, Christ, with reference to "the
seed of Abraham." The Sethians appear to have done the same thing with
reference to the " seed of the woman." " Seth " seemed to them the appointed
seed, who was to bring to a successful end the warfare implied in the appointed
"enmity."
A. S. 145 10
CHAPTER III
"THE SON OF MAN" USING AUTHORITY
i. Why was not this "authority" used before?
[3158] The Synoptic narratives indicate that Jesus did not begin
to forgive sins formally till He had been for some time healing
disease ; and that He did not begin to heal disease till He had been
for some time teaching. This suggests that His work developed,
stage by stage. The fourth gospel though it emphasizes His
insight into man, and His knowledge of certain things that were to
come to pass, nevertheless makes it quite clear that the Son de-
pended in all His words and works on the revelations given Him by
the Father who " sheweth him all things that he is doing," " The
Son cannot do anything except he see the Father doing it 1 ."
These words are placed by John immediately after the healing
of the helpless man by the Pool, which was performed by Jesus on
the sabbath. The writer manifestly believes that Jesus " saw " the
divine will in this act of healing, and in other acts, with such
clearness that we could only realise it for ourselves by calling it " a
vision." This agrees with what if Christians may say so without
presumption seems " natural " in Christ. So He says to the
Seventy, in Luke, "I beheld Satan, as lightning, fallen from heaven"
when He welcomes their report of success in casting out demons 2 .
[3159] The very original and suggestive commentary on Mark
attributed to Jerome appears to allegorize the " four men " that
bring the paralytic into the presence of Jesus as representing " four
1 Jn v. 20, 19.
2 [31B8rt] Lk. x. 18. Comp. an early tradition in Lk. xxii. 43 " There appeared
unto him an angel...," where perhaps "unto him" implies that it did not appear
to the disciples. On this see W.H. vol. ii. ad loc. Epiphanius, when quoting it,
omits "unto him."
146
"THE SON OF MAN" USING AUTHORITY [3160]
Powers." which he has previously called "principal Powers 1 ."
They are manifestly (in Mark's view) not Powers, but flesh and
blood men. Their pathetic " faith " is mentioned as a factor in the
healing that follows 2 . Jesus would perhaps have called them " little
ones " whose " faith " stirred Him as He was stirred by the faith of
the Syrophcenician woman 3 . But, if He thought of them as " little
ones," what follows? "The angels of the little ones," He had
Himself said, "do always behold the face of my Father who is
in heaven 4 ." To Him, therefore, the appeal of these four "men 5 ,"'
with their helpless burden, might come like the appeal of the four
" angels 6 of the Presence " commending the sufferer from the Father
to the Son and " shewing " to the latter " the work " that needed to
be done.
[3160] Luke himself gives us a suggestion that at this special
crisis some special divine power was put forth. Unfortunately his
1 [3159 a] "Virtutes cardinales" although "virtus" is also the writer's
regular rendering of ' ' mighty work " appears to have the meaning given above.
* Mk ii. 5, Mt ix. a, Lk. v. 70 all agree in the clause " seeing their faith."
s Mt. xv. 28 " O woman, great is thy faith."
* [3159 6] Mt. xviii. 10, on which see Notes 2998 (xv) b. The view adopted
in the former part of that note (which is preferable to the one in the latter part)
is that the angels are (Ephrem p. 165) "prayers." Similarly (Sir. xxxv. 17 a t
Heb.) " The crying of the poor passeth through thick clouds and resteth not until
it come nigh; it will not remove till God shall visit...." Comp. Jn i. 51 "the
angels of God ascending," and the comment on it (3134 40).
5 [3159 c] "Four 'men.'" So Lk. v. 18 "men," but the parall. Mk ii. 3
" by four." The parall. Mt. ix. i "[they] brought " leaves the bringers quite un-
defined. Matthew omits the whole of the story of the " letting down " from the
roof. His omission, and several details in Mk-Lk., point (Clue 195 209) to
some obscurity in original traditions. For an instance of "letting down" in
a vision, see Acts x. ii "a certain vessel... let down by four corners upon
the earth."
[3159 d\ If a careful Greek evangelist used "men" in the sense of "angels
appearing as men," he would probably use d*5pcs not drffpwroi. Comp. Lk. ix. 30,
xxiv. 4, Acts i. 10. See also Gen. xviiL i "three men (43/>)," Targ. Onk.
"men," Targ. Jer. I "angels in the resemblance of men," Targ. Jer. II
" angels."
6 [3159 <] Comp. Enoch 40 "And I heard the voice of those four presences
as they gave glory before the Lord of glory." Where any thought of inclusion
in God's Kingdom, or a notion of universality, is implied, "four" is an appro-
priate number, as representing " the four quarters of the earth," comp. Ezek.
xxxvii. 9 " come from the four winds (or, spirits) O wind (or, spirit)." Enoch
frequently mentions the principal angels as "four." The tradition about "angels
of the presence " may be derived in part from Is. Ixiii. 9 " the angel of his presence
saved them.'' See 3385 6 folL
147 102
[3161] "THE SON OF MAN"
text is doubtful, and it is not certain whether he means power of
God, or power of Jesus. Taken as they stand, the words placed in
the margin of our Revised Version as the reading of " many ancient
authorities 1 " would imply that the power was sent forth to "heal"
the hearts of the Pharisees 2 if only they had been willing. But this,
whatever the original tradition may have meant, could hardly be
Luke's meaning. Later on, he mentions "power" as going forth
from Jesus to heal the bodies of the sick 3 , and this is probably his
meaning here. But in any case the fact remains that he introduces
the healing of the paralytic by a statement that " the power of the
Lord was [present] that he should heal."
[3161] Another indication of a special crisis is to be found in
the fact that the three Synoptists all mention " faith " as intervening
here, and Mark and Luke agree in mentioning it for the first time 4 .
How are we to explain or illustrate that invisible relation between
faith and the object of faith, which results in spiritual healing?
Origen compares the attraction exercised by "faith" on healing
" power " to the attraction exercised by naphtha on fire, or by the
magnet on iron 5 . Ben Sira describes the prayer of the oppressed
and the humble as mounting up to heaven and refusing to come
down without an answer 6 . Such prayer, it may be said, is really
faith, put into words ; and we might find for it a modern illustration
1 Lk. v. 17 (R.V. marg.) : "There were Pharisees and doctors of the law
sitting by. ..and the power of the Lord was with him that [he] should heal them."
2 [3160 a] For an instance of ambiguous "heal," compare Sir. xxviii. 3 "One
man cherisheth wrath against another, and doth he seek healing from the
Lord?" This might mean "seek relief from sickness." But the preceding
verse says "Forgive thy neighbour his ill deed, and then, at thy supplication,
thy sins shall be loosed." This indicates that the healing is metaphorical. See
3151 a and 3162 a c.
3 [3160 b~\ Lk. vi. 19 " For power was wont to go forth from him and to heal
all [that came for healing]" is peculiar to Luke. Mk iii. 7 12, Mt. iv. 24 5,
xii. 15 16, mention the healing, but not the power.
Mk v. 30 (lit.) " recognising in himself that the power [that was\from himself
had gone forth " is a Greek way of saying that Jesus was conscious of an internal
power, like electric fluid, and that He knew when this went forth to heal. This
is parall. to Lk. viii. 46 "I know that power hath gone forth from me." The
parall. Mt. ix. 21 2 makes no mention of the "power."
* Mk ii. 5, Mt. ix. 2, Lk. v. 20. Mt. viii. 10 contains an earlier mention
of " faith," that of the centurion. But Lk. vii. 9 places this later.
6 Comm. Matth. x. 19, Lomm. iii. 52.
' Sir. xxxv. 15 18.
USING AUTHORITY [3162]
in iron not drawn by the magnet (as in Origen's metaphor) but
drawing down the electric spark.
Our point, however, is not the nature of this faith, but the fact
that, among the multitudes gathering round Jesus in His early
Galilaean days, no such fervid faith as this can be reasonably
supposed to have existed. It needed to be generated ; and, for
generating it, time may have been required. Until the necessary
interval had passed, Jesus may have silently felt in the first days of
His career that which He expressed in words toward the close of it :
" I have yet many things to say unto you but ye cannot bear them
now."
The parable of the Sower, and many similar parables, indicate
the need of waiting. Long after the seed had been sown, the Light
of the World, the Sun of Righteousness, had to shine for a time
without apparent result, knocking, as it were in vain, at the door of
the unopening earth. At last the earth opens, and the sunshine
effects an entrance. Then, and not till then, it draws up toward
itself a living organism out of apparent death 1 . This power of
drawing upward, exerted partially from the beginning, Jesus was to
exert fully and universally so says the fourth gospel after death :
"I, if I be lifted up. ..will draw all men unto me 2 ."
2. The "authority" at first, qtiasi-physical
[3162] All these metaphors will be useful, negatively, if they
prevent us from limiting our conceptions of Christ's influence ; but
some will be also useful positively, if they help us to realise the
quasi-physical nature of Christ's influence at first upon the multi-
tudes, and to perceive that it was impossible for Him to be content
with this. If He could cast out " devils," maniacal, bestial, vicious,
suicidal or homicidal, was He to stop short when He felt the
power given Him of casting out the cause of all these particular
evils, by putting a portion of His own soul into the sinful sufferer so
that the man might feel not only released from a dead past but freed
for a living future ?
The fourth gospel, with its picture of the Son looking first up to
1 Comp. Jn iii. 18 21, where it is implied that condemnation goes with
unbelief and with avoidance of the light, while freedom from condemnation goes
with belief and with approach to the light.
2 Jn xii. 32.
149
[3163] "THE SON OF MAN"
heaven and then down to earth that He may do the works that He
"saw the Father doing," enables us to understand how Jesus
advanced step by step toward higher degrees and extensions of
healing power 1 .
[3163] Mark and Luke agree in placing as the event of im-
portance that precedes the healing of the paralytic 2 , the healing of a
leper, who said to Jesus, " If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean,"
and whom Jesus touched and healed 3 . According to the strict letter
of the Law, Jesus rendered Himself unclean by this act; but
according to a spiritual interpretation of the Law, He did not
undergo, but purified away, uncleanness. Whatever may have been
the exact details of this event, the narrative helps us to perceive that,
when healing a disease associated with the thought of impurity and
sin, Jesus drew near to that point in His career when He was to
" see," as the next work appointed for Him by the Father, an act of
healing sin.
The answer, therefore, to the question why this " authority " was
not proclaimed before, appears to be this, that the fit time had not
before arrived for the proclamation. Now it had arrived. Faith
1 [3162 ] Comp. Acts iv. 29 30 " Grant unto thy servants to speak thy
word... while thou stretchest forth thy hand toward healing" and note that the
"hand' 1 '' of God is paraphrased by Onk. in Deut. xxxiii. 3 as the "power,"
so that, in effect, the Acts contains a parallelism between the ' ' speaking of the
word' 1 '' by man below, and the " going forth of the power of the Lord." Then
note that Mk ii. 2 "He spake unto them the word''' 1 is parallel to Lk. v. 17
" the power of the Lord was with him toward healing."
[31623] There are similar parallels between "teaching" and "healing" in
Mk vi. 34 "teach" compared with Mt. xiv. 14, Lk. ix. n "cure/' or "heal";
between Mk x. i "teach" and Mt. xix. 2 "cure" (Lk. om.) ; and between
Mk xi. 17 18, Lk. xix. 46 7 " teach" and Mt. xxi. 13 14 "cure."
[3162 c] On the Synoptic distinctions between "unclean spirits," "devils,"
"diseases," "weaknesses," "infirmities" etc. see Corrections 390 (i). "Appuxrroj,
a word used in Mk vi. 5, 13, Mt. xiv. 14, and i Cor. xi. 30, but not used in N.T.
elsewhere, occurs, in noun-forms, in classical Greek to mean moral infirmity
(e.g. Epictet. ii. 18. 8, 9).
2 In Matthew, the healing of the centurion's servant and other events
intervene.
3 [3163 a] Mk i. 40 3, Mt. viii. 2 3, Lk. v. 12 13. Mk alone adds "being
moved with compassion (D being angered}... sternly charged him (ffj.^pt/^rjffiifj.evof,
lit. rebuked, or loudly exclaimed}." See Joh. Voc. 1713 e, 1811 a c. Mark here
preserves valuable testimony to the importance of this act, and to the stress
under which it was performed. As regards D " being angered," Nestle refers to
Thes. Syr. 3953, shewing that forms of the same Syr. mean (i) <nrXayx'/fo/tai,
(2) xaXf ira.lv (a and aya.va.KTtw.
USING AUTHORITY [3164]
had grown up. But along with faith there had grown up also a bitter
opposition, a kind of unfaith or anti-faith. The parting of the ways
had been reached. The time had come when it was necessary to
make it clear that He had been sent into the world not merely to
heal bodies but also to heal souls. It was not His mission to drive
out "devils" or "unclean spirits" in the popular sense such
" devils " as could be driven out by common exorcists but rather
such "unclean " and noxious powers as might be called "beasts," in
language intelligible to Greeks as well as to Jews.
[3164] Aristotle had taught the educated Western world to
understand that the " beast-like " character was the lowest and vilest
in the classes of human badness 1 , and even those who were not
educated knew that the victims of Circe were changed into swine
and wolves. We have seen in the Testament of Job above quoted
(3130 d} that the Beast, the Serpent, and the Dragon, are all names
for Satan, as being the evil spirit that inspires the profane Elihu.
And our own gospels with the story of the evil spirits called
Legion and their banishment into two thousand swine appear to
point to an original fact of "possession," in which the demoniac
regarded himself as under the dominion of some Beast-like Power
resembling that from which the Psalmist prayed to be delivered 8 .
Could Jesus persuade the Pharisees that God had given to " the
son of man" (that is, to man in his right relation to God) the
power of subduing this Beast and of helping "sinners" to subdue it?
Could He convince them that He Himself, representing "the son of
man " ordained to this dominion by God, had power, not only to
drive out the spirit of the Beast, but also to impart the spirit of the
Man ? Could He infuse into these Pharisees some consciousness of
the fact that they, too, were in some sense "sinners," that they, too,
needed more "life," and that He had power to supply that which
they needed ?
The occasion demanded from Him that He should make a last
appeal to them by such a visible sign as they could understand and
such a sign as He could legitimately work. If that was successful,
1 [3164 a] See Steph. Thes. on Oijpt&rifi, quoting Arist. Eth. Eud. 7 init.,
where it is the last of the " three classes " of human badness, Kaxia, dxpaffia,
2 [31643] Ps. Ixviii. 30, comp. Ixxiv. 19. See 3130 c, where one of these
beasts is said to mean " Rome." The "Legion" would be an appropriate type
of Rome and of the idolatry connected by the Jews with Rome.
[3165] "THE SON OF MAN 1 '
well ; if not, nothing remained but to turn away from them toward
those who knew themselves to be sinners indeed.
3. With what words did Jesus first use this "authority"?
[3165] The differences between the Synoptists on this point
present considerable difficulty. It is perhaps a minor matter that
Luke has "thy sins have been forgiven thee," whereas Mark
and Matthew have " thy sins are [on the point of] being for-
given." But the difference between Mark's "Child!" and Luke's
" Man ! " is very great indeed. The latter implies rebuke, and
sometimes bitter rebuke 1 . The former implies encouragement.
1 [3165 a] "Man (avOpuire)," when used vocatively by itself, signifies rebuke,
or remonstrance, both in Gk classical authors and in N.T. (Lk. xii. 14, xxii. 58,
60, Rom. ii. i, 3, ix. 20). In O.T., as far as the English Concordance shews,
" O man (adam)" is unique in Mic. vi. 8, " He hath shewed thee, man (adam,
without vocative prefix), what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee,
but to do justly, and to love mercy (i.e. kindness) and to walk humbly with thy
God?"
The final words resemble the passage where Jesus (Mt. xxiii. 23) declares
"judgment, and mercy (i.e. kindness) and faith " to be " the weightier matters of
the law" (parall. Lk. xi. 42 "judgment and the love of God"). Can we infer
from Micah's words anything as to Christ's probable language concerning " man " ?
[3165 b\ Nothing about Christ's language, because Micah's text is variously
interpreted, but something about the thoughts of Jews concerning "man "and that
which God "hath shewed" to him.
The preceding words of the prophecy are (Mic. vi. 5) " O my people, re-
member now what Balak king of Moab consulted, and what Balaam the son of
Beor answered him." Then Balak asks "Shall I give my firstborn for my trans-
gression ? " to which Balaam replies as above " He hath shewed thee...," according
to R.V. ; but the words might mean "Man hath shewed thee." Tertullian (Adv.
Marc., on Lk. xviii. 22) has this, only interrogatively, " Si annuntiavit tibi homo
quid bonum ? " where it is clear that " homo " is nom. from the following words,
" Et homo enim Christus annuntians quid sit bonum, scientiam legis...." The
Targum also has the interrogative, but with the future, " Num annuntiabit tibi
homo, quid bonum sit?" Rashi mentions "alia explicatio," which is, in effect,
" God is not as man, and therefore man will not be able to shew thee what is
good. The Lord alone can do that. And what doth the Lord require of thee
except righteousness, not sacrifice ? " But this, or something like it, seems to be
the Targum's meaning. The LXX has "Hath it been shewn thee, O man." Aq.
and Theod. have " It was said (fpp^fft)) unto thee " (Symm. elire) apparently
taking adam as vocative. The Syr. has " I will shew thee, man."
[3165 c\ Origen's comment on Mic. vi. 8 is lost, but (De Princip. iii. 6) he
quotes it as a proof that it is man's own business to live rightly and that God
" asks this from us, as being, not His business, nor (as some think) Fate's business,
but our own." He seems to be thinking of what is sometimes called "natural
I5 2
USING AUTHORITY [3165]
Matthew more than implies it in his version " Be of good cheer,
child! 1 "
One explanation might be that, in the original, Jesus called the
paralytic what the Palestinian Lectionary actually has "son of
man ! " Luke would be idiomatically justified in rendering this by
the Greek '"man!" For, as we have seen, the Eastern "son of
man " would often correspond to the Western " man." But Luke
failed perhaps to realise the tone of the appellation. We have seen
reason above for supposing that " son of man," when addressed* to
Ezekiel, was meant to strengthen him for his task by saying to him
in effect, " Remember that thou art son of man and therefore like
Him the likeness of whose appearance thou sawest above the
throne."
So here, Mark, having received from tradition that "the words
1 son of man ' here implied comfort" may have paraphrased the term
for Gentiles as though it meant "son!" or "child!" A marginal
tradition might spring up, justifying this paraphrase : " He meant
that he was to be of good cheer." But " meant" in such contexts as
this, is expressed, both in Greek and Hebrew, by "said 2 ." Hence
would arise a tradition, " He said that he was to be of good cheer."
Hence Matthew might derive "He of good cheer!" In all these
points Mark and Matthew would be verbally less accurate, but
spiritually more accurate, than Luke.
One reason why all the evangelists would refrain from any
tradition rendering into literal Greek such a sentence as, "Son of
man, thy sins are forgiven thee," would be that, by, or before, the
time when any gospel was committed to writing in Greek, the title
" son of man " would be regarded by Christians as appropriate to
nothing but Christ's self- appellation 3 . Yet, in fact, the words " Son
religion." Jerome perhaps borrows from Origen. He regards Micah as passing
from the thought of Israel (vi. 5 "my people") to the thought of all mankind,
typified by Balak receiving instruction from Balaam, " Quia (? Quid) dubitas,
o popule Israel, imo univtrsum hominum genus, nequaquam cnim loquar ad
populum Judaeum, sed generaliter ad otnnem kominem rrieus sermo percurret ''
This seems likely to have been the way in which Jesus would have interpreted
the prophecy, and would have applied it to His own mission, which was ultimately
to extend to all the sons of Adam.
1 Mk ii. 5, Mt. ix. 2, Lk. v. 20.
2 See 3204, 3371 e, and Notes 2837 (iii) a, 2874/.
3 [3165 d] The Palestinian Lectionary, it is true, calls the paralytic (in Lk. v.
20 "man") "films hominis" ; but it compensates, so to speak, by rendering
153
[3166] "THE SON OF MAN"
of man, thy sins are forgiven thee," when they are to be followed by
" The son of man hath authority to forgive," might be specially
appropriate, if they prepared the sick man for being reminded (in
Christ's next utterance shortly to come) that the forgiven was akin to
the forgiver 1 .
4. What was the proof of this "authority " ?
[3166] From what has been said above, it appears that Jesus
claimed the authority to forgive sins for "the son of man," meaning
that He claimed it for " man in his right relation with God," that
is, "man in union with God." But how could He prove to the
Pharisees that He was "man in union with God"?
An answer is suggested by other parts of the gospels, " By
working a sign in heaven." But Jesus shewed by the whole course
of His life and doctrine that if He had acceded to such a request
He would not have been " in union with God," but would have been
yielding to a temptation of Satan, like that in the wilderness, " If
thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down." Jesus was cut off from
such signs. His predecessor and namesake, Jesus the conqueror of
Palestine, had so the scripture recorded stopped the sun and the
moon : but Christ's express refusal to work " a sign in heaven "
Lk. v. 24 "the son of man" by " films mri" (as if it were 6 vlbs rov ai>5p6s).
Not much importance can be attached to Palestinian attempts to express Christian
interpretations of the Greek "the son of the man," some centuries after it had
come into Christian use.
1 [3165 e] It is less important, and more difficult, to decide between the
variations (Mk-Mt.) "are being forgiven" (perh. prophetic present, Joh. Gr. 2484)
and (Lk.) " have been forgiven." Mark's version is ambiguous, inviting some
correction that would remove the ambiguity. Mark would also be less satisfactory
than Luke to some, who might desire to magnify Christ's action. By Mark we are
perhaps led to infer that the spiritual chain is not actually loosed, or at all events
not completely loosed, till later on, with the loosing of the bodily chain. Luke
regards Jesus as having seen the spiritual loosing already accomplished in
heaven.
If we agree that Luke is more correct verbally than Mk-Mt. as to the context
(" Man !"), there follows a slight probability that he is also more correct verbally
in the wording of the whole passage.
[3165/] It is fair to add that, if Jesus was in the habit of calling Himself
Bar Adam, " son of Adam," as suggested above, in accordance with the Targum-
istic name given to Ezekiel, then it would not be the same Aramaic as "son of
man " addressed to the paralytic, unless we could shew that Jesus habitually used
" son of Adam " in His doctrine about man and man's possibilities and duties.
154
USING AUTHORITY L 3168 ]
indicates that such signs were not among " the works that the Father
shewed " to the Son.
The fact was, then, that those who demanded, as a condition of
acknowledging the authority of "the son of man" to forgive sins,
that Jesus should do something that was absolutely impossible for
any " son of man ' : to accomplish, were, from His point of view,
asking incompatibilities. If He had attempted, nay, if He had
succeeded, He would not have been " the son of man."
[3167] The only real proof of Christ's authority was His power
of revealing God's Fatherhood through His own sonship to
humanity, His power of drawing the sons of man toward their
human archetype in God by taking them into His own heart as
being son of man and yet in perfect union with God. There were
some to whom the voice of the Son proclaiming this doctrine
sounded forth at once like a perfect musical harmony irresistibly
attractive. There were others to whom it was a repulsive discord.
Midway between these two classes were probably not a few who, like
Nicodemus, felt that the voice was too high pitched for their ears to
take in, except at rare moments, but that there was " something in
it." These had a vague feeling that Christ's acts of healing were not
those of a mercenary or professional exorcist, but prompted by a
marvellous pity as well as crowned with a marvellous success : " We
know that thou art a teacher come from God ; for no man can do
these signs that thou doest except God be with him 1 ."
[3168] We have read above (3060) of an ancient Jewish pre-
diction that there was to come for Israel a Deliverer, who would
be " the Compassion of God." Join compassion with power
and insight, and then we can imagine the steps, of spiritual
though not mental logic, by which multitudes might be led to a
conviction, and a right conviction, that Jesus, not because He could
cure paralysis, but because He was the incarnation of goodness,
wisdom, and life-giving strength, had "authority" to forgive sins.
Jesus, then, did not argue that any " man " or " son of man "
capable of instantaneously curing a case of paralysis was also capable
of forgiving sins. He, as " son of man," performed a special act of
healing in the presence of the Pharisees, in a certain spirit, and as
the climax of a course of spiritual teaching and acts of healing, so as,
if possible, to bring home to their hearts, what some might have
1 Jn iii. 2.
155
[3169]
; THE SON OF MAN"
received without the testimony of such a special act, namely, that
He was neither a deceiver nor deceived, that He was in close com-
munion with the Father, and that He, as " son of man," had received
from the Father an " authority " to lighten the burdens of the sinful
sons of man by pronouncing, and accomplishing, forgiveness 1 .
5. " The son of man" using "authority" over the sabbath
[3169] "Authority," though not mentioned, is implied in the
three following traditions testifying that " the son of man " is " lord
of the sabbath " :
Mk ii. 27 8
" And he used to
say (or, began to say)
unto them, ' The sab-
bath was made be-
cause of (lit.) the
man and not (lit.) the
man because of the
sabbath, so that the
son of (lit.) the man
is lord also of the
sabbath.' "
Mt. xii. 58
" Or have ye not
read that...? But I say
unto you that... But
if ye had known...
for the son of (lit.)
the man is lord of
the sabbath."
Lk vi. 5
" And he used to
say (or, began to say)
unto them
' The son of (lit.) the
man is lord [also] of
the sabbath.' "
" The son of (lit.) the man," has been exceptionally printed above,
as the literal rendering of the Greek, in order to bring out into clear
1 [3168 a] Comp. Epictetus on the natural authority of the ideal philosopher,
who appeals to facts, exclaiming (iii. 22. 49) "Who, that sees me, does not feel
that he sees, in me, his natural king and master?", and see what is said above
(3143 4) concerning Diogenes, regarded by Epictetus as an /Esculapius of souls,
but also as a sovereign, exercising " authority " as a trust from Zeus.
What Epictetus asserts about the Cynic, as prescribing various courses of
action for various patients, is unlike anything attributed to Jesus ; yet it may be
of use to us as a reminder that Jesus Himself would deal differently with different
sinners, and that in some cases He would be influenced by the knowledge of
extenuating circumstances known to others as well as to Himself.
[3168 6] This is particularly applicable to an act of healing in Capernaum,
Christ's adopted residence after baptism. If the paralytic and his four friends
were natives of that city, they, or some of them, might be personally known to
Jesus ; and there may have been circumstances in the sick man's life, well known
to all in the place, which constituted him, in a special way, " a sinner," and yet
made him, in a special way, worthy of being forgiven, and ready to respond,
in body, soul, and spirit, to such a declaration of forgiveness as Jesus uttered
(3167).
USING AUTHORITY [3170]
relief the apparently illogical nature of Mark's text. It would seem
that Mark ought to have argued from " the man " to " the man," not
from " the man" to "the son of the man."
But it may be replied, " Mark intends ' the son of the man ' to
mean something quite distinct from ' the man.' He means ' the
Messiah.'" That reply is unsatisfactory, for two reasons. It has
been shewn above that " the son of man " was not recognised at this
time by the Jews as a regular Messianic title. Moreover, the argu-
ment " The sabbath was made for man, therefore the Messiah is lord
also of the sabbath," does not seem to suit the context.
If, therefore, there is any reasoning in Mark at all to justify the
use of "so that" ("so that the son of man is lord ") it would seem to
be an argument based on heredity, " The sabbath was made for
Adam ; hence Adam's son is the lord (or, master) of it." But this is
far from clear in our extant Mark. Matthew and Luke omit the
clause about "the man" (as distinct from "the son of the man")
and so 'do several early transcribers of Mark 1 .
[3170] The explanation of Mark's peculiar tradition appears to
be somewhat as follows. That " the son of man " was lord of the
sabbath was a customary saying of Christ's 2 , supported by various
illustrations. Of these the only one given in detail by Mark,
followed by Matthew and Luke, related, not to the breaking of the
sabbath, but to the eating of the shewbread by David, contrary to
the Law. It was felt that some additional illustration was required
bearing directly on the sabbath, and on the circumstances that justified
the breaking of the sabbath.
Accordingly, Matthew and John have, severally, statements that the
priests profane the sabbath and are guiltless 3 , and that circumcision
is performed on the sabbath 4 . Matthew adds the quotation, "I will
have mercy and not sacrifice 5 "; John adds "My Father worketh
1 [3169 a] D and several Latin MSS. om. Mk ii. 27 and have (id. 28) "But
I say unto you the son of man is lord...." Codex b, which retains Mk ii. 27, has
" quia" for " so that." SS has " the sabbath because of man's son was created"
[and so some Greek cursives eKria-0-rj] " therefore the lord of the sabbath is the
son of the man " (using forms adapted to distinguish " the son of the man " from
"man's son "). Syriac frequently renders "man " in general by " man's son."
2 See Mk ii. 27 f\eyev, and comp. Aboth i. 3, 14, 15 etc. "used to say."
Christ's disciples had been plucking wheat on the sabbath. He justified their
conduct, not by the precedent of some other action committed on the sabbath, but
by the plea of necessity illustrated by the action of David in eating the shewbread.
3 Mt. xii. 5. Jn vii. 22. * Mt. xii. 7.
'57
[3171] "THE SON OF MAN"
hitherto and I work," and " the Son can do nothing from himself
except he see the Father doing [it] 1 ." Both Matthew and John
imply that the sabbath must not be broken for man's pleasure but
for the fulfilment of works of kindness such as the Father does.
Luke contains no such additional illustration. But D, in Luke,
while placing "the son of man is lord also of the sabbath" a few
verses later on, after the healing of a man with a withered hand has
here, " On the same day having beheld one working on the sabbath
he said to him, ' Man, if thou knowest what thou art doing, blessed
art thou, but if thou knowest not, cursed art thou and a transgressor
of the Law.' " D's insertion seems intended to indicate that " the son
of man " that is " lord of the sabbath " is not " any man." It means
" man having insight into God's will, or law, of kindness." If that is
the meaning, it agrees with the explanations in Matthew and John.
[3171] Returning to Mark's peculiar tradition " the sabbath was
made etc.," we have to ask whether there are any grounds for
thinking that this, too, like the Matthaean and Johannine traditions,
contains, in a latent form, some kind of argument that would appeal
to Jews familiar with the scriptures. For example, Simeon ben
Manassia argued "Behold, it is said (Exod. xxxi. 14) 'And ye shall
observe the sabbath because it is holiness to you ' : the sabbath is
delivered to you, ye are not delivered to the sabbath 2 ," and this is
commonly adduced to illustrate Mark. But how? Manassia argues,
in Talmudic fashion, from " to you" to "to you" It is a mere verbal
argument, perhaps a quibble. But at all events it is an attempt at
argument. Where, in Mark, is there even an attempt at argument
such an attempt, at least, as to enable us to justify his use of "so
that"?
[3172] If " son of man," in Mark, was originally " son of Adam,"
then there is room for supposing that there was, perhaps, a kind of
argument based, not on mere word-play but on a tradition that the
ninety-second Psalm, entitled " A Song for the Sabbath Day," was
composed by Adam. It is entitled in the Targum " The psalm and
song that was spoken by Adam of old concerning the sabbath 3 ." The
1 Jn v. 17, 19.
2 [3171 a] Mechilta on Exod. xxxi. 13. The context is Johannine in spirit.
The sabbath, it says, may be broken for the glory of God.
3 [3172 a] Walton appears to assume that the Aramaic adam here means
"man." He renders "Adam of old" "homo primus." But Hor. Heb. (on
Mt. xii. 8) has "Adam," omitting "of old." It would seem as though the
158
USING AUTHORITY [3173]
Babylonian Talmud says, "The Rabbis taught that Adam (or, Man)
was made on the eve of the sabbath." It adds many reasons for
this, one being that Adam might " proceed at once to the perform-
ance of a precept 1 ." Other traditions say that Adam fell on the day
of his creation, just before the sabbath, and that the sabbath inter-
ceded for him 2 . These are probably late. But the tradition that
Adam composed the Psalm favours the view that at a very early
period Jewish thought had considered the close connection, in
point of time, between the creation of Adam and the first sabbath,
and that, among other lessons, or inferences, this was one : " The
sabbath was made for Adam, as God's first gift to him."
[3173] That Jesus should allude to the creation of Adam in this
way would be in accordance with His allusion to the same narrative
in His treatment of the question of divorce 3 , and with His general
tendency to go back to the beginnings of things, as described in the
scriptures, before the Law. If He habitually had such thoughts
about the actual Adam and the ideal Adam as we find in the first
Epistle to the Corinthians, we shall realise that " son of Adam," in
His lips, meant Man, Adam's posterity, as he is to be, the heir of all
the ages, the Spirit of perfected humanity, which Spirit He felt
within Himself.
On this hypothesis, it is not surprising that Mark's extant
representation of Christ's words has been omitted by Matthew and
Luke. The argument that what was made for Adam belongs to the
son of Adam is obscure and open to the charge of mysticism. Yet
it accords with a great deal of evidence tending to shew that the
teaching of Jesus concerning Man, though highly practical, was also
of what many would call a mystical character, like the Pauline
doctrine concerning the Second Man. Indeed the truly mystical may
perhaps be rightly said to be always the ultimately practical.
Targumists were aware that even in Aramaic, adam might be taken to mean
"man" in interpretations of scripture, so they add "of old" here (as often
elsewhere) to remove all ambiguity and to shew that they mean "Adam" (see
Levy Ch. i. 1 1 a, ii. 346 a).
1 Sanhtdr. 38 a.
- See Hor. Heb. (on Mt. xii. 8) and the Midrash on Ps. xcii. (Wiinsche
p. 75), Pesikta. A'. 25 (Wiinsche p. 230), Lcvit. Rob. on Lev. xxiii. 24 (Wiinsche
p. 200).
3 Mk x. 6, Mt. xix. 4 quoting Gen. i. 27.
159
CHAPTER IV
"THE SON OF MAN" DESPISED
i. "77/1? son of man" never used merely for "/"
[3174] We have seen that Abbahu appears to have turned
Christ's self-appellation into derision, assuming that it implied weak-
ness and humiliation, and saying, in effect: " If this leader of heretics
calls himself by the humble title of ' son of man,' he will repent it
when he finds himself taken at his word and humiliated accordingly 1 ."
This should prepare us for passages in which our Lord applies
the term to Himself from the point of view of those who opposed
and despised Him. We may expect them in the period of reaction,
when the Pharisees turned away from Him, carrying with them
many of what may be called " the respectable class,' 1 and when
Jesus, on His side, ceased to appeal to them, and turned to "pub-
licans and sinners." In some of these passages, " the son of man "
has been altered into "me," or vice versa, by one or more of the
evangelists, as in " Blessed are ye when... men say all manner of evil
against you falsely for my sake" where the parallel Luke has " for
the sake of the son of man 2 ."
1 See 30656, and Notes 2998 (xviii) (xix).
2 [3174 a} Mt. v. u, Lk. vi. 22. Comp. Clem. Alex. 582 "'Blessed are
they,' says He, (Mt. v. 10) 'who are persecuted on account of righteousness
tfveKfv diKaioff6vt]s) because they shall be called sons of God.' Or, as some of
those who transpose [? paraphrase] (^erariOivruv) the gospels [say], ' Blessed are
they,' says He, 'who are persecuted by (virb) [?the consequences of, but Pdiro]
their (TTJJ) righteousness, for they shall be perfect (rAeiot),' and, ' Blessed are they
that are persecuted on account of me, because they shall have a place where they
shall not be persecuted.' " The passage acquires importance if it testifies to
a recognised class called "the paraphrasers of the gospels," apparently resembling
the Targumists.
1 60
"THE SON OF MAN" DESPISED [3176]
[3175] This is in the Double Tradition. So is " The son of man
came eating and drinking and they say, Behold, a gluttonous man 1 , 1 '
uttered while the Baptist was still alive in prison, and while Jesus
was probably incurring unpopularity through making no attempt to
release him. " The son of man " is antithetical to "John the Baptist" ;
and the passage indicates that Jesus had by this time regularly
adopted the former as His prophetic title, and that, irrespective of
other purposes, it served to distinguish Him from the prophet
"behind whom 2 " He had apparently for some time walked as
a disciple, and whom the world would naturally regard as His
farmer master. Looked at in this way, as an impersonal and
modest self-appellation, it may be illustrated by John's own conduct
(according to the fourth gospel). When he was asked who he was,
John replied that he was " the voice of one crying aloud 3 ."
[3176] To this period of unpopularity belongs also (it would
seem) the saying, "The foxes have holes and the birds of the heaven
have nests, but the son of man hath not where to lay his head 4 ."
Here the phrase apart from the tenor of Christ's general utterances
might be taken as simply meaning "the despised prophet," "the
prophet on whom the rulers of Israel look down." Probably, how-
ever, some thought of " humanity " is included in every case :
" Blessed are ye when ye are reproached for the sake of human
righteousness,''' that is to say, not the mechanical righteousness of
mechanical alms, but the human righteousness of human kindness :
" I came eating and drinking, not as a hermit, nor as an ascetic,
nor as one calling himself ' man of God,' nor as one saying ' hear
ye the word of the Lord,' but as a human being appealing to the
human conscience*" It will also be shewn (3337 foil.) that the
third passage may contain an allusion to those non-human rulers of
the earth, the foxes and the vultures, who make themselves at home
in transitory dominion and find rest for themselves in momentary
1 Mt. xi. 1 8 19 (sim. Lk. vii. 34) "John (Lk.John the Baptist} came neither
eating nor drinking and they say, He hath a devil. The son of man came eating
and drinking, and they say, Behold a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend
of publicans and sinners."
a On Jn i. 15, driffu, meaning " behind," not " after [in point of time]," see
3519 a.
3 Jn i. 23, on which see 3628 d.
4 Mt. viii. 20 (placed too early by Matthew) parall. to Lk. ix. 58. See
3337 foil. s See 3178 6.
A. S. l6l II
[3177] "THE SON OF MAN" DESPISED
despotisms, while the true human and humane ruler is deemed "a
worm and no man," and is persecuted and chased away from every
abiding-place on earth till he finds his home in heaven 1 .
Every one of these three instances illustrating the despised aspect
of " the son of man " is taken from the Double Tradition of Matthew
and Luke and is not found in Mark. It would therefore be de-
parting from our system of investigation if we discussed these here.
Nevertheless it was necessary to refer to them because they may
illustrate a most important passage, bearing on " the son of man " in
this character of one " despised and rejected," where Mark appears
to have omitted " against the son of man " by error.
2. ' Whosoever shall say a word against* the son of man "
[3177] Wherever " the son of man " occurred in early Semitic
gospels in conjunction with " the sons of man " (called in Greek
"sons of men"), i.e. "men s ," there would naturally be a tendency in
Greek interpreters to differentiate the two clauses so as to express
the uniqueness of the former 4 . Hence there is a presumption in
favour of any tradition that contains the depreciatory title "son of
man" against parallel traditions that omit it, as follows :
1 [3176 ] See_/M. Gr. 2644 (i) where it is shewn that Jn xix. 30 is rendered
by Origen "laid his head to rest," that is, on the bosom of God. John seems
to have used the almost unique phrase "rest the head" (R.V. "bowed his
head ") with allusion to Mt. viii. 20, Lk. ix. 58.
The words "hath not where to lay his head" may have special reference to
a period of persecution during which Jesus was obliged to pass from place to
place to avoid capture. But that would not exclude a general and spiritual
meaning (comp. Heb. xi. 9 10).
2 Mt. " against (/card)," Lk. " (pointing) to (s)." See 3177 d.
" [3177 a] The Hebrew "sons of man (adam) " is regularly rendered in Greek
" sons of men." But it will be often convenient to keep the literal singular
' ' man " whenever we are speaking of Hebrew or of documents that may be
derived from Hebrew. In that way, we shall be better able to keep in mind the
identity of " sons of man" in Hebrew, with " sons of Adam"
Also, by using the English " man," we should be able to distinguish the
regular Aramaic emphatic phrase in "sons of man" (emph. suffix) from any
instance where the Aramaic plural might be used ("sons of men ") (3069 a).
4 [3177 b] Moreover, when " sons of man " and " son of man " came into very
close conjunction, both might be taken to mean "mankind," and one might
be erroneously taken to be a mere repetition of the other. One of the two might
be consequently dropped.
162
; THE SON OF MAN" DESPISED
[3177]
Mk iii. 289 (lit.)
" All [things] shall
be forgiven to the sons
of men [(things said)
TO THE SOX OF MAN] 1
their sins and their
blasphemies, as many
blasphemies as they
may utter but whoso
shall blaspheme (lit)
to the Holy Spirit
hath not forgive-
ness... 2 ."
Mt xii. 31 2
" All sin and blas-
phemy shall be for-
given to (lit.) the
[race called] men, but
the blasphemy (lit.)
of the Spirit shall not
be forgiven.
And whosoever
shall say a word
against the son of
man it shall be for-
given to him, but
whosoever shall say
[a word] against the
Holy Spirit, it shall
not be forgiven...."
[3178] In my Corrections of Mark (369 (i)), which deals with this
passage, enough weight was not given (i) to the possibility that
Lk. xii. 10 (lit.)
" And everyone
that shall say a word
(lit.) to the son of
man it shall be for-
given to him, but to
him that hath blas-
phemed (lit.) to the
Holy Spirit it shall
not be forgiven."
1 [3177 c\ The clause " to the son of man," found in Luke, is inserted above,
in the text of Mark, conjecturally, and bracketed in capital letters to shew that it
is a mere conjecture. But it seems to explain the textual phenomena.
Matthew appears to combine two versions, first, one in which he agrees with
Mark only substituting " men" for "sons of men " and then another in which
he inserts the words " son of man," which we conjecture to have been dropped by
Mark.
Luke follows Matthew's second version. Only, whereas Matthew's second
version drops "all" (Mk "all [things}," Mt. (ist version) "a// sin"), Luke takes
"all" as "all men," "every one." Also, instead of "say... against (/card),"
Luke has in the first place "say. ..to (els)," and then "blaspheme to (ds)."
- [3177 d] "Blaspheme to" i.e. e/j. In Mark, SS has "all things that they
blaspheme shall be forgiven to the sons of man " In Luke, D has "everyone
that shall say a word to (ei's) the son of man it shall be forgiven to him but to (els)
the holy spirit it shall not be forgiven to him...." In Hebrew, as well as in Greek,
" to " may mean " with reference to" " about" or " against" but it is strange that
Luke has not adopted Matthew's unambiguous "against." The juxtaposition, in
Luke, of D's reading " to (els) the son of man " and " it shall be forgiven " shews
how the editor of Mark may have taken the mention of "to (els) the son of man"
as an erroneous repetition of " to (dative) the sons of man."
[3177 <r] Matthew's remarkable phrase " blasphemy of [i.e. against] the Spirit "
may be paralleled from Deut. xxi. 23 (R.V.) " he that is hanged is accursed of
God (marg., Heb. the curse of God)," rendered by Sym. 5ia TTJV p\ao-<fn)fju.ai> TOV
ffeov eKpf[jidff8i}, "he has been hanged (lit.) owing to the blasphemy of God,"
II 2
[3178] "THE SON OF MAN" DESPISED
Mark might confuse "son of man" and "sons of man," and (2) to
the antecedent probability that the gospel of a prosaic though
graphic evangelist like Mark who gives astonishingly few of Christ's
words, and these, often, with astonishing brevity and obscurity,
while narrating what we now think unimportant events with as-
tonishing prolixity (3361 a, 3624) would record no sayings of Christ
except those which seemed to him of present and practical utility
to the Church. Among these, this one about " saying a word against
the son of man " would not find a place. For Jesus was now (Mark
i.e. because he has blasphemed against God. Aq. and Theod. have Kardpa 0eoO
Kpefj.d/j.fi>os, apparently meaning "accursed by God." See 3518 (i).
[3177/] Compare also the following :
Mt. v. it Lk. vi. 22
" Blessed are ye when [men] shall " Blessed are ye when (lit.) the
reproach you and persecute [you] and [race of] men shall hate you and...
say every evil [thing] against you, separate you [from the synagogue] and
speaking falsely, on account of me" reproach [you] and cast out your name
as evil on account of the son of man."
Here it is probable that Matthew, who has "me," is less close than Luke,
who has " the son of man," to the original. In Lk., SS has " the sons of man "
for "the men." Matthew may have found it inconvenient to have "the sons of
man," meaning "sinful mortals," and "the son of man" meaning Jesus or the
ideal Son of Man, in the same sentence ; he may have substituted the impersonal
subject for the former, and " me" for the latter.
[3177,^] However, the explanation is complicated by the context. In Lk.,
SS has "and put forth concerning you a name that is evil because of the son of
man." In Mt., it has "for my name's sake, even mine" and D has ''''for the sake
of righteousness." The original may have contained an antithesis: "put upon
you a bad name because of the NAME," i.e. "the name of God," see Clue 269,
Corrections 446, From Letter 1022. Compare :
Mk x. 29 Mt. xix. 29 Lk. xviii. 79
"for the sake of me "for the sake of my "for the sake of the
and for the sake of the name " kingdom of God "
gospel"
where (Corrections 446) the original was probably "the NAME." See Dalman,
Words pp. [82 3.
[3177 A] But there is no such complication in the following, where the Syriac
again has "the sons of man" for "the men," and where Luke differs again, as
above, from Matthew :
Mt. x. 32 Lk. xii. 8
' " Every one that shall confess me " Every one that shall confess me
before (lit.) the [race of] men (Cur. the before (lit.) the [race of] men (Cur. and
sons of man, but SS om. 'before the SS the sons of man), the son of man
sons of man ') /also will confess...." also will confess...."
164
"THE SON OF MAN" DESPISED [3178]
might argue) no longer " son of man " on earth, so that He could no
longer be attacked under that title 1 .
Weighing these considerations and inferring that probably Matthew
and Luke are right in their correction of Mark, we have to ask,
" What are the utterances against ' the son of man ' here mentioned
by Jesus as pardonable?" The last section enables us to give an.
answer : such sayings as, " Behold, a gluttonous fellow, and a wine-
bibber ! " and " a friend of publicans and sinners ! " We can also
understand that under the same head He may have included charges
of cowardice in not attempting to rescue the Baptist.
Sayings of this kind, some merely reckless and prejudiced, others
spiteful, others malignant, brought against Him personally as " the
son of man," appear to have been regarded by Jesus as quite distinct
from charges brought against that Power which He felt within Him-
self when He performed works of healing and exorcism. That Power
He expected others to feel. He claimed, as a right, that they should
acknowledge it to be "from God," as Nicodemus did. If they did
not, He could do nothing for them, at least for the present. But if
they went on to say that He was not only not from the Father but
from the Father's enemy, then they identified His God with Satan,
and for these He saw no forgiveness to which Mark and Matthew
add, in effect, " either for the present or in the time to come 2 ."
1 The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles records the saying in a still briefer
form (xi. 7) " For every [other] sin shall be forgiven "
2 [3178 a] Mk iii. 29 (R.V.) "hath never forgiveness but is guilty of an eternal
sin," Mt. xii. 32 (R.V.) "shall not be forgiven him neither in this world (marg.
age) nor in that which is to come," Lk. xii. 10 "shall not be forgiven." Origen
(Comm. Joann. xix. 3, Lomm. ii. 167) says " It does not however follow that,
if there is no forgiveness in the age to come, there is no forgiveness even in the
ages that come on [afterwards] " and similarly in Comm. Matth. xv. 31. For this,
he was attacked by Athanasius (see Origen, Lomm. xvii. 8 n.). Luke's
omission here of all words about time is important.
[3178 b~\ The hostility of some of the Pharisees to Jesus may be illustrated
by an extract from the Wisdom of Solomon (ii. 12 foil.) " Let us lie in wait for the
righteous, for he is displeasing to us, and he is clean contrary to our doings. ...He
professeth to have the knowledge of God and he calleth himself the child of the
Lord. He was made to reprove our thoughts " For the notion of a divine
"Reprover" represented, in Philo, by a Man, see 3380. Jesus certainly never
called Himself "the child of the Lord." He preferred to call Himself "son of
Adam," but He " professed to have the knowledge of God," and would not have
denied that He "was made to reprove," and consequently to be reproached.
[3179] "THE SON OF MAN" DESPISED
3. "Who do men say that the son of man is? 1 "
[3179] Here Matthew alone has preserved the title, as above.
Mk viii. 27 Mt. xvi. 13 Lk. ix. 18
"Who do men say "Who do men say "Who do the mul-
that I am ? " that the son of man titudes say that I
is?" am?"
Jerome comments thus on Matthew, " He did not say, Who do
men say 'that I am,' but '[that] the son of man [is]' lest He
should seem to be asking about Himself in a boastful spirit."
Apparently Jerome takes the meaning to be " the [despised] son of
man," as though the question were : " Whereas I call myself by this
general and self-depreciating title, what do men say about it ? Do
they take me at my word ? What particular name, if any, do they
give to ' the son of man ' ? "
[3180] The superficial difficulty of Matthew's text, and the
inward appropriateness of it, would alone make it almost certain
that he has retained the true tradition. The divergence of Mark
can readily be explained from an original that contained a play on
the repeated phrase : " Who do the sons of man say that the son of
man is?" Here "the sons of man " might convey two thoughts, one
of pity 2 for their ignorance, and another of the speaker's sense of
fellowship with them. But some evangelists might (as above sug-
gested) dislike the mention of " the son of man " and " the sons of
man " in the same sentence. Others might think that the language
was unintelligible to the Western Churches. The result would be a
Western paraphrase in which " the sons of man " became " men " and
"the son of man" became "P." This is what we now find in
1 [3179 a] Mt. xvi. 13. R.V. marg. says that many ancient authorities read
" Who do men say that I, the son of man, am?" Of this the Greek (and Latin)
order is, " that I am the son of man"
The difficulty caused to the Syriac translators is apparent in several variations,
e.g. "What say folk of me that I am? 'Who is this son of man?'" So
Prof. Burkitt, in text (but SS om. " that I am ") comparing Ephrem " Who do
men say of me that the son of man is?" The text of SS. may be rendered
"Why say folk of me 'Who is this son of man'?" Comp. Jn xii. 34 "The
multitude therefore answered him, 'We have heard.... Who is this son of
man?'"
8 [3180 a] Comp. the saying of Jesus in Oxyr. Log. " My heart is pained for
the sons of men."
1 T3180 b\ Readers of Mark in English should bear in mind that he frequently
1 66
"THE SON OF MAN" DESPISED [3181]
Mark. Luke perhaps expresses Christ's feeling of pity by para-
phrasing "the sons of man" as "the multitudes."
[3181] As recorded by Matthew, Christ's question implies that
He knew and intended His title, " the son of man," to be capable of
various meanings. The emissaries of the Sanhedrin had wished to
label John the Baptist under some definite title, like " Elias," " the
prophet," " the Anointed." The Baptist, refusing these titles, had
called himself a " voice " and then had defined the voice by what
he uttered. So Jesus called Himself " the son of Adam " or " the
son of man " almost equivalent to " the Man " leaving it to events
that is to say, to His gospel of word and deed, and to the opera-
tion of the Father to define the term, and to answer the question
"Who is this son of man?" but Himself always having in view the
affinity suggested in scripture between " the son of man " and God.
This, then, is a turning-point in Christ's use of the title, because for
the first time, after hearing the definitions of the multitudes, He asks
the disciples to define it according to their own experience.
uses the 3rd pers. pi. of a Greek verb without a noun or pronoun to describe
the action of "people," e.g. Mk vi. 12 "they preached that [they] should repent,"
where A.V. has "men" without italics, and R.V. a very exceptional thing
italicises. The fact that Mark's Greek text inserts " men " here (viii. 27) indicates
that it is very emphatic. The English " men" does not express the emphasis.
167
CHAPTER V
"THE SON OF MAN" TO SUFFER MANY THINGS
i. "From that time... 1 "
[3182] After relating how Jesus elicited from Peter the confession
that He was "the Christ," Matthew says that He forbade the
disciples to tell this to others, and that He " began from that time to
shew" them the sufferings that awaited Him. '''From that time"
means "from the time of the Confession of Peter." But the
Confession of Peter and the execution of the Baptist came so close
together that we might say with substantial accuracy that, from the
date of the Baptist's death, Jesus began to predict His own.
The word "shew 2 " suggests a revelation. Matthew's preceding
and subsequent mentions of John the Baptist and Elijah 3 indicate
that some people connected their names with that of Jesus, and
that the mind of Jesus Himself was directed to the departure
of these two great prophets from the world, and to the possibility
that His own departure was to be in some way like theirs, but
especially like that of the second Elijah. Matthew tells us that
Jesus was now revealing to His disciples what the Father had
revealed to Him, namely, that He, too, must suffer. If we could
be quite sure that the subsequent phrase (3184) " be killed " correctly
represented Christ's utterance, we should conclude, more precisely,
that the suffering was to be nothing shorf of death.
Reasons will be given below for thinking that the prediction used
the word " smitten," which might mean death, but might also mean
1 Mt. xvi. 21, quoted fully in 3184, with the parallels.
2 [3182 a] Comp. Acts x. 28 "God shewed me," i.e. in a vision, Heb. viii. 5,
Rev. i. i , iv. i etc. ; and Exod. xxv. 40, xxvi. 30, etc. See 3488 b.
* Mt. xvi. 14, xvii. 12 13. On the latter, see 3246 h, where it is shewn that
the scribes are probably to be regarded as acquiescing, if not "accomplices
)," in the Baptist's death.
168
"THE SON OF MAN" TO SUFFER MANY THINGS [3183]
something short of it bringing down to the gates of the grave but
not into them. But this is quite compatible with the view that the
Baptist's martyrdom, and the loss of his support, had a part in those
mental and spiritual sufferings of Jesus from which, as the Epistle to
the Hebrews says, He learned " the obedience " that led Him to the
Cross (320710).
[3183] It is a noteworthy fact that in all the Synoptic gospels the
first mention of the phrase " raised from the dead*" occurs in con-
nection with the Baptist : " John the Baptist is raised from the
dead....]o\m, whom I beheaded, has been raised from the dead*."
The evangelists differ as to who said "John the Baptist has been
raised from the dead " whether Herod Antipas, or all the people, or
some of them ; but none can doubt that the prophet's cruel and
humiliating death must have brought before all the people, including
Christ's own disciples, the mystery of martyrdom, and of its reward,
and thoughts of the time and manner of a martyr's resurrection.
That Jesus connected the thought of His own sufferings with
those of the Baptist is asserted in His words, as recorded by
Matthew, when He was descending from the mount of transfiguration :
" ' They have done with him [i.e. Elijah] as many things as they
desired. So also the son of man is destined to suffer by their
[hands].' Then understood the disciples that he spake to them
about John the Baptist 1 ." Mark differs 4 . But both Mark and
1 [3183 a] "Raise the dead," "the dead are raised" etc. occur in Mt. x. 8,
xi. ;, Lk. vii. 22, indicating either spiritual regeneration or restoration to physical
life. But this is the first use of " raised from the dead."
- [31833] Mk vi. 1416, comp. Mt. xiv. 2, Lk. ix. 79. Luke makes
Herod's utterance quite different from Mark's version. But all mention "raising
from the dead " in this connection. The words might conceivably mean " This
Jesus is a second John," or John " redivivus," without any notion of transmigration
of souls, or rising from the tomb. See 3249.
3 Mt. xvii. 12 13.
LUKE'S ATTITUDE TO HEROD ANTIPAS
4 [3183 <:] Mk ix. 1213, s 66 3236 foll - and S246 8. Mk ix. 12 #<w5ei70j;,
"be set at naught," must be illustrated by Lk. xxiii. n eov0en7cra$ applied to
the treatment of Jesus by Herod Antipas. The verb occurs nowhere else in the
gospels (except in Lk. xviii. 9 "set all others at naught"). Its rarity makes it
extremely probable that both Mk and Lk. are alluding to a Petrine rendering
of Ps. cxviii. 22 "the stone that the builders rejected," where LXX has
a.TfOOKiftaffai>, but Acts iv. u quotes it with fov0fm]0eis (the only instance of
the word in the Acts). The rendering of Lk. xxiii. 1 1 suggested in the Journal
of Theol. Studies, April 1909, p. 335 " Herod thought him of no importance,"
169
[3183] "THE SON OF MAN"
Matthew agree that, in this second prediction of " suffering," Jesus
drew a parallel between Himself and His forerunner. And surely
this was most fit. If it had been revealed as God's will that John
the Baptist, the " Voice," should die as a martyr, why should it not
also be revealed that something of the same kind awaited Jesus, the
Son of Man, or Man, whose approach the Voice had proclaimed ?
From this date, therefore, we may expect the mention of "the
son of man " to be, for a time, imbued with, and almost merged in,
the mention of the Martyr. It will no longer be "authority" but
"suffering" that will be the side of His action presented to us.
But the " suffering," like the " authority," will be in accordance with
the will of the Father and in fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets.
misses this allusion. There is also probably an allusion to i S. xv. 23 (rep. 26)
(LXX) "Because thou hast set at naught (eou5^cw<ras) the word of the Lord,
therefore the Lord shall set thee at naught (ei-ovdevtixrei) so as not to be king over
Israel " (where R.V. has " rejected," the Heb. being the same as in Ps. cxviii. 22).
As Herod " set at naught " the Word of the Lord, so, not many years afterwards,
the Lord " set him at naught" when he lost his throne and was banished. Luke
(like Josephus 33383) makes no mention of a hasty oath as an excuse for Herod's
murder of John the Baptist. In Luke's gospel alone, he is called (Lk. xiii. 32) " this
fox " (comp. 2 K. vi. 32 " this son of a murderer "). In the Acts, Luke describes
the retribution for murder that fell on Herod Agrippa, and it seems highly
appropriate that he should suggest a future retribution for Herod Antipas here.
If Luke had meant to say, "Herod, having [at first] set him at naught...
[afterwards changed his mind and] clothed him...," it is difficult to believe that he
would not have expressed this very important "change of mind" with the same
simple clearness as on a much less important occasion (Acts xxviii. 6) "They
expected... that he [i.e. Paul] would have. ..fallen down dead... but... they changed
their minds and said that he was a god."
[3183 d\ The whole of Luke's story about the part played by Herod Antipas
in the trial of Jesus appears to be based on misunderstandings of documents ; and
I have attempted elsewhere (C/ue65 7, and Corrections 503 (in)) to explain some of
them. Perhaps the extraordinary words (Lk. xxiii. n) " Herod... with his armies
(ffTpa.Tf>jfj.a.ffiv ) " may be explained from an original " servants" i.e. courtiers,
comp. Mt. xiv. 2 " Herod said to his servants (irata-iv) " in the light of Esth. ii. 18
"made a feast for his princes and servants," where LXX has 8vi>d/j.e<riv, i.e.
" (armed) forces." For Swd/jLecnv a scribe might mechanically substitute arpa-
rev/j.a<riv , as being better Greek. It is also possible that Luke may have in view
some Christian poem, like Acts iv. 26 "the kings of the earth set themselves in
array" applied there to Herod Antipas, which favoured a hyperbolical use of
"armies." But in any case Luke appears to be consistent in his intention, both
here and in the Acts, to represent Herod and Pilate as fulfilling scripture by their
mockery of Jesus.
170
TO SUFFER MANY THINGS
[3184]
2. " Suffering many things" the origin of the phrase
[3184] The Synoptists all agree that Jesus, in the first prediction
of His martyrdom, used the phrase "suffer many things." Mark and
Luke append that He was to be "rejected." The parallel Matthew
omits this, but prefixes " that he should depart to Jerusalem " :
Mk viii. 31
" And he began to
teach them that it
must needs be that
the son of man must
suffer many things and
be rejected by the
elders and the chief
priests and the scribes
and be killed and
after three days arise
[from the dead]."
Mt. xvi. 21
" From that time
began Jesus to shew
to his disciples that it
must needs be that
he should depart to
Jerusalem and suffer
many things from the
elders and chief
priests and scribes
and be killed and on
the third day be
raised [from the
Lk. ix. 22
" ...saying that it
needs must be that
the son of man should
suffer many things
and be rejected by
the elders and chief
priests and scribes
and be killed and
on the third day be
raised [from the
dead]."
dead]."
Knowing (from many passages in the gospels) how Jesus kept
before His mind the fulfilment of " the Law and the Prophets," we
might reasonably infer as probable that these words alluded to some
prophecy. But, further, some allusion is almost demonstrated by the
fact that a little later on, " suffer many things " occurs again in Mark
in connection with " // is written? where there is also a mention of
being "set at naught"; and, beside the resemblance of Mark's
"rejected" (here) and "set at naught" (later on) to Isaiah's prediction
that the Suffering Servant should be " despised and rejected" we find
also that the word repeatedly used by Isaiah to describe the griefs,
and "putting to grief" of the Suffering Servant, is rendered in Amos
by the Greek word "suffer*" These similarities appear to afford
z. prima facie case for connecting "suffer many things" with the same
1 [3184 a] Mk ix. 12 "and how (?) it is written about the son of man that
he should suffer many things and be set at naught," see 3237 a, 3246 foil. " Set
at naught" is the rendering of the Heb. "despised" given by Aquila and
Symmachus in Is. liii. 3 "He was despised and rejected of men... he was
despised.' 11 " Suffer (ircurx w ) " occurs as the rendering of !"l7n in Amos vi. f>
"they are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph." See 3189 k.
171
[3184] "THE SON OF MAN"
prophecy, and for regarding it as a brief paraphrase in vernacular
Greek of the long Hebraic and poetic expression "a man of sorrows
and acquainted with griej ri ."
1 [3184 b\ Is. liii. 3. "Sorrows" means "piercing pains," whether of body
or mind, but mostly of mind (Gesen. 456). For " grief," R.V. gives, in the
margin, "Heb. sickness." See 3189 k.
"THE ELDERS "
[3184 c\ Is there anything in Hebrew prophecy that explains the promi-
nence given to " elders (trpefffivTepoi) " along with " chief priests," in some of the
gospel predictions of the "rejection" of the Messiah by the rulers of the
people ? The word in Ezekiel is of more frequent occurrence than in Isaiah and
Jeremiah; and in Ezekiel the "elders" are frequently mentioned in terms of
disapproval. In particular, Ezek. vii. 26 "the law shall perish from the priest
and the counsel from the elders (R.V. ancients) " condemns together ''priest" and
"elders" in a very rare combination not perhaps paralleled elsewhere in O.T.
(though comp. Jer. xix. i) but well adapted to express the thought of an unjust
condemnation proceeding from all the rulers of Israel.
[3184 d'] R.V. alters the archaic A.V. "ancients" into "elders" in Is. iii. 14,
Jer. xix. i, Ezek. viii. ri (rep. 12) "seventy men of the elders (A.V. ancients') of
the house of Israel," yet leaves "ancients "in Ezek. vii. 26. The archaism
destroys the historical continuity between Ezekiel and the many passages in the
Bible, beginning from Exod. iii. 16, 18, mentioning " the elders of Israel." The
phrase occurs also in the first sentence of the Abotk, " Moses received the Law
from Sinai and he delivered it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders
to the prophets, and the prophets delivered it to the men of the Great Synagogue."
[3184/| The " seventy elders" granted by God to Moses to assist him in
judging Israel were identified (Schiirer ii. i. 165) by Rabbinical exegesis with the
Sanhedrin. The numerical phrase is nowhere mentioned in the Bible outside the
Pentateuch (Exod. xxiv. i, 9, Numb. xi. 16, 24, 25) except in Ezek. viii. 3 n,
where the prophet, being " brought in the visions of God to Jerusalem," digs "in
the wall " of the court of the Temple, and goes in and sees idol shapes of
"abominable beasts" and "seventy men of the elders of the house of Israel"
offering incense to the idols. Taking this passage with the one above quoted
about "the priest" and "the elders," we are led to infer that the gospel phrase
" chief priests and elders" exhibits one among many parallelisms between the
teaching of Jesus and Ezekiel. Both alike regarded the Seventy, the Great
Council of the nation, as given over to all that was evil and ready to reject every
revelation of righteousness. Hence it could not be but that the Messiah would be
" rejected by the elders."
[3184/] See Schiirer ii. i. 177 on the apparent parallelism between
(i) "scribes," or (2) " elders" or (3) "the whole Sanhedrin" or (4) "scribes and
elders" all following "chief priests." He explains (ib. 172) Acts v. 21 "the
Sanhedrin and (/ecu) all the Gtrousia of the sons of Israel," as being either an
error, or a passage where teal must be rendered Hebraically, as " even" " that is to
say." Perhaps the fact was that Luke translated some Hebrew document literally,
not knowing precisely what it meant. This supposition may also explain some
Synoptic uses of these terms, and the Johannine avoidance of them. Luke is the
172
TO SUFFER MANY THINGS [3186]
[3185] Isaiah combines "sorrows" with "acquaintance" or
"knowledge" (" acquainted with grief," LXX "knowing how to bear
sickness"); and the Epistle to the Hebrews says "He learned
obedience from the things that he suffered^." This combination
of "suffering" and "learning,'' or "suffering" and "knowing" goes
back to Herodotus, ^Eschylus, and Hesiod. The proverb "Suffering
is learning" is as common with the Greeks as "experience teaches"
with us. It would be a consolation to Christians in the first century,
when they "suffered" as Christ had "suffered," to think of this
proverb. We cannot therefore be surprised that this word "suffer"
especially as it might suggest that kind of fellow-suffering which we
call corn-passion or sym-pathy made its way into the Petrine tradition
of Mark, and thence into Matthew, Luke, the Acts, and some other
books of the New Testament, especially the Petrine Epistles, to ex-
press, sometimes the suffering of Christ on the Cross, and sometimes
the suffering of Christians under persecution for Christ's sake 4 .
3. The Suffering Servant is "the arm of the Lord"
[3186] It was said above (3182) that the gospels indicate, at this
stage, that " Jesus was now revealing to the disciples what the Father
had revealed to Him, namely, that He too, must suffer." Such a
revealing is connected in Isaiah with "the arm of the Lord 3 ." The
only writer in X.T. (apart from i Tim. iv. 14) who uses the word " presbytery
" (Lk. xxiL 66, Acts xxii. 5). He means the Sanhedrin.
1 Heb. v. 8, see 320710.
'- [3185 a] Udffx^ TI may mean trvurafffu, "I feel with you," see 3189 k. Yet
ToAwrotfifr "much-suffering" (Steph. Thes.) has rather a bad sense, "tossed by
passion" etc. In Mk v. 26, "Having suffered many things" means "having
suffered much [painful treatment] ?> at the hands of her physicians.
[3185 6] The verb rcurx<>> occurs about a dozen times in i Pet. , but only seven
times in all the Pauline epistles, four times in Heb. ; never in the Johannine
gospel and epistles, and only once in Rev. (ii. 10); never in Jas., a Pet.,
and Jude. See 3189 k.
[3185 c\ Acts xxvi. 23 has an astonishing adjective in " how that Christ
[should be] sitbject-to-svffering (wadTjrfa)," a more probable rendering than R.V.
txt. " must suffer^
a [3186 a] The Suffering Servant, who had (Is. liii. 2) " no form, nor comeli-
ness," is introduced as "the arm of the Lord 7 ' thus (id. i) "Who hath believed
our report ? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed! " Comp.
Is. lii. 10 " The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations ;
and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God."
173
[3186] "THE SON OF MAN"
supposition that Jesus had in view the prophet's mention of "the arm
of the Lord," as being "revealed" is suggested and confirmed by the
following considerations.
First, it is in accordance with Christ's identification of His
beneficent work with the agency of " the finger of God," called in
Matthew " the Spirit of God," in a passage where He, in effect,
condemns the Pharisees because, through their moral blindness, the
agency of the Holy Spirit is not revealed to them but is declared by
them to be Satanic 1 . Paul, too, tells us that Christ said to him "The
Power [or, [My] Power] is accomplished in weakness 2 ." Now "the
Power" is, in effect, the Arm 3 ; and this saying encourages the
Apostle to think that he, too, though despised and rejected and
afflicted, is yet accomplishing the work of the Holy Arm of the Lord.
Luke also represents Jesus as thanking the Father that, although He
has hidden the mysteries of the Kingdom from (those whom the
world calls) "the wise and prudent," yet it has pleased Him to
reveal them unto babes 4 .
If we admit the reality of the incarnation and believe that Jesus
became a genuine Jew, it would appear to be a psychological
absurdity to deny that our Lord must often have meditated on the
enormous difference distinguishing "the arm of the Lord," in the
books of Moses, described as " stretched out " for the deliverance of
Israel and for judgment on Israel's oppressors, from the "holy arm "
in these words of Isaiah. Other prophets or psalmists speak of the
"arm" as "strong," but none of them speak of it as "holy." Nor
do they describe it as "bared" or "revealed." Nor does Isaiah
describe it thus elsewhere. But in this particular passage whether
1 Lk. xi. 20 " But if I by the finger (Mt. xii. 28 the Spirit} of God cast out devils,
why then (a/>a) there hath come upon you unawares the kingdom of God."
2 2 Cor. xii. 9. Comp. i Cor. i. 25 "The weakness of God is stronger than
men," Heb. iv. 15 v. 2 " we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with
the feeling of our weaknesses, for every high priest... himself also is compassed with
weakness."
* Is. liii. i "the arm of the Lord" is paraphrased by Targ. as " the strength of
the mighty arm of the Lord," and by R. Sa'adyah Gaon as "the might of God,"
comp. Exod. xv. 16 "By the greatness of thine arm,'" Onk. " power ."
4 Lk. x. 21. This is followed by ib. 23 4 " Blessed are the eyes that see the
things that ye see. For I say unto you that many prophets and (?)kings (Clue 105 a,
272 (i)) desired to see the things that ye see...." A similar saying is placed by
Matthew (xiii. 16 17) after Christ's quotation of Is. vi. 9 10, introducing the
explanation of the Parable of the Sower.
174
TO SUFFER MANY THINGS [3186]
it proceeds from one or more authors it matters not to us, for our
purpose, because the question of composite authorship would not
have entered the thought of a Jew in the first century the prophecy-
first describes the " holy arm " as " made bare " in the eyes of all the
nations 1 , and then adds a paradox about "the arm " of such a kind
as to indicate a revolution in Israelitic thought. For it implies that
the Servant of Jehovah is to be then most truly revealed as God's
Agent or Arm when afflicted, humiliated, despised, pouring out his
soul unto death for the sins of others. And even when thus
"revealed," it is to be, at first, not revealed: "Who hath believed
our report, and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed '?
For he grew up before him as a suckling " [so Aquila, LXX " a little
child"] "and as a root out of a dry ground 2 ."
1 Is. lii. 10 "The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the
nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation ^of our God."
2 [3186 b] Is. liii. i has (lit.) " On whom hath the arm of the Lord been
revealed," and so Aq. and Theod. Gesen. 163 a ("reveal") takes no notice of
this (but see Gesen. 757 8 on the preposition); LXX, R.V., Ewald, and Cheyne
have " To whom " ; the Targ. has (Driver and Neubauer) " Upon whom, as thus,
hath it been revealed?"; R. Sa'adyah Gaon, "Upon whom will the might of God
be revealed? Who before this will grow up...?"; Yepheth Ben 'Ali, "'Upon
whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed ? ' i.e. through which nation has the
might of God revealed itself... ? " ; Rashi, "Had we, they will say to one another,
had we heard from others what now we are beholding, who would ever have
believed it? Upon whom has the arm of the Lord ever been revealed as
now in splendour and greatness?" Ibn Ezra, "Then they will say, Who ever
believed that things would happen in accordance with this report that we hear?
Upon whom was the arm of the Lord ever revealed as it has been revealed upon
these ? "
[3186 c] In some of these interpretations there is perhaps a controversial
tendency. On Is. lii. 10 " He hath made bare his holy arm," Ibn Ezra says " It
is not in the least surprising that the text attributes to God hand, foot, heart, and
mouth; the meaning of such figures is well known...," on which Friedlander
comments thus, " This observation is made here by I. E. as if he wanted to refute
the opinion of those that try to explain here 'the arm of the Lord' by 'Messiah.'"
[3186 d~\ In Is. xxx. 30 3 1 " the Lord. . .shall shew the lighting down of his arm
...for through the voice of the Lord shall the Assyrian be broken in pieces," the
meaning is like that in the Pentateuch ; and so it is, but with a semi -personifi-
cation, in Is. li. 9 10 "Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord....
Art thou not it that dried up the sea... ? " Yet these prepare the way for the new
aspect of the "Arm" in which it is (Is. liii. i 4) "revealed," through the
Servant of Jehovah, not as crushing down the oppressor, but as lightening the
burdens of the oppressed, bearing their griefs and carrying their sorrows.
"revealed upon" means "revealed [as exerting influence} upon" that
implies a previous " revealing to [the persons thus influenced}." The important
175
[3187] "THE SON OF MAN"
Matthew represents Jesus as exclaiming to Peter after his con-
fession, " Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah ; for flesh and blood
hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven 1 ."
Jerome when commenting on Isaiah's words, "The Lord hath made
bare his holy arm 2 " first explains that the Arm of the Lord means
the Redeemer of Israel, and then adds "Concerning this [Arm of the
Lord] He said to the chief of the apostles, Blessed art thou, Simon
Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee."
[3187] " The arm of the Lord " is also associated by the fourth
gospel with the rejection of Christ by the Jews : " But, though he
had done so many signs before them, yet they believed not on him,
that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled...' Lord, who
hath believed our report ? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord
been revealed*1'" Moreover the Epistle to the Romans quotes the
beginning of this passage of Isaiah, when touching on the rejection
of the Gospel by the Jews 4 . These facts indicate that Jerome was
right in finding in Matthew's word " revealed " (" flesh and blood
hath not revealed it unto thee ") an allusion to Isaiah. If so, we must
regard the words whensoever and howsoever uttered, or originated,
is not now the question as meaning " Blessed art thou, Simon Peter,
for my Father hath revealed unto thee that ' arm of the Lord ' con-
cerning which Isaiah wrote that it would be ' revealed ' to few, because
few would 'believe the report,' and because the Arm was to be
'despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted
with grief.'"
4. " The son of man " to be rejected
[3188] "Rejected" is omitted by Matthew, and "depart to
Jerusalem " is inserted by Matthew, in the following 6 :
Mk viii. 31 Mt. xvi. 21 Lk. ix. 22
"suffer many "depart to Jeru- "suffer many
things and be re- salem and suffer many things and be re-
jected." things." jected"
point for us is, that nowhere but in Isaiah is the Lord's "arm" described as
"holy," and also as being "made bare" and "revealed" and this, through
humiliation and suffering.
1 Mt. xvi. 17. 2 Is. lii. 10. 8 Jn xii. 37 40 quoting Is. liii. i.
4 Rom. x. 16 "But they did not all hearken to the glad tidings. For Isaiah
saith, ' Lord, who hath believed our report ? ' "
5 For the full quotation, see 3184.
176
TO SUFFER MANY THINGS [3189]
It seems improbable that Matthew would have omitted "rejected"
unless there had been something obscure in the term. If, therefore,
we can point to an original obscurity in Isaiah's prophecy about
" rejection," this will increase the probability that the whole passage
in the gospels is based on Isaiah. This will be still further increased
if we can shew that one and the same Hebrew original might
originate "reject," which is in Mark and Luke, and "depart," which
is in Matthew.
Such an obscurity is found in the difficult phrase of Isaiah,
rendered by our Revised Version "rejected (marg. forsaken) of men,"
but by the LXX "fading away beyond the sons of men." Others
render it " lowest" or " cut off" or " holding aloof" or "forlornest 1 "
[3189] There are also reasons for thinking that Matthew's
"depart to Jerusalem" arose from a misunderstanding of Isaiah's
"rejected of men," as meaning "ceased to be reckoned among men"
Ibn Ezra takes it thus. This might naturally be explained as
referring to Christ's death in Jerusalem. The result would be a
prediction that Christ would "depart* [from life] in Jerusalem."
But Matthew, or some editor (like Codex D in Lk. ix. 31 "departure...
to Jerusalem ") may have altered " in" into "to 3 ."
1 [3188 a] Is. liii. 3. See Jewish Interpreters of Isaiah liii, Driver and
Neubauer, p. i foil. The Targum takes "men" to mean "the kingdoms,"
i.e. hostile men, and "rejected" to mean "cut off," giving the following para-
phrase, " He will. ..cut off the glory of all the kingdoms"
[3188 b\ As the Targum takes "men" to mean " the kingdoms," so Matthew
may have taken it to mean the rulers of " Jerusalem."
Again, the Hebrew for "reject" may imply "passing away" or "departing"
(as in LXX K\eL-rw, freq. meaning " breathe one's last," e.g. Gen. xxv. 8, 17 etc.)
and "depart (direXBetv) " occurs here in Matthew. 'AreXtfeii' may mean "depart
this life." It occurs in Aquila's rendering of Genesis xv. 2 (R.V.) "I^," marg.
"I go hence" Aq. "depart" Targ. Jer. I "pass (Jer. II go) from the world."
Luke (ix. 31) describes Jesus as conversing with Moses and Elijah concerning " his
departure (lit. exodus, t%odoi>) which he was destined to fulfil in Jerusalem."
That means "his departure from life in Jerusalem." But D there alters "in"
into " to " (" his departure to Jerusalem ").
2 [3189 a] The more usual verb to express going to Jerusalem is "go up,"
as in Mt. xx. 17 18, Mk x. 32 3 (comp. xv. 41), Lk. xix. 18, Jn ii. 13, xi. 55.
There is no other instance in N. T. of " depart to Jerusalem."
"REJECTED" OR "WITHOUT HONOUR"
3 [3189 6] The question may suggest itself, "Is it not more likely that Jesus,
in saying 'rejected,' had in mind the Psalmist's words ' The stone that the builders
A. S. 177 I2
[3189] "THE SON OF MAN"
The explanation is conjectural, but there is precedent for every
step in it; and even if the explanation be rejected, in detail, the
Synoptic divergence points to Isaiah's prophecy as the original.
rejected? which the three gospels record Him as quoting later on (Mk xii. 10,
Mt. xxi. 42, Lk. xx. 17) and that this was the Semitic original of ' rejected ' here ?"
[3189 c] It would be, if Matthew had inserted "rejected" here. But, as
Matthew, while using " rejected " later on, has not inserted it here though the
insertion would make an attractive agreement between the two passages it may
be fairly argued that there was some difficulty that prevented Matthew from
inserting it here. Isaiah's word for "reject" explains what that difficulty may
have been ; for it has been actually translated in many different ways. The Psalmist's
word for "reject" would have presented no difficulty at all, and would naturally
have been translated by all the evangelists literally. This tends to shew that the
Psalmist's word was not in Matthew's original.
[3189 d} Here it may be noted that, although Isaiah nowhere calls the Suffering
Servant a "son of man," yet he implies the term (Is. lii. 13 14) : " My servant
shall deal wisely, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high... his
visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons
of man"
[3189 e\ The LXX seems to have used a version of this clause to translate the
Hebrew (liii. 3) "despised and rejected by men," which it renders " his form was
without -honour (O,TI/J.OV) and failing more than the sons of men. "
[3189/] "An/uos occurs only thrice in the O.T. as representing a Hebrew
word. In N.T. it occurs only four times, two of the instances being in Christ's
.saying " A prophet is not without-honour save in his own country " (Mk vi. 4,
Mt. xiii. 57), the other two instances being i Cor. iv. 10, xii. 23. Lk. iv. 24
(parall. to Mk vi. 4) has " no prophet is acceptable in his own country." John
retains "honour," but as a noun (iv. 44) "Jesus himself testified that a prophet in
his own country hath not honour."
[3189/1 The LXX of Is. liii. 3 " without-honour... beyond the (irapa. TOVS)
sons of men," exhibits a use of irapd, as "more than," very rare indeed in N.T.
except in the Epistle to the Hebrews (e.g. Heb. i. 9). Early evangelists may have
taken irapd in its much more frequent meaning "among" (with dative). Then
they may have supposed that Isaiah's words meant " without honour among the
sons of men," and that this was fulfilled in Christ's reception by the people of
Nazareth.
[3189 h\ "Art/xos, when applied to persons, was regularly used by Attic writers
to mean " disfranchised," or to express some kind of deprivation of civic rights.
The LXX of Is. liii. 3 did not apply it to a person but only to " form." Mark
and Matthew applied it to a person. Hence, perhaps, Luke altered it. John
characteristically retains as much of the old tradition as possible (" not. ..honour")
while avoiding the objection suggested (to the minds of Greek readers) by
"without honour" applied to a person. Origen (on Mt. xiii. 57) says that the
word implies persecution as well as discredit. Comp. i Cor. iv. 10 " but we are
dishonoured" (and perhaps ib. xii, 23, "the parts that people are ashamed of"
(not as R.V. "less honourable").
[3189 i\ It is antecedently very probable that this particular prophecy of
Isaiah (about the Suffering Servant) should have left its impress on very many
I 7 8
TO SUFFER MANY THINGS [3189]
passages of the gospels where the Passion itself is not in question. That does
not imply that the prophecy has left its impress on the facts. Jesus may have
really been "without honour" in Nazareth. The evangelists, in recording the
fact, may have preferred to record it in language like that of Isaiah.
[3189/] In Mk vi. 4, Mt. xiii. 57, the Syr. has "there is no prophet that is
insulted (or despised)" which is rendered by Murdoch " little." This is an error,
arising perhaps from the fact that two words (Gesen. 277 b, 859 a, "VJJT and Ty)
both meaning "little" in Heb. are differentiated in Aramaic so that the former
means (i) "little," but the latter (2) "counted, or made, little," and hence
"straitened," "persecuted," "despised," "insulted." The latter in Syriac (Thes.
Syr. 3426) sometimes means "viri infames quibus non licebat testamentum facere."
This corresponds to art/wt, "deprived of civic rights." Thus, in Mic. v. 2 "But
thou Bethlehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, "
the Targum substitutes the form with initial z for the form with initial Is, and
adds, after " to be" " to be reckoned" (Walton "quasi minima fuisti adeo ut com-
putareris "). If this had not been done, the meaning in the Targum would have
been that Bethlehem was " despised " perhaps ' ' too much despised to be among
the thousands of Judah." See Levy Ch. i. 227, ii. 223 4. In Gen. xix. 22 "the
name of the city was called Zoar" (marg. " Little") Onk. keeps the Heb. 7V-, but
Jer. Targ. substitutes the Aramaic Z-. In Aramaic, the form used by Onk.
would mean " despised " ; the form used by Jer. Targ., " little." See 3621 b.
If the original tradition was that a prophet in his own family was (like David)
" little," some confusion might easily arise between " little " and " counted little,"
"despised," " persecuted," " outlawed," and then Isaiah's word ort^tot may have
seemed suitable to express the fact.
ADDENDUM ON "SUFFERING"
[3189 k\ To the remarks (3184 a) on *d<rx.w, it should be added that in Ezek.
xvi. 5 "No eye pitied thee.../t? Aare compassion on thte (roS raffeiv n. ^ri
<rot)," Trommius rightly takes -ra0ea> n as "to be touched," "moved with
compassion," a classical Greek phrase, fairly representing the Heb. ?Dn. Comp.
Zech. xi. 5 "their own shepherds pity (^OH) them not," LXX WK. Itcaff-j^v ovSev
ev ai/roiy. In both these passages Oxf. Cone, leaves the Heb. a blank, but
without cause. The passages are worth noting because they shew the LXX using
ira.df'u> almost like ffWTa0rj<reu in Heb. iv. 15, "we have not a high priest that is
not able to suffer with our infirmities." It is by no means improbable that early
Greek tradition about Christ as one " suffering many things" was also intended
to suggest one "suffering with many persons" ; and this would certainly accord
with the tenor of Isaiah's description of the Servant of Jehovah as " bearing our
griefs" and as "bearing the sin of many." Apart from the Apocrypha, ird<rxw
does not occur more than 4 or 5 times in LXX, and, that being the case, it is
remarkable that it should be used thrice to represent the "sympathy" that was not
felt for Israel by human helpers (Ezek. xvi. 5, Amos vi. 6, Zech. xi. 5).
179 12 2
CHAPTER VI
"THE SON OF MAN" TO ARISE
i. " The son of man''' to arise on the third day
[3190] We have seen above (3183) that in all the Synoptists, the
first use of the phrase " raised from the dead " occurs in connection
with John the Baptist. We have also seen (3184) that, when we
come to the first of Christ's predictions about His own resurrection,
the words "from the dead" are omitted. To this point we shall have
to recur. For the present it will suffice to note that the omission of
" from the dead" brings Christ's words into close resemblance with a
prophecy of Hosea.
In this, Israel is represented as saying, concerning Jehovah, "He
hath smitten, and he will bind us up. After two days will he revive
us, on the third day he will raise us up and we shall live before him '."
The LXX, instead of " he will raise us up," has, " we shall arise,"
using the word employed by Mark in his version of Christ's
prediction, so that, if "the son of man" be substituted for "we," it
might be said that the Greek Version of Hosea agrees with Mark,
" The son of man will arise on the third day."
[3191] It may be objected, ist, that such a combination of
Isaiah with Hosea is improbable, and, 2nd, that Jesus could not say
that God had "smitten" Him. But the former objection is refuted
by a glance at many of the marginal references attached to several
passages of the New Testament exhibiting mixtures of passages from
different prophets 2 .
The latter objection is refuted by the words of Jesus, recorded by
Mark and Matthew, " It is written, / will smile the shepherd, and the
1 Hos. vi. i 2, LXX
2 [3191 a] For combinations of prophecies, without notice of various author-
ship, in the words of Jesus, see W.H.'s Index of quotations, giving Mt. viii. 11 as
quoting Mai. i. n, Is. lix. 19 ; Mt. xxiv. 31 as quoting Is. xxvii. 13, Zech. ii. 6,
Deut. xxx. 4 ; Mt. xxvi. 64 as quoting Dan. vii. 13, Ps. ex. j foil. etc.
1 80
"THE SON OF MAN" TO ARISE [3192]
sheep shall be scattered 1 ." Moreover Isaiah's prophecy (though
saying "we did esteem him... smitten of God," which might imply
that God did not really "smite") goes on to explain that the
smiting, which it calls " wounding," and " bruising," and " putting to
grief," was indeed the act of God though for a special reason ' ; He
was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities
...it pleased the Lord to bruise him, he hath put him to grief
(///. made him sick)...*."
We may suppose that Jesus, while expounding the bitter purport
of Isaiah to the disciples, sweetened the bitterness by adding, at
the end of it, the prophecy of Hosea concerning the resurrection.
Isaiah, too, implied an ultimate triumph over death 3 . But Hosea
implied more; for he said that the separation caused by death would
be brief: "after two days," "on the third day," the "smitten"
would "arise [from the dead]" or "be raised [from the dead]."
This suggestion would be full of comfort for the disciples.
2. " On the third day," " afttr three days"
[3192] Here the question can hardly fail to suggest itself, " If
Jesus, in this first mention of His death and resurrection, wished
to comfort His disciples by mentioning a definite period for His
entombment, how comes it that Mark, the earliest of the evangelists,
has ' after three days,' whereas Matthew and Luke have ' on the third
day ' ? "
One answer may be, that Hosea's " two days " and " on the third
day " did not in all probability mean a definite time, but a short time,
like our "two or three days" This may be illustrated by the
following parallel between the two Jerusalem Targums in their
preface to Leviticus :
Jer. I (Etheridge) Jer. II (Etheridge)
"Moses reasoned... and said: "Moses reasoned... and said:
'To Mount Sinai, whose excell- ' Within Mount Sinai, whose ma-
ency is the excellence only of an jesty was the majesty of an hour
hour and its holiness the holiness and its holiness the holiness of
but of three days,'...." an hour,'...."
1 Mk xiv. 27, Mt. xnri. 31. Luke omits this.
J Is. liii. 5 10 " to bruise him '' is rendered by LXX " to purify him," Sym.
J Is. liii. ii " He shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out
his soul unto death."
181
[3193] "THE SON OF MAN"
In Jer. I, " three days " is parallel to " an hour " and evidently
intended by Jer. I to signify "for a short time." And Jer. II uses
"an hour" in both cases with the same meaning.
The fourth gospel appears to intervene between these two ancient
resurrectional traditions, " on the third day," and " after three days,"
in a characteristic way. While not committing itself to either, it
contradicts neither and expresses the meaning of both if the phrases
mean " in a little while " by representing Jesus as saying " A little
while, and ye behold me no more ; and again, a little while, and ye
shall see me 1 ."
[3193] There is indeed a possibility that Hosea may have been
alluding to some proverb of northern Israel to which region,
afterwards called Galilee, the prophet belonged a proverb intended
to encourage the weary pilgrim on his way to one of the Feasts at
Jerusalem. Josephus 2 tells us that it was a journey of "three days"
from Galilee to Jerusalem. The title of Hosea's prophecy tells us
that he prophesied under Hezekiah ; and it was in Hezekiah's time
that a message was sent to the remnants of the northern tribes 3 ,
inviting them to come up to the sacrifice of the Passover at Jerusalem 4 .
Such an invitation the prophet may have urged his countrymen to
accept, at the same time adding God's warning as to the right kind
of offering, " I will have mercy and not sacrifice 5 ." Jesus is said by
Matthew to have quoted these last words twice ; and the saying
" on the third day he will raise us up " comes, in Hosea, almost
immediately before them.
[3194] In any case a connection whether it was or was not in
part caused by these geographical and historical facts and transferred
to books of the Bible where no such cause could have operated
does exist in Jewish literature between "the third day" and sacrifice.
Traditions connect " the third day " in Hosea with " the third day "
in the description of Abraham drawing near to Moriah to sacrifice
Isaac 6 , and with Jonah's "three days and three nights" in the belly
1 Jn xvi. 1 6, see 3194 e.
2 Joseph. Vit. 52. 3 2 Chr. xxx. 6 u.
4 [3193 a] Is it possible that some Galilaean proverb of this kind may throw
light on the words attributed to Jesus by Matthew alone (xxvi. 2) " Ye know that
after two days the Passover cometh..."? A proverb (exhorting patience) is perhaps
quoted by Jesus in Jn iv. 35 "Yet four months and the harvest cometh."
6 Hos. vi. 6 quoted in Mt. ix. 13, xii. 7.
6 [3194 a] See Gen. Rob. on Gen. xxii. 4 "on the third day," also Clem. Alex.
690, and Origen ad loc. " Omitto nunc quid sacramenti contineat dies tertia...et
182
TO ARISE [3195]
of the whale 1 , and with the giving of the Law from Mount Sinai 2 .
Nor would Jewish writers make such distinctions as suggest them-
selves to English readers between "on the third day" and "after
three days" if we may judge from such expressions as "And he
put them all together into ward three days. And Joseph said unto
them the third day,...*"
3. " After three days " uttered by false witnesses
[3195] That Jesus actually said something about "raising up"
in connection with "three days" or "the third day" is indicated
indirectly by the Synoptic accounts of Christ's trial before the high
priest, in spite of their divergence and confusion. There, both
Mark and Matthew make mention of "false witness." But they
report the accusation that Jesus said (Mark) "/ will destroy" or
resurrectio Domini tertia est die : et multa alia intra hanc diem mysteria conclu-
duntur." Philo i. 457 (on Gen. xxii. 4) speaks, somewhat obscurely, of Abraham
as passing from stage to stage to " the timeless nature (irapf\0wv rat -r\elovs
/J.oipCLS TUV -XpOVtK&V SiaffTTlH&TiaV KOl TjSlJ ITpOJ T1\V 5.XPOVOV ftfTa^CUVUV #}<*). "
1 Jonah i. 17. 2 Exod. xix. 16.
3 [3194^] Gen. xlii. 17 18. Jerome, in his commentary on Hosea, is rather
severe on some Jewish expositors, who explained each "day" as meaning a
thousand years ; and he is justified by the context. For it implies brevity and
therefore makes the application of the saying "one day is as a thousand years"
peculiarly inappropriate. But he himself also is in error in supposing that the
prophet was referring to a definite number of days. The Targum on Hosea omits
all numbers, and has, " He will cause us to live in the days of consolation that are
to come, and in the day of the resurrection of the dead He will raise us up and
we shall live in His presence."
Rashi interprets the "two days" as the " two Temples, which were destroyed,"
and says " He will raise us up in the building of the third House [or, Temple] (in
aedificio Jomus tertiae\s&\ templi tertii] suscitabit nos." It has been shewn (Joh.
Gr. 2023 4) that Jn ii. 20 " forty-six years " refers to the Temple of Ezra (which
Jews would regard as merely repaired by Herod). Jewish Christians would there-
fore regard Christ as "the third Temple"; and, if they agreed with Rashi's
interpretation of Hosea, they would say that Hosea " predicted the raising up of
the third Temple, namely, Christ, on the third day."
On the building of the Temple by the Messiah comp. the Targ. on Isaiah (liii. 5
" He was wounded for our transgressions ; he was bruised for our iniquities ; the
chastisement of our peace was upon him ; and with his stripes we are healed ")
" But lu will build up the Holy Place, which had been polluted for our sins and
delivered to the enemy for our iniquities ; and by his instruction peace shall be
increased upon us ; and, by devotion to his words, our sins will be forgiven us."
[3194 c\ In O.T. " three " is often used with " days," where a Hebrew noun,
"triad," expresses "three," as in Joseph's prediction (Gen. xl. 13, 19) "Within
[3195J "THE SON OF MAN"
(Matthew) "/ am able to destroy" in connection with the Temple 1 .
They add, as part of the accusation, that He spoke about (Mark)
"building another" or (Matthew) "building \it again]" after an
interval of "three days." Mark distinctly reports this as "false
witness " ; Matthew leaves a loophole for supposing that the previous
charges were false, but that this one may not have been wholly false.
Luke omits all mention of the charge. But it can hardly be
doubted that the charge was made, and that it had some basis of
actual utterance on the part of Christ. If Jesus said " Destroy " or
"Ye are destroying," and the false witnesses reported Him as
saying " I will destroy," that can hardly be regarded as strange in
view of the fact that Zechariah says " Smite the shepherd " and Jesus
is represented in the gospels as quoting it in the form " I will smite" 1 ."
Jesus may have said to the priests ' ' Destroy ye 3 ," that is, " Go on in
yet a triad of days," and Josh. i. n "in yet a triad of days," where the Targums
have "at the end of three days," and LXX has either "yet [are] three days," or
"yet (lit.) of three days," not translating the Heb. "in" or "within." This
interval is used in giving legal, official, or military notice, comp. Exod. xix.
ii 15, i S. xx. 4, " Call me the men of Judah [within] a triad of days," J36r]ff6v
pot. TOV avdpa 'lotda rpels Tj/^paj. In Ezr. x. 8 9, (lit. ) "whosoever came not to [the}
triad of the days... gathered themselves together to [the] triad of the days," A.V.
translates the two phrases alike, "within three days" ; R.V. has (i) "within three
days," (2) "within the three days." But the Heb. has "triad of the days" in both
phrases; and, in accordance with Heb. idiom, "the" defines the whole of the
phrase in both cases. "[The] triad of the days" perhaps means, first, "the
(regular) three-days" and then "the (above-mentioned) three-days."
[3194 a?] This bears on Jn ii. 19 20 "Destroy this temple and [within] three
([ev] Tpiffiv) days...thou -within three (kv rpiffiv) days" where the preposition is
inserted at all events in the second clause (but bracketed by W. H. in the first)
and on the corresponding utterance in Mark (xiv. 58) and Matthew (xxvi. 61)
"after an interval of ' (Sta) three days build up..." (Luke om.). See fob. Gr. 2331.
[3194 *] Jn xvi. 16 19 "a little while'" should be read in conjunction with
Jn xiii. 33, xiv. 19 "yet a little while" and then it will seem probable that
Jn xvi. 16, 19 "a little while and ye shall see me," corresponds closely to the
Hebrew idiom "in yet a little while" or " in yet a triad of days."
[3194/] As regards past time Gesen. 1026 shews that an adverb derived from
"three" (which we might express by "three-like") is frequently used for
"hitherto," "previously" etc., in the phrase "yesterday [and] three-like."
[3194^] On "three days," as being "the three days of weeping" for the
dead, after which all hope of revivification must be given up, see Hor. Heb. on Jn
xi. 39, quoting a tradition of Ben Kaphra from Beresh Rab. fol. 114. 3, and
Jevamoth fol. 120 a, " They do not certify of the dead ' but within the three days
after his decease ' : for after three days his countenance is changed."
1 Mk xiv. 58, Mt. xxvi. 61.
2 Zech. xiii. 7, Mk xiv. 27, Mt. xxvi. 31. 3 Comp. Jn ii. 19.
184
TO ARISE [3197]
your evil courses, and do your best to destroy this visible temple
made by hands, since it must needs be so." Or He may have said,
speaking in the name of God (3583 (i)), "I will destroy this temple,"
Either of these things is possible and easily credible. But that the
charge should have been a pure fiction of enemies is absolutely
impossible. " I will destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three
days " what " false witness " could have invented so extraordinary
a charge to bring against a Jewish teacher about whom it is said
that, at this very time, "the common people heard him gladly 1 "?
[3196] The facts point to the conclusion that, as Moses said to
Israel in the wilderness, "Be ready against the third day-"" in order
that they might receive the Law, or as the first Jesus said to them,
when on the point of leaving the wilderness, " Prepare you victuals ;
for within three days ye are to pass over this Jordan 3 ," so the second
Jesus, using the language of Hosea, prepared His Israel the
spiritual Israel, "smitten" for sin but penitent for the crisis by
which He was to terminate His wandering with them, and to bestow
on them the New Covenant, and to lead them across the river, the
river of tnal and tribulation, into the New Land of Promise.
Perhaps Jesus, at various seasons, spoke of the crisis of "the
third day" in various aspects. At one time He may have thought of
the three days of future crisis that were to elapse after the "smiting"'
had fallen on Him in Jerusalem. At another, He may have thought
of the three days of crisis through which He was already passing,
on His way to bear the " smiting " in Jerusalem where God would
intervene in His behalf. This latter aspect appears to be represented
by Luke's peculiar tradition of what Jesus said when going through
the country, city by city and village by village, teaching and journey-
ing to Jerusalem : " Behold, I cast out devils and perform cures
to-day and to-morrow, and the third [day] I am perfected. Howbeit
I must go on my way to-day and to-morrow and the [day] following ;
for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem 4 ."
[3197] Apart from the mere verbal similarity of the phrase
" third day," the attitude of Jesus may find its best illustration in the
faith attributed to Abraham "on the third day 5 " in Origen's exposi-
tion. The Patriarch was aware that an insoluble problem might be
1 Mk xii. 37. Exod. xix. 15. 3 Josh. i. n.
Lk. xiii. 32 3, where Cramer has "ff-im.epov r. afyxoi-" wXekwas ^w^pas Snj\di.
5 Gen. xxii. 4 "On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the
place afar off."
I8 5
[3197 (i)] "THE SON OF MAN"
put to him, " If you are going to sacrifice Isaac, how can you come
back with him ? " He could not solve it. But he believed that God
could solve it. Hence, while taking Isaac away with him from the
servants to his apparent death, he dared to say to them " We will
worship and come again to you 1 ." He left it to God to "see" to the
solution of the insoluble, "as it is said to this day, In the Mount of
the Lord it will be seen 2 ."
It was apparently in a similar conviction that our Lord uttered
the prediction that " the son of man " would " arise (or, be raised) on
the third day." He did not think of Himself apart from the Father, or
apart from the sons of man whom He came to save. He was also
conscious that His soul, as the Psalmist said, could not be " left to
Sheol," but that God would shew Him " the path of life 3 " at His
right hand after He had accomplished His Father's will.
4. " On the third day in accordance with the scriptures "
[3197 (i)] Some deny that Jesus ever uttered the prediction that
He would be " raised on the third day." They allege that the words
were imputed to Jesus by His disciples. If so, it must (presumably)
have been because the disciples believed that He actually was
" raised on the third day" and that He must have predicted it. In
that case, it seems probable that the disciples would have imputed to
Jesus no statement except that which accorded with what they accepted
as the historical time "on the third day." Such an imputation of
words would not have been according to our modern notions honest
or truthful. But, if they must needs be dishonest and untruthful,
why not be consistently dishonest and untruthful ? Why occasionally
hand down traditions about "after three days" or "three days and
three nights' '? Does not this indicate that, from the beginning, they
were not certain about the precise time? And if they were not
certain about it, is it likely that they would have imputed to Jesus
predictions about it when it was so easy to leave them out ? Why
not have represented Him as saying simply that He would " die and
be raised from the dead " ?
The most probable answer seems to be that these variations were
handed down because the disciples were honest and truthful; because
Jesus expressed in different phrases at different times the shortness
of the interval that was to elapse between "being smitten" and
1 Gen. xxii. 5. 2 Gen. xxii. 14. 3 Ps. xvi. 10 u.
186
TO ARISE [3197 (iii)]
" being raised, or, arising " ; and also most important of all be-
cause they, after the event, like their Master before the event, were
always keeping their eyes on the fulfilment of prophecy. His resur-
rection was to be " in accordance with the scriptures"
[3197 (ii)] Long before any one of our gospels was written there
must have existed this belief that " the third day " was " in accordance
with the scriptures." For we find Paul saying to the Corinthians " I
delivered to you in [the] first [traditions] that which I also received,
that Christ died in behalf of our sins in accordance with the
scriptures ; and that he was buried ; and that he was raised on the
third day in accordance with the scriptures 1 "
The Greek text here makes it probable that the burial was not
regarded (though it might have been regarded 4 ) as a fulfilment of
" the scriptures," but at all events quite certain that " the third day "
was thus regarded. Chrysostom's comment shews us, in a flash, both
that it was thus regarded and also the difficulty that he felt in
regarding it thus. " Where," he says, " have the scriptures said that
He was buried and was to arise on the third day 1 In the type of
Jonah, whom also He Himself brings forward, saying, ' As Jonah was
in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so also shall
the Son of Man be in the hearc of the earth three days and three
nights 3 .' " Does not this make it clear (i) that if Chrysostom could
have found in the scriptures any mention of being " raised on the
third day" that seemed at all appropriate to Christ, he would have
gladly alleged it ? (2) that if he thought of the prophecy in Hosea,
he rejected it as inappropriate? (3) that in very early times other
Christians would have similarly rejected it because they could not
conceive that Jesus, like Hosea, associated Himself with sinful
Israel?
[3197 (iii)] The Pauline evidence takes us back to what the
Apostle "received," presumably at the time of his conversion, that
Jesus was " raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures?
In the context, when he says that Jesus "died in behalf of our sins
in accordance with the scriptures" although he does not say what
" scriptures " he has in view, almost all critics would agree that he
has in view some " scriptures." Probably he was referring to Isaiah's
prophecy on the Suffering Servant, to which, as we shall see (3254),
1 i Cor. xv. 3 4 . "On the third day" is emphasized, see 3210 .
2 Is. liii. 8 9. 3 Chrys. ad loc. (as in Cramer) quoting Mt. xii. 40.
I8 7
[3197 (iv)] "THE SON OF MAN"
he alludes elsewhere so briefly and obscurely as to escape the notice
of many commentators ; but in any case few or none would dispute
that " died... in accordance with the scriptures " refers to some prophecy
believed by Paul to predict the Messiah's death, and not to a mere
type such as the swallowing up of Jonah by the whale.
This being the case, when Paul says in the same sentence that
Jesus was " raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures"
are we not bound to suppose that Paul is referring to some
prophecy if we can find one anywhere in the Bible that might be
taken as a prediction of the Messiah's resurrection and not to
a mere type like that of the release of Jonah from the whale's belly?
Apart from the non-Pauline character of such an allusion to Jonah,
as implying the Scriptural prediction of Christ's resurrection, it may
fairly be argued that if Paul had intended to lay such stress on the story
of that prophet as a type of the risen Saviour, he would have said
" after three days," instead of " on the third day." But besides, how
much more to the point, and how much more spiritually as well as
verbally applicable is the prophecy in Hosea about being " raised on
the third day " ! It is true that, in Hosea, the utterer of the prophecy
appears to identify himself with sinful Israel. But to Paul, who
wrote that Christ became "sin," or "a curse," for us, such a self-
identification would have presented no difficulty.
The evidence therefore is strong to shew that Paul is alluding to
Hosea in the clause about the resurrection, as he is to Isaiah in the
clause about the death. But in any case we have here irresistible
evidence that this difficult clause " raised on the third day in accord-
ance with the scriptures," formed part of the earliest Christian creed ;
and its difficulty, and its antiquity, justify the conviction that the
words proceeded from Christ Himself 1 .
[3197 (iv)] Many facts confirm the view that, although the
earliest disciples were absolutely convinced by manifestations of the
1 [3197 (iii) a] In Origen De Red. Fid. (Lomm. xvi. 372 3) why do the two
orthodox disputants omit the words " in accordance with the scriptures," both after
" died " and after " raised "? Possibly as not being to the point. In Cels. ii. 63,
Origen quotes i Cor. xv. 3 8, but omits "and that he was buried and that he
was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures." Probably the
omission is explained by homoeoteleuton, or by the desire to concentrate attention
on the appearances after death. In any case, as there are extant no more than
these three quotations of i Cor. xv. 4, the result is that we have no extant opinion
of Origen about "the third day in accordance with the scriptures."
1 88
TO ARISE [3198]
Lord that He had arisen from the dead, yet the date when these
manifestations began was by no means definitely recognised. Peter
was generally (though not universally, Notes 2999 (xvii) e -/) acknow-
ledged to have been the first male disciple to whom Jesus appeared.
Yet the Gospel According to Peter concludes thus : " Now it was
the last day of the unleavened bread, and many went forth return-
ing to their homes, as the feast was ended. But we, the twelve
disciples of the Lord, mourned and were grieved : and each one,
grieving for that which was come to pass, departed to his home.
But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother, took our nets and
went away to the sea; and there was with us Levi the son of
Alphaeus, whom the Lord...."
That gospel recognises that Jesus was raised on the third day,
but evidently makes a longer interval elapse before Jesus appears to
Peter; and this is quite consistent with the Pauline tradition, which
is rather against, than for, the view that Jesus appeared to Peter on
the same day on which He rose from the dead 1 .
5. "Smitten" interchangeable with "killed"
[3198] In previous attempts made by the author to explain the
very remarkable Synoptic divergences in Christ's predictions of His
Passion, one very important fact was omitted, bearing on the use of
" killed" and also on the prominence given in some of these
predictions and in the accounts of the Passion to "smiting,"
"striking," or "scourging 9 ."
1 i Cor. xv. 5 6 " and that he was raised on the third day, in accordance
with the scriptures ; and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve After-
wards he appeared...." By omitting "that" before "he appeared to Cephas,"
it would have been easy to suggest simultaneousness ; by inserting " on the same
day," it might have been definitely expressed. See 3347 (x) a.
2 [3198 a] See Corrections 488 foil, for confusions between words meaning
"smite," "pierce," "bruise" etc., to which add that the Heb. rendered "bruise"
in Is. liii. 5 may mean "shamefully entreat," being rendered by LXX (Tromm.)
(l) driudfto, (i) redd), (6) raretrow, (i) nrpufficta.
[3198^] Christian traditions might combine (Is. liii. 4) "smitten" with (it. 5)
"bruised," and sometimes render the latter "shamefully entreat" (as in Prov.
xxii. 11 a.Ti/4afa R.V. txt. "oppress," marg. "crush") but sometimes "humiliate"
or "mock" (eM"-ufw)."
[3198 c] The Synoptic Parable of the Lord of the Vineyard combines " shame-
fully entreat" (in Mk-Lk., but not in Mt.) with "striking," "wounding," and
"killing." According to Mark and Matthew, some of the "servants" were
189
[3199] "THE SON OF MAN"
The omitted fact is the ambiguity of the Hebrew " smite" which
occurs in the above-quoted prophecy of Hosea : " He hath smitten
and he will hind us up ; after two days will he cause us to live ; on
the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live before him."
"Smite" may mean either simply "smite," or "smite unto death" i.e.
"kill 1 ." It is rendered "kill" nine times in the LXX, and also
"put to death" "destroy" " exterminate*." Our Authorised Version
renders it "kill" repeatedly where the Revised Version has "smite 3 ."
In some cases the Revised also has "kill*" as indeed the sense
often absolutely demands.
[3199] In Hosea, ambiguity is almost entirely removed by
" he will bind us up." But, without that, the sentence would most
naturally be taken to mean "smiting unto death," or "killing,"
followed by " raising up," i.e. resurrection ; and, even with the
context, some might take Hosea's meaning to be that the sufferer
died and was raised again. In the East this would probably be
understood as what it is, namely, metaphor; but in the West it
might easily be understood as fact. It should be added that this
same Hebrew word for " smite " is applied to the Suffering Servant
in Isaiah, "smitten of God, afflicted 5 ."
That Jesus applied to Himself a prophecy about being " smitten,"
and one that uses the very word of which the ambiguity is now under
consideration, we learn from Mark's and Matthew's account of the
going forth to Gethsemane, " It is written, / will smite the
shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered 6 ." It is true that Luke
"killed." According to Luke, no "servant" -was "killed" no one but "the
heir"; the servants were only "struck,' 1 '' ''shamefully entreated'" etc. (see
Mk xii. 3 8, Mt. xxi. 35 9, Lk. xx. 10 15). This might be explained by
divergent interpretations of a word meaning either "smite" or "smite unto
death."
1 Gesen. 645.
2 [3198 d\ Tromm. aXfovcw (2), daip<?u> (8), airoKreivu (g), dir6\\v(u (i), <?o\o-
0petfw (3) etc., but more often by words meaning striking, scourging etc. Special
stress is laid above on " kill (aTroKrelvu) " because it is the word used in Mk viii.
31, ix. 31, x. 34, Mt. xvi. 21 etc. in the predictions of the Passion by all
the Synoptists.
3 Gen. iv. 15 "lest any, finding him, should kill him," and so 2 S. xii. 9,
i K. xvi. 7.
4 i S. xvii. 9 (bis), "to fight with me and kill me. ..prevail against him and
kill him," also 2 Chr. xxv. 3, Lev. xxiv. 21 (bis), Numb. xxxv. u etc.
5 Is. liii. 4.
6 [3199 a] Mk xiv. 27, Mt. xxvi. 31, quoting Zech. xiii. 7 (Field) " smite thou
190
TO ARISE [3201]
omits this. But that may be explained by the difficulty of the
thought that Christ could be actually " smitten " by God, and also
by the variation, in Zechariah, of the LXX from the Hebrew and
of the gospel from both.
[3200] As regard's John's omission of the prophecy we may
learn something from Origen's comment on Zechariah's words :
" Christ being smitten and crucified brought forth the fountain of the
New Testament, and on that account it was said of Him, ' I will
smite the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered.' It was
therefore necessary that He should be ' smitten.' For had He not
been smitten, and had not the water issued from His side, and the
blood [therewith], we should all be [still] enduring thirst for the
Word of God 1 ."
This indicates that the prediction of " smiting," though not
mentioned by John in word, is described by him as fulfilled in art,
by the tradition peculiar to his gospel, concerning the wounding of
Christ's side by the spear of a soldier resulting in a " fountain " of
that blood and water on which both the gospel and the epistle lay so
much stress. Thus the evangelist tacitly replies to the question
" How could the Father ' smite ' the Son ? " somewhat after the
manner of Origen, "It was necessary that He should be 'smitten'
according to the word of Zechariah. It was the Father who
ordained it, though it was the hand of Rome that performed it.
But the ' smiting ' is of less import than that which came from the
'smiting.' For thus was fulfilled another saying of Zechariah, 'They
shall look to him whom they pierced 2 .' "
Our conclusion is that Jesus actually applied to Himself this
prophecy of Zechariah about being " smitten," although it is omitted
by Luke and John.
[3201] If, then, Jesus predicted His Passion in accordance with
these passages about "smiting," and with the precedents of God's
the shepherd that the sheep may be scattered,'' LXX " smite ye the shepherds and
tear away the sheep," al. lect. "smite thou the shepherd and the sheep shall be
scattered." Jerome ad loc. complains that some "attenuate" this prophecy
" with allegory."
1 Horn. Exod. xi. 2.
- [3200 a] Jn six. 37 quoting Zech. xii. 10. Another prophecy of Zechariah,
in the same chapter as the one about "smiting the shepherd," says (xiii. i) " In
that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David... for sin and for
uncleanness." This would be fulfilled in the stream of "blood and water"
from Christ's side.
[3202] "THE SON OF MAN"
intervention in behalf of Isaac and Jonah before Him, it becomes
more easy to understand the Synoptic account of the prayer in
Gethsemane. He may have known that He was to be " smitten,"
and that He was to be brought down, like Hezekiah, " to the gates
of Sheol," or like Jonah, " into the depth," or even, in the words of
the Psalmist, "to the dust of death 1 ," and yet may have felt certain
that, after a brief interval, the Father would intervene and raise Him
up. But the exact manner in which the Father would intervene may
not have been revealed 2 .
6. Christ's omission of "from the dead" explained from Hosea
[3202] In Christ's first prediction of resurrection, Mark has
"after three days arise" whereas Matthew and Luke have "on the
third day be raised 3 "; in the second, Mark repeats "after three days
arise" Matthew repeats "on the third day be raised (marg. arise),"
Luke has nothing about "arising" or "being raised 4 ."
Mark uses the word by which the LXX of Hosea ("we shall
arise") renders the Hebrew "he will raise us up." The correction
adopted by Matthew and Luke emphasizes the fact that the act will
be that of God, a raising by His hand, and not the mere "rising
up" of a great prophet. This is a natural correction and not
important What is important is, that in these five (or six) passages
there is no mention of "from the dead" In view of the ambiguity
1 [3201 a] Is. xxxviii. 10, Jon. ii. 3, Ps. xxii. 15, where Origen distinguishes
"into the dust of death" from "into death," and Jerome says, "hoc est [in]
incarnationem, ,vel in infernum." Perhaps Jerome thinks that " the dust of
death " may mean the dust out of which the mortal body is framed, and may
hence refer to the Incarnation. In the Psalm, it does not appear to imply actual
death.
2 [3201 b] This hypothesis may be illustrated from the life of Abraham, who
is said (Heb. xi. 19) to have offered up Isaac, "reasoning that God [was]
able to raise up even from the dead, from whence also he received him in a
parable." See 3197 on Origen's comment calling attention to the confidence
with which Abraham said to his servants near Moriah (Gen. xxii. 5) " We [i.e.
Isaac and 1} will return to you."
[3201 r] Wetstein on Heb. xi. 19 quotes Pirke Eliezer 31 to the effect that,
when the sword was descending on Isaac's neck, his soul fled forth from him, but
when he heard the voice between the Cherubim cry, " Lay not thy hand on the
lad," his soul returned into his body. Then Isaac " became acquainted with the
resurrection of the dead. "
3 Mk viii. '31, Mt. xvi. 21, Lk. ix. 22, quoted fully in 3184.
4 Mk ix. 31, Mt. xvii. 23, Lk. ix. 44, quoted fully in 3263.
192
TO ARISE
[3204]
of the verb "arise," and even of "be raised," why should "from the
dead" be omitted?
[3203] The question becomes all the more pressing if we suppose
that the contexts of these six passages, in their original Aramaic or
Hebrew form, did not say that "the son of man" would be "killed"
but only that He would be "smitten." For in that case there
appears a probability that both " killed " and " from the dead " are
errors, the results of an honest but erroneous attempt to remove
ambiguity. Hosea's ambiguous "smitten," in the light of what
followed, was interpreted by Christians as "killed"; Hosea's
ambiguous " raise," in the light of what followed, was interpreted as
"raised from the dead."
The following facts confirm this view. " From the dead " is not
inserted, in connection with Christ's predictions of resurrection, by
any evangelist except by Mark and Matthew in a precept not to
disclose the vision of the Transfiguration until " the son of man
arose, or was raised, from the dead." Even that precept Luke omits.
Mark adds that the disciples " questioned with one another what the
arising from the dead might mean " :
Mk ix. 9 10 Mt. xvii. 9
"And as they were " And as they were
coming down from coming down from the
mountain, Jesus com-
manded them, saying,
' Tell the vision to no
man until the son of
man be raised (W. H.
marg. arise, 3246 a]
from the dead.'"
Lk. ix. 36 7
' ...And they held
their peace and told
no man in those days
any of the things
which they had seen.
And it came to pass
on the next day,
when they were come
down from the moun-
tain...."
the mountain, he
charged them that
they should tell no
man what things they
had seen, save when
the son of man should
have arisen from the
dead. And they kept
the saying, question-
ing among themselves
what the arising from
the dead might mean. "
[3204] Neither Luke nor John anywhere represents the Saviour
as predicting during His lifetime that He would be raised from the
dead. But Luke represents Jesus, after His death, as " opening the
mind" of disciples "that they might understand the scriptures," and
he continues, "And he said to them, Thus // is written that the
A. s.
193
[3205] "THE SON OF MAN"
Christ should suffer and arise from the dead on the third day 1 ." Also
John says "When therefore he was raised from the dead, his
disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the
scripture and the word that Jesus had said 2 ."
But what, according to John, had "Jesus said"? Nothing at all,
in definite words, about Himself or about His being raised from the
dead, but only about a " temple " to be " raised in three days". The
disciples, however, taught by the actual result, recognised that Jesus
meant that His body, or He Himself, would be raised from the
dead in accordance with the scriptures. This accordingly became
a current tradition, " He meant, or said 3 (eXeyev) that He would be
raised from the dead in three days in accordance with the scriptures."
Luke's representation appears to agree with what John says about
the resurrection of the "body." Only, instead of saying that the
disciples "remembered" it, or that the Spirit of Jesus "brought to
their remembrance" (as John says elsewhere) the saying of Jesus
and " guided them into all the truth " of it, Luke adopts a tradition
that represents Jesus Himself, after His resurrection, in a visible
form, as communicating to the disciples this interpretation of His
past words and of the scriptures, when the Eleven were "gathered
together," and when He bade them "handle" Him 4 .
[3205] The facts confirm the conclusion, stated above, that the
omission of "from the dead" was not an accident; that Jesus
predicted a "smiting" and a "raising up " on "the third day" in the
language of Hosea ; and that, when the ambiguous " smiting " came
to be rendered "killed," the words "from the dead" were occasion-
ally inserted after " raising up " to make the meaning clear, but that
this liberty was rarely taken in the earliest traditions. Moreover the
tenor of the gospels as a whole, and in particular the prayer in
1 Lk. xxiv. 46. 2 Jn ii. 11.
3 On "meant" and "said," expressed by the same verb both in Gk and
Heb. so as to cause possibilities of confusion, see Joh. Gr. 2467 foil., Notes
2837 (iii) a, 2874 /.
4 [3204 a] Lk. xxiv. 39. Jn xx. 9 "For as yet they knew not the scripture
how that // must needs be (5ei) that he should arise from the dead" indicates
that no prediction of Christ, by itself, and apart from "scripture," had prepared
them for His being raised '''from the dead" To the same effect is a passage in
Luke where "to enter into glory" is substituted for "to be raised from the
dead," (Lk. xxiv. 25 6) "O fools and slow of heart in believing all the sayings
that the prophets have said. Must it not needs have been (ov-)(i..MtC) that the
Christ should suffer these things [first] and [then] enter into his glory ? "
194
TO ARISE [3206]
Gethsemane, indicate that the precise nature and the exact duration
of the " smiting " were not revealed to Jesus along with the revelation
of the " smiting " itself. If this conclusion is correct, then we must
suppose that, although He knew that the Father would raise Him
up, the details were hidden. Whether, at the last moment, He was
to be delivered (like Isaac, only after drinking a cup of suffering far
more bitter than that of Isaac) or whether He was to drink the cup
to the last drop this was not revealed.
The objection, then, that Hosea's prophecy contemplated a
national resurrection, and that Christ's predictions did not, may be
met with a direct negative to the latter assertion. Jesus was a patriot,
loving His country with an exceeding love, and longing to make the
whole house of Israel a nation of priests and kings, that they might
be His instruments in raising up the fallen House of Adam. He
did not think of Himself as "raised up" by God apart from Israel,
or apart from Adam. His thought was of a resurrection that was to
be ultimately " corporate " in the widest sense.
[3206] At the same time it is not to be denied that Jesus
conceived the raising up of "the son of man" as destined to be
accomplished in Himself, by some means, speedily, and personally.
He, Jesus of Nazareth, was to be rescued from the jaws of death,
possibly like Isaac, but more probably like Jonah, who cried unto
the Lord " out of the belly of Sheol " and said, " I will look again
toward thy holy temple 1 ."
It is very hard for us in the twentieth century to grasp the
thought of such a breadth of spiritualism, combined with such an
intensity of patriotism, as we find in the greatest of the Hebrew
prophets. Yet we must make the effort. For these same characteristics
we may expect to find, developed to their highest, in Jesus Christ.
We must therefore try to do in theology what we do in science. In
science we are stronger than in history ; and in no history are we so
weak as in the history of religion. In science, choosing a few things,
we search into them and reason about them logically and intensely
and dispassionately, or with a passion for nothing but the truth ; but
in studying the origin and growth of the Christian faith, we think, or
seem to ourselves to think, about many things, or modern views of
things but not much, and not intensely, and not always with a passion
for the truth, about anything; and as for research in Hebrew and
1 Jon. ii. i 4.
195 132
[3206] "THE SON OF MAN"
Jewish literature with the view of helping ourselves to understand our
Jewish Messiah, very little is done in this country, and what is done
is not encouraged 1 .
Yet if we could see, in our imagination, Jeremiah wearing his
yoke on his neck as the yoke of his people 2 , and Ezekiel lying on
his left side to "lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it 3 ," and
going through all the signs of a siege in his own person, we should
at least apprehend the possibility that Jesus might feel that in His
resurrection, Israel would rise again.
The Hebrew text of Isaiah says almost this very thing, though
in obscure and disputed language, "Thy dead shall live; my dead
body they shall arise 4 ." Concerning this the author of Horae
Hebraicae writes "It is properly 'Corpus meum resurgent,'" and
then paraphrases thus, "The Gentiles being dead in their sins shall,
with my dead body, when it rises again, rise again also from their
death : nay, they shall rise again, my body, that is, as part of myself,
and my body mystical"
This passage must undoubtedly be received with peculiar caution,
even though we are concerned solely, not with what Isaiah wrote, but
with what Isaiah was believed in the first century to have written.
For the Targum and the LXX omit "my " and "thy." The Syriac
has (Walton) " May thy dead (pi.) be restored to life and their
corpses arise." But these variations appear to have arisen from
attempts to explain, or to remove, the extraordinary difficulty in
" Thy dead" followed by "my dead body."
Another difficulty lies in the doubt as to the speaker. It may be
God, and the meaning may be " Thy dead men, O Israel, shall live,
1 For example, we have no English scholarlike translation of the Talmuds
with page references, and no English translation of the Commentary of Rashi.
Even Breithaupt's Latin translation of Rashi is difficult to obtain.
2 Jer. xxvii. i, xxviii. 10 foil.
3 Ezek. iv. 4 foil. Comp. Yepheth ben 'Ali on Is. liii. 4 (Driver and
Neubauer, pp. 23 4) "God makes known to the people of their own time the
excellence of the prophets who intercede for a period of adversity in two ways."
First, " whilst Israel's empire lasted, it was shewn in prayer and intercession, as in
the cases of Moses, Aaron, Samuel, David, Elijah, and Elisha" (Ps. xcix. 6).
Secondly, "in a time of captivity and extreme wickedness, though their intercession
left no such traces as these ; yet the burden of the nation's sins was lightened ; such
was the case with Ezekiel when God obliged him (iv. 4) to sleep 390 days upon his
left side and 40 upon the right one ; he carried on the first occasion the iniquity of
Israel, and on the second the weight of that of Judah."
4 Is. xxvi. 19, see Hor. Heb. on Jn xii. 24. I have italicised the final words.
196
TO ARISE [3207]
my dead bodies (i.e. the bodies of my martyrs), shall arise." But Ibn
Ezra explains the text thus : " My dead body. The first person refers
to the prophet, who is one of the Israelites that are considered as
dead. Let Thy dead men live, and let the dead of my people " lit.
my dead body "rise, as if they heard the cry 'Awake....'" This
commentator appears to have considered that the writer appropriated,
as it were, "the dead of my people" in the same way in which
Ezekiel might appropriate those into whose bones he summoned the
Spirit, in his vision of the resurrection of Israel.
This interpretation, accepting as it does, unaltered, a very difficult
and highly poetical text, has strong claims to be considered correct.
Doubtless, the ancient Isaiah that lived in the days of Hezekiah did
not write these words. But the " Isaiah " read by Jesus in the
Synagogue was not that ancient Isaiah, but probably the same as that
read by Ibn Ezra. And what this "Isaiah" records, and what
Ezekiel did, why should we doubt that Jesus might say He would
do 1 ?
7. "He learned the obedience [of the Cross] from the things
that he suffered' 2 "
[3207] The sentence placed at the head of this section affords
the only instance where "the obedience" is used in the New
Testament absolutely. It may be illustrated by the Pauline antithesis
between "the disobedience of the one man," namely, of Adam, and
" the obedience of the one," namely, of Christ 3 . This might suggest
that, in the mouth of a Christian, " the obedience " like " the
Temptation," "the Passion," "the Last Supper" might be explained
by substituting " Chrisfs" for "the." But a still narrower definition
is suggested by another Pauline passage, which uses the adjective
corresponding to "obey" thus, "He humbled himself, becoming
obedient unto death, yea, the death of the Cross 4 ."
1 [3206 a] Sanhedr. 90 b suggests that the dead may be those whom Ezekiel
caused to live again in the valley of dry bones. Does this suggestion imply that
Ezekiel was their representative, so that they were, in some sense, "Arrdead"?
Comp. Tehillim on Ps. iv. i " God of my righteousness," on which R. Jehuda is
quoted, " All that David says about himself he says also about all Israel," and it
is added " The Rabbis say, The commonwealth of Israel speaks [here] before the
Holy One, blessed be He."
2 Heb. v. 8 ffj.adfv d(f> uiv f-raffev TT\V vtraKOTjv.
J Rom. v. 19. * Philipp. ii. 8.
197
[3208] "THE SON OF MAN"
This indicates that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews
means, by "the obedience," the great obedience that act of obedience
by which the world was redeemed, the spiritual sacrifice of the whole
obedient life culminating in the spiritual sacrifice of the obedient
death. This view is somewhat confirmed by Biblical precedent.
God's first mention of "obeying" is in a promise to Abraham after he
has " not withheld " his only son : " In thy seed shall all the nations
of the earth be blessed because thou hast obeyed my voice 1 ." To
this act of supreme sacrifice he had been led by previous "obedience."
"By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed... and. he went out,
not knowing whither he went 2 ." Clement of Rome (who often
borrows from the Epistle to the Hebrews) discoursing on the duty of
" obeying " God, lays special stress on the obedience of " Abraham,
him that was called ' friend,' " who " was found faithful in that he
became obedient to the words of God. He in obedience went forth
from his land... a son was given him in old age, and he in obedience
offered him up as a sacrifice to God... 3 ."
[3208] Another point (not noted in 3185) is that the Greek phrase
" he learned from what he suffered " very common, in slightly varying
forms, from Hesiod to Philo and later is almost always used in
a bad sense 4 . It is mostly applied to the young and foolish, or to
thoughtless offenders, who "learn by suffering" not to repeat a second
time what has once caused them suffering. But the Epistle to the
Hebrews gives the proverb a higher application which must have
seemed a paradox to those versed in Greek literature : " He learned
from the things that He suffered " not, " to avoid suffering for the
future," but "the willing obedience to the Voice from heaven that
led Him on, still on the path of suffering, to the goal of the Cross."
If this is the meaning of the writer of the epistle, it agrees with
the view suggested above, namely, that Jesus from an early date
1 Gen. xxii. 18. 2 Heb. xi. 8. :i Clem. Rom. 10.
4 [3208 a] See Wetstein (on Heb. v. 8) who quotes several instances from Philo
as well as from other authors. Of these, Westcott ad loc. quotes only ii. 340
"that he may learn by suffering," i. 673 "he will proclaim aloud that which
he has... learned by suffering." The former refers to a thoughtless offender who
has burned his neighbour's crops and must be "taught by suffering" not to do it
again. The latter refers to Joseph (a character regarded by Philo with singular
disfavour) and Philo probably means that Joseph " learned by suffering" what he
ought to have known long ago, namely, that God was directing his life. Westcott
makes no remark about the almost invariable application of this saying to the
thoughtless and stupid, or to open and deliberate offenders.
I 9 8
TO ARISE [3210]
regarded Himself as destined to be " smitten " by the Father, and
was ready to "obey," but had not at first learned the exact nature of
the " smiting" and of 11 the obedience"
[3209] The same epistle also teaches us how natural it would be
for Jesus, at an early date, to feel, in proportion to the fervour of the
spirit of sonship within Him, that He must in some sense be
" smitten " or " chastised " by the Father. It quotes from Proverbs
the words "Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth," and infers that
" sons " must expect chastening 1 . To the same effect, and of much
more importance for our purposes, are the words in Deuteronomy to
Israel in the wilderness, "Thou shalt consider in thine heart that, as
a man chasteneth his son, so the Lord thy God chasteneth thee 1 ";
for these follow closely after the words " Man doth not live by bread
alone," which Matthew and Luke record as uttered by our Lord,
when He, too, was "in the wilderness."
[3210] Again, Isaiah says, "The Lord God hath given me the
tongue of them that are taught, that I should know how to sustain
with words him that is weary ; he wakeneth, morning by morning, he
wakeneth mine ear to hear as they that are taught. The Lord God
hath opened mine ear and I was not rebellious...! gave my back to
the smiters...! hid not my face from shame and spitting 3 ." This
"opening" of "the ear" is connected with the invisible "sacrifice"
that does God's "will" in the Psalms, "Sacrifice and offering thou
hast no delight in ; mine ears hast thou opened*"
Thus, many things in the Law and the Prophets favour the view
that Jesus was not at once, or from the beginning, "taught"
everything about the future, and especially about His Passion.
Abraham began by " obeying " the Voice that led him forth to exile
"not knowing whither he went 5 ," and ended by "obeying" the
Voice that dictated the sacrifice of Isaac. So Jesus appears to be
1 Heb. xii. 67.
2 Deut. viii. 5.
3 [3210 a] Is. 1. 4 6. It should be noted (as regards the phrase "wakeneth
mine ear to hear '') that Hebrew very frequently uses " hear" to mean "hearken to,"
or "obey." 'Tira/cotfw, in the LXX, mostly corresponds to Heb. "Afar," and so
does the English " obey" in A.V. Isaiah really means " wakeneth me to hear and
obey."
4 [3210 b\ Ps. xl. 6, comp. Heb. x. 5 7 where " a body didst thou prepare
for me" is substituted for "mine ear hast thou opened," and is applied to the
"body" of Christ offered as our sacrifice.
8 Heb. xi. 8 (of Abraham).
I 99
[3210] "THE SON OF MAN" TO ARISE
regarded in the Epistle to the Hebrews and rightly as beginning
with minor "sufferings," the suffering of rejection, hatred, contempt,
persecution, at the hands of His countrymen. From these things He
received new teaching "as they that are taught"; He was "not
rebellious"'; He did not attempt to turn back from the path opening
out before Him; He went forward to suffer more. "From the
things that he suffered " He learned the obedience that is to say, the
final obedience, that "obedience unto death" which crowned the
sacrifice of His life 1 .
ADDENDUM ON "THE THIRD DAY"
1 [3210^] See Joh. Gr. 1982 "The reduplication of the article changing
a noun-adjective phrase, e.g. (i) 'the third day' to (2) 'the day the third,' adds
weight and emphasis to the adjective. In Christ's predictions of the Resurrection
Matthew always gives the former : Luke, in the parallel to one of these, gives the
latter. The latter is also used in the formal and traditional enumeration of the
appearances of Christ after death in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (xv. 4)."
To this it should have been added that the reduplicated article is in Hos.
vi. 2 (where the punctuation is doubtful in LXX owing to its insertion of Kal)
vyidcrei 7)fj.ds /J.era duo y/jitpas ev rrj -rj^pa rrj rplr-rj Kal (A om. Kai) dvaa'Tiiff6/J.e6a
Possibly the LXX means to emphasize "on the third day" by placing it at the end
of a clause, "after two days, on the third day" The only instances in N.T.
where "on the third day' 1 '' comes after the verb are t Cor. xv. 4 "raised on the
third day (TTJ ijfj.. rrj Tpirri) in accordance with the scriptures," Lk. xxiv. 46 "thus
it is written that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third
day (TV rpiry T}fJ,.)" in both of which the phrase is emphasized by its position
and is almost certainly included in that which is "in accordance with the
scriptures" or "written " and Acts x. 40 foil. (Peter's speech) " Him God raised
up the third day (but N and C insert Iv, and D and d have after the third day) and
gave him to be made manifest, not to all the people, but...." This last passage,
where the active is used as in Hosea (Heb.), seems to direct attention to the
divinely ordained limitations of the manifestation : " Soon, but not at once ; to
many, but not to all." The scriptures are not indeed mentioned, but W.H.
recognise in Acts x. 34 9 no less than 7 scriptural allusions, and the last sentence
of the short speech says (x. 43) " to him all the prophets bear witness."
200
CHAPTER VII
''THE SON OF MAN" WILL BE ASHAMED
i. " To be ashamed of" expressed by "to hide oneself from"
[3211] It will be observed that Matthew differs from Mark and
Luke in omitting all mention of " being ashamed," nor does he at
first sight seem even to give any equivalent of their tradition :
Mk viii. 38
" For whosoever
shall be ashamed of
me and of my words
in this adulterous and
sinful generation, the
son of man also shall
be ashamed of him
when he shall come
in the glory of his
Father with the holy
Mt. xvi. 27
" For the son of
man is destined to
come in the glory of
his Father with his
angels, and then shall
he give to each ac-
cording to his deeds."
Lk. ix. 26
" For whosoever
shall be ashamed of
me and of my words,
of him shall the son
of man be ashamed
when he shall come
in his glory and [the
glory] of the Father
and [the glory] of
the holy angels."
angels."
A Hebraistic origin of the Mark-Luke tradition is suggested by
the following ancient comment on Mark 1 : "He therefore that...
denieth my lordship and hideth himself at the word of the Gospel
shall pay a worthy penalty of his impiety." In Greek, "hide
oneself," " cover oneself up," is applied, mostly, to a guilty person
"hiding his face" because he is ashamed of himself*. But the
commentator applies it in the Hebraistic sense to persons ashamed
of a friend, hiding themselves, or hiding their faces, from him,
1 Cramer, ad loc. eiri T< evayyeXiKif fyKa\inrr6fUfot \&y<?.
a See eyKa\inrro/jLcu in L. & S. and Steph. Thes.
201
[3212] "THE SON OF MAN"
because he is in danger or disgrace, which they do not wish to
share \
[3212] One of the most prominent and also most obscure
scriptural passages mentioning the " hiding of the face " relates to
the Suffering Servant : " He was despised and rejected of men ;
a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom
men hide their face he was despised and we esteemed him not 2 ."
The Revised Version gives in its margin " He hid as it were his face
from us" and Aquila has " His face (was) as though it were hidden."
Jerome follows Aquila, but with a Christian application, " His face
was hidden and despised, in order that, in a human body, the divine
power might be concealed, concerning which it was said above
(Is. xlv. 15) 'Thou art a God that is hidden and we knew [thee]
not 3 .'" The Targum has "And as though the presence of the
Shechinah had been withdrawn from us, they will be (so Driver and
Neubauer, but Walton ' we were ') despised and not esteemed."
This last rendering introduces a meaning of " hiding the face"
very common in the Bible when God is said to hide His face from
men because they have departed from Him. Isaiah says that
sabbaths and prayers have been so profaned by Israel that God
abhors them: "When ye spread forth your hands I will hide mine
eyes from you 4 ." On the other hand, Ezekiel represents God as
saying concerning the priests of Israel "they have hid their eyes
from my sabbaths 5 ." An antithesis seems to be implied: "If men
1 [3211 a] Comp. Is. Iviii. 7 " that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh,"
Sir. xxii. 25 "I will not be ashamed to protect a friend and from his face I will
assuredly not hide myself (ov pi) Kpvfiu)." See also Deut. xxii. i 4 on "hiding
oneself" from a troublesome duty to a neighbour.
2 Is. iiii. 3. R. Sa'adyah Gaon has "like one before whom faces are hidden";
Yepheth ben 'Ali gives two explanations (i) "like one so afflicted... that men hide
their faces from him," (2) "like one from whom God has withdrawn His mercy";
Rashi "as a result of their shame and depression they were as men hiding their
faces from us like a person stricken [with leprosy] who is afraid to look up, they
had their faces bound up that we might not see them"; Ibn Ezra "the phrase
meaning that they will not look at him for the purpose of saving him" (and
similarly Kimchi).
3 [3212 a] In Is. xlv. 15, R.V. has "Thou art a God that hidest thyself."
Jerome, as quoted above, combines (what he gives ad loc. separately) the LXX
paraphrase "we knew [thee] not" with the Hebrew "hidest thyself," Aq.
diroKpvTrT6iJ.ei>os, Sym. and Theod. icpvfaios, Jerome "absconditus."
4 Is. i. 1315.
* Ezek. xxii. 26.
202
WILL BE ASHAMED [3213]
hide their eyes from their duty to God, God will hide Himself from
them." This is the retribution.
2. Gotfs retributory "self-hiding" or ''denying 1 ''
[3213] So far as concerned the relation of disciples to the Lord,
this phrase of Mark, " be ashamed? could cause no difficulty. But,
when the relation was that of the Lord to disciples, the phrase
might seem unfit. How could the Lord "be ashamed '"? It is
perhaps for this reason that Matthew omits or alters it here.
Elsewhere he uses " deny," i.e. " disown," in a similar sense *.
1 [3213 a] Compare Mt. x. 32 3 " Whosoever shall confess me before men (SS
om.), I also will confess him before my Father in heaven ; but whosoever shall
deny me before men (SS the sons of man) I also will deny him before my Father in
heaven," with the parall. Lk. xii. 8 9 " Whosoever shall confess me before men
(SS the sons of man) the son of man also will confess him before the angels of
God ; but he that denieth me before men (Syr. Cur. the sons of man) shall be
utterly denied (a.wapvijdri<TfT<u) before the angels of God." SS om. Lk. xii. 9.
On the passive in Luke ("be denied ") contrasted with the active in Matthew
(" I will deny") comp. i S. ii. 30 "Them that honour me I will honour, and they
that despise me shall be lightly esteemed" Rashi explains this as meaning "shall be
lightly esteemed by their own action (per se ifsos) after I have separated myself
from them." That is to say, God denies, so to speak, responsibility for the retri-
bution that falls on those who dishonour Him. It is their own doing.
The Targum on i S. retains the ithp. or passive "shall be lightly esteemed."
But in a comment of Resh-Lakish on Prov. iii. 34 " He scorneth the scorners, but
he giveth grace unto the lowly," the impersonal active is used with " they," which
here seems to mean divine agency (Joma 38 9) " Cometh a man for defilement?
THEY open [the door] for him. Cometh he for purification? THEY help
him." This interpretation of " they " in the tradition of Resh-Lakish is confirmed
by one (ib. 39) from "the school of R. Ishmael," which quaintly likens God to
a man who, when selling naphtha (i.e. when dispensing retributive punishment)
says to his customer " Help yourself," but, when selling perfume (i.e. when blessing)
says " Let me help you." Also, on Lev. xi. 44 " Make yourselves holy. ..and be ye
holy," Jonia says "The Rahbis taught, '[If] a man maketh himself holy a little,
THEY make him holy much; [if] below, THEY make him holy above; [if] in
this world, THEY make him holy for the world to come.' "
[3213 b\ These considerations must prevent us from hastily concluding that Lk.
xii. 8 9, so far as it differs from the parall. Mt., is influenced solely by doctrinal
bias. No doubt Luke may have felt a personal reluctance to represent " the
son of man" as " denying [that He knows] " those whom, in some sense, He may
be said to "know." Comp. Mt. vii. 23 "I never knew you" with Lk. xiii. 25
"I know you not whence ye are" which, in Greek, has the same meaning as
Lk. xiii. 27 " I know not whence ye are." But on the other hand Lk. xii. 9, the
whole of which is omitted by SS, contains a startling divergence between Matthew
("My Father in heaven") and Luke ("the angels of God") which is best
203
[3213] "THE SON OF MAN"
But "ashamed" bears the stamp of originality, at all events in
this passage 1 .
Matthew's pious paraphrase may be illustrated from the Psalm
in which God is said to " deal frowardly with the froward 2 ." This
seems to be too bold for the Targumist, who paraphrases it by
"As for.. .the Egyptians who devised evil devices against thy
people, thou didst cause them to be confounded in their own devices."
But such boldness characterizes the Bible. Similarly Ezekiel says
that when men, coming to enquire of Him, have "taken their
idols into their heart and put the stumbling-block of their iniquity
before their face," the Lord will answer them "according to the
multitude of their idols 3 " Both here, and in Isaiah's "Thou
art a God that hidest thyself," the Targum (rightly or wrongly)
departs from the Hebrew text adopted by our translators, and avoids
the difficulty 4 .
explained by a Semitic original, not perverted by either evangelist owing to
doctrinal "tendency," but variously interpreted owing to obscurity (3342,
3492 a foil.).
[3213 c] An attempt to meet the difficulty implied in God's " denying " appears
to be made in 2 Tim. ii. 12 13 " If we [shall] deny [him], he too will deny us.
[In other words] if we are faithless, he remaineth faithful [to his own nature, i.e. to
the nature of light, which cannot take darkness into itself or make terms with it]
for he is not able to deny himself. "
1 [3213 a?] Comp. i Pet. iv. 16 "But if [any one of you suffer] as a Christian,
let him not be ashamed," which encourages the martyr to brave the shame of
being called by the contemptuous name of " Christian," as well as the pain
of suffering. The wording is different in i Jn ii. 28 "Abide in him, in order
that, if he be manifested, we may have confidence and may not be driven in shame
away from him [lit. shamed from him (a.lff-xyvOQiiJ.fv air auroO)] in [the day of] his
presence " ; but the thought comes round to the same result, " Be faithful to Him,
loyal to Him, unashamed of Him... that He may be unashamed of us and may
recognise us, and not drive us away in shame from His presence." Synoptically,
this might have been expressed, " Be not ashamed of Him on earth... that He may
not be ashamed of you in the judgment pronounced from heaven."
2 Ps. xviii. 26.
3 [3213 e] Ezek. xiv. 3 4. But see R.V. marg., and also the Targum,
" respondebo ei...quamvis implicitus sit in multitudine cultus idolorum suorum."
The text seems to illustrate the first reply of Micaiah to Ahab (i K. xxii. 15)
"Go up and prosper and the Lord will deliver it into the hand of the king."
4 [3213/] Is. xlv. 15 (Targ.) "In veritate tu, Deus, habitare fecisti majestatem
tuam in excelsa fortitudine." Ibn Ezra rejects the interpretation "invisible God,"
and implies, as also does Rashi, that the words are uttered by the heathen about
the God of Israel. They are followed by words of the prophet, " They shall be
ashamed, they shall be confounded, all of them : they shall go into confusion
204
WILL BE ASHAMED [3214]
[3214] The facts would be satisfied by the supposition that in
the utterance under consideration Jesus had in view doctrines based
on Isaiah's prophecy about the Servant of the Lord. One was that
men would "hide their faces" from Him, that is, "be ashamed
of :> Him. There was, perhaps, another interpretation (or a moral
deduced from the text), that the Servant also would " hide his face "
from men. And Jesus may have taught that this applied to "the
son of man."
In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Luke represents the
Priest and the Levite as virtually " hiding their faces " from a
wounded man. They see him, but they "pass by on the other
side " as if they had not seen him \ In the Parable of the Sheep
and the Goats, Matthew shews, in effect, how the latter have "hidden
their faces " from " the son of man " on the throne by hiding their
faces from the afflicted who were His representatives. The parable
describes their punishment. They are "cast out" into "darkness."
But what does "darkness" mean? It means the absence of the
"light" of God's face. And to be "cast out" means, in effect, to
cease to see God's countenance, because we " hide " it from ourselves,
or God " hides " it from us, owing to our persistence in sin. And
"the face" of God is His humane and loving nature, manifested in
all good men. In the present passage, by "the son of man," Jesus
means more definitely Himself. But He appears to mean Himself as
representing humanity '-.
together that are makers of idols. But Israel shall be saved... ye shall not be
ashamed nor confounded "
1 [3214 a] Lk. x. 31 2. The LXX represents "hide oneself from" by
"overlook" or "pass over (v-repopdi') " in Lev. xx. 4, Deut. xxii. i, 3, 4, Ps. x. i,
Iv. i, Is. Iviii. 7.
2 [3214 b} This will appear still more clearly when it is perceived, ist, that
the words in question (Mk viii. 38) " whosoever shall be ashamed of me," go
back to ib. 35 "whosoever desires to save his life"; 2nd, that both of these are
antithetical to ib. 34 "If anyone desires to come after me, let him deny himself
and take up his cross and follow me " ; 3rd, that " let him deny himself and take
up his cross" meant, in effect, " deny himself [as his own master] and take up my
yoke [acknowledging me as his Master]," i.e. "deny himself and confess me"
where " me " would imply "the Yoke of the Law of Humanity," " the Yoke of
the Love of God and Man."
[3214 c\ These considerations may explain why Mark, while mentioning
"being ashamed of the son of man," n(nuhere mentions "confessing the son of
man.'''' It is probably implied in the above-quoted Mk viii. 34, which means, in
effect, " If any man will be a follower of the son of man, let him first deny self-
205
[3215] "THE SON OF MAN"
It may be added that Matthew's word for " deeds " (" to each
according to his deeds"} mostly means "evil, or secret, practice 1 ."
Mark's tradition of " being ashamed" would suggest Daniel's account
of the final judgment and of the awakening of " some to everlasting
life and some to shame and everlasting contempt*" Perhaps Matthew
felt that the circumstances made the ordinary word "works" less
suitable here than the rare word that generally implied the secrecy
of plotting, which was to be detected and requited in the Great
Day.
3. " Adulterous generation" omitted by Luke, explained by John
[3215] Where Mark (3211) says "Whosoever shall be ashamed
of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation"
Luke omits the italicised words. Matthew alters the whole, so that
his omission of these particular words requires no comment. But
why does Luke omit them ? Probably for the same reason that makes
him omit the epithet " adulterous " again, where Matthew inserts it,
thus :
Mk viii. 12 Mt. xvi. 4 (rep. xii. 39) Lk. xi. 29
"Why doth this "An evil and "This generation
generation seek a adulterous genera- is an evil generation ;
sign ?" tion seeketh a sign." it seeketh a sign."
"Adulterous" meant that the generation was unfaithful to
Jehovah. But this meaning, though common in the prophets,
would not be intelligible to Greeks except in special contexts.
The authority followed by Mark (in viii. 38) may have considered
that there was such a special context. If so, where is it ?
service. Then let him take up the sign of the service of the son of man and let
him confess the son of man as his Lord." "Let him deny" one principle
requires in thought if not in word, to complete the antithesis " let him confess "
the opposing principle.
It is probable that "the cross" originally meant, not merely death or
martyrdom, but also service, or allegiance, to the Kingdom of God. See From
Letter 928 (i) (x) and Notes 28429 on the reasons for the disuse of such
traditions as Matthew's "take my yoke upon you," and on Lam. iii. 27 8
(Targum) where a mention of "the yoke of the precepts" is followed by " the
chastisements that arise for the sake of the unity of the Name of God."
1 [3214 d~\ llpais occurs only six times in N.T. and always in bad sense
except Rom. xii. 4 and here.
2 Dan. xii. 2.
206
WILL BE ASHAMED [3216]
[3216] Origen dimly suggests an answer and connects it with
" son of man V He says that, because those in the captivity were
sinners, therefore, to reproach them, " Daniel alone was called ' son
of man ' as having preserved the claim to be the [true] man," i.e. the
man after God's image. He says the same of Ezekiel. Similarly
Jeremiah seems to use " a man " to mean " a real and not spurious
man " in the midst of an adulterous nation : " Run ye to and fro
through the streets of Jerusalem... and seek. ..if ye can find a man 2 ."
What Mark probably means or rather, what the original of his
condensed tradition meant, if interpreted in accordance with Scriptural
doctrine is, that the nation had fallen away from itself, from the
ideal Nation, the true Israel, the true manhood, the humanity set
before them by God in the character of Abraham, and in the
precepts of the Law concerning the love of God and man. By that
standard which they had abandoned and disowned, they would be
judged in the final judgment. The true Israel would disown them.
" The son of man " would be ashamed of them in heaven as they
had been ashamed of Him on earth 3 .
1 Origen on Ps. iv. i (Lomm. xi. 429).
[3216 a] Jer. v. i, comp. ib. 7 "Thy children have forsaken me, and sworn
by them that are no gods; when I had fed them to the full they committed
adultery...." The context indicates literal as well as spiritual adultery. But the
latter is distinctly contemplated in "false gods" and "forsaken."
[3216 b~\ This metaphor in the prophets is sometimes difficult to follow, because
the adultery is sometimes attributed to the nation, sometimes to the individual
members of the nation, and the metaphor is sometimes mixed. When Isaiah
says (Ivii. 3) "Ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the whore,"
he implies that the " seed," as well as the "adulterer," is adulterous in its conduct
(comp. Is. i. 2, 4, 21 "I have nourished... children, and they have rebelled...
a seed of evil-doers, children that deal corruptly... how is the faithful city become
an harlot !... righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers").
[3216 c\ The true husband is Jehovah, and the seducers are various forms of
unrighteousness. Jehovah, the Father of the true Israel, is also the God of
Abraham, the first part of whose name means " father." The appeal (Is. li. 2)
41 Look unto Abraham your father " implies, besides other things, an appeal to the
rebellious children to return to the humanity of their father and their father's God,
in whose image they were made, and to whom they might return even though they
had degenerated into "a seed of evil-doers."
3 [3216 fiT] John does not use the word "adulterous," but he takes pains to
shew Greek readers the meaning of the term in a dialogue bearing on freedom.
In reply to Christ's promise to make them "free," the Jews say (Jn viii. 32 44)
' ' We be Abraham's seed and have never yet been hi bondage to any man : how
sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?" Hereon Jesus shews them that a man
may be "the bondservant of sin." Afterwards He contrasts their conduct in
207
[3217] "THE SON OF MAN"
4. "Me. ..the son of man"
[3217] In the passage under consideration (Mk viii. 38, Lk. ix. 26)
" me " is used when the reference is to things done on earth, but
" the son of man" when it refers to the retribution in heaven or from
heaven. Is this distinction observed as a rule?
It is observed in Luke xii. 8 " Whosoever shall confess me before
men, the son of man also will confess him before the angels of God 1 ."
It is also observed in Matthew xix. 28 " Ye that have followed me-
in the regeneration, when the son of man shall sit on the throne of
his glory, ye too shall sit...," but it is not in the quasi-parallel Luke,
" But ye are they that have remained by me in my temptations ; and
/ covenant unto you, as my Father covenanted unto me, a kingdom,
that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom... 2 ."
Perhaps a reason for this occasional distinction (between " me "
on earth and "the son of man" in heaven) may be found in the
desire to make the heavenly action appear less personal and
individual than the earthly action. In the fourth gospel Jesus says,
not " I have received authority to judge," but that the Son has
received authority to judge "because he is son of man 3 ." Elsewhere
Jesus says that the judge is not " I," but "the word " spoken by the
Son : "If any one hear my words and keep them not, I judge him
seeking to kill Him with that of Abraham, as shewing that they are not truly
His children. The Jews reply "We were not born of fornication ; we have
one Father, [even] God. : ' Jesus replies, "If God were your P'ather, ye would
love me " and finally says " Ye are of [your] father the devil."
[3216 e\ "Abraham" comes in again when Jesus says that the first of the
Fathers of Israel exulted in the vision of His (Jn viii. 56) " day." The "day " as
is shewn by the whole dialogue means the triumph of humanity over inhumanity.
That means a reign of filial and brotherly love. Such a triumph also implies the
supersession of constrained obedience to Law by willing obedience to a Father's
Will. That is "freedom."
[3216 /] In Johannine Grammar (2412 a) it was maintained that " man " is
emphatic in the sentence "Ye seek to kill me, a man, [one] that told you the
truth." The foregoing considerations rather favour that view. They indicate that
Jesus considered Himself as " man," or "son of man," standing up for humanity
as against inhumanity or non-humanity; they shew the great importance Jesus
attached to the personality of Abraham, as being the harbinger or promise of that
Spirit of Humanity which He felt to be identified with Himself.
1 But the parall. Mt. x. 32 has "me. ..I."
2 Lk. xxii. 28 30. In Lk., the substitution of "of the son of man" twice for
"my" would be tediously lengthy.
3 Jn v. 27.
208
WILL BE ASHAMED [3218]
not, for I came not to judge the world but to save the world. He
that rejecteth ;<?... hath him that judgeth him. The word that I
spake that shall judge him in the last day 1 ." This is somewhat
similar to the Synoptic antithesis, which is, in effect, " He that
rejecteth, or denieth, me, upon earth, the son of man will judge, and
reject, him, in heaven."
[3218] The following parallel may be conveniently taken here,
though it belongs to the Double Tradition of Matthew and Luke.
Mt. v. ii Lk. vi. 22
"...when [men]. ..shall say all "...when men shall. ..cast out
evil against you, speaking falsely, your name as evil on account of
on account of me" the son of man."
If "the son of man" were substituted in Matthew for "me" it
would be unique in the Sermon on the Mount. Of Luke's numerous
parallels to passages in the Sermon on the Mount, this is the only
one where " the son of man " occurs. The variation may possibly be
connected with the variation as to " men " not expressed in
Matthew but expressed in Luke which would be " sons of man " in
Aramaic and is "sons of man" in the Syriac of Luke (3177/folL);
but the explanation is doubtful for the reasons given below 2 .
1 Jn xii. 478.
2 [3218 fl] SS has, in Matthew, "for the sake of my name, even mine," D and
the best Latin MSS. have "for the sake of righteousness." It is possible that the
original had "for the sake of the NAME" (see Clue 269, Corrections 446, and
Dalman's Words pp. 123 and 182) meaning the name of Jehovah. This would
agree with the next verse : " for so [i.e. for the sake of the Name of Jehovah] they
persecuted the prophets that were before you."
[3218 b] " For the sake of" might be expressed by the Hebrew " in, or to, the
name of" as in the first Epistle of Peter (i Pet. iv. 14) "If ye are reproached
in the name of Christ." A Semitic original containing such an idiom as " in the
name of the NAME, or, of my name," might naturally be paraphrased by
Christian evangelists as referring to Christ's self-appellation "son of man."
Even if it referred to "the name of God," evangelists might say that it meant
" God as revealed through Christ, who called Himself the son of man."
[3218 c\ In any case, " the son of man " is here clearly identified with a
principle, so that the meaning would be fairly expressed by the reading " for the
sake of righteousness."
A. S,
209 14
CHAPTER VIII
"THE SON OF MAN" WITH ANGELS
i. The problem
[3219] "Angel," in Greek, apart from Hebrew or Jewish
influence, means nothing but " messenger." In Hebrew, though it
means nothing but "messenger," the context often suggests, or
implies, a messenger from God, e.g. the "messengers" to Lot ] .
These our Revised Version calls "angels." But it is not certain.
When " a messenger of the Lord " delivers a long discourse to the
children of Israel at Bochim the Revised Version gives " angel " in
text and "messenger" in margin 2 , reversing this in the saying that
God "maketh winds his messengers 3 " There are many instances
where either meaning is possible.
Jewish literature regards these messengers of God in various
aspects, sometimes as mere temporary creations of God, like winds,
fire, tempest, fulfilling His will for special purposes ; sometimes as a
multitude of God's non-human servants without special functions or
individual characteristics; sometimes singly, as representing attributes
or actions of God, having a personality and name, as Michael,
Gabriel, Raphael. Where the context mentions God as "sending,"
it is readily understood that the "messenger" may be an "angel 4 ."
1 Gen. xix. i, 15. They smite the men of Sodom with blindness, but this is
not beyond the power of terrestrial " men of God."
3 Ps. civ. 4 marg. "his angels winds." See Gesen. 521 b,
4 [3219 a] "Messenger," however, means a prophet in Is. xlii. 19 "my
messenger that I send," comp. ib. xliv. 26, Hag. i. 13, 2 Chr. xxxvi. 15 16.
Mai. ii. 7 says "the priest's lips should keep knowledge... he is the messenger of
the Lord." In Eccles. v. 6 and Job xxxiii. 23 "angel," R.V. marg. has (Eccl.)
"messenger [of God]" or (Job) "messenger."
[3219 b~\ Gen. xvi. 7 " the angel of the Lord," and Gen. xxi. 17 "the angel of
210
"THE SON OF MAN" WITH ANGELS [3220]
"Holy angels" are not once mentioned as such in the Old
Testament. Nor are " evil l angels," except once in our Authorised
Version. This is a fact of importance. It shews that, if Jesus
adhered to the language of scripture, He would not speak of "the
holy angels."
The question is, in what precise sense our Lord used the term
" angels," and with what qualification, if any.
2. " Angels "
[3220] The following remarks will be almost entirely limited to
the use of "angel" in the plural.
God," mention severally for the first time (Gesen. 521 i>) "the theophanic angel,"
called in Is. Ixiii. 9 " the angel of his presence," and possibly called in Mai. iii. i
" the angel of the covenant."
[3219 f] But, in Malachi, R.V. has "the messenger of the covenant," marg.
" angel." This is of special importance as the word occurs twice in the same
verse, and, when it first occurs, is quoted by our Lord as referring to John the
Baptist, " Behold, I send my messenger (Targ. the messenger) and he shall prepare
the way before me... and the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in,
behold, he cometh...."
[3219 d~\ Origen (Comm. Joann. ii. 25, Lomm. i. 146 foil.) discusses the
meaning of " messenger" thus applied to John, and comes to the conclusion that
the word means angel. In the same context, he quotes with approval an
apocryphal work entitled Joseph's Prayer, which represents Jacob, after death,
as saying, "I, Jacob,. ..am an angel of God. ..my name is Israel, called Israel
by God, a man seeing God (3140 a b) because I am the firstborn of every living
thing that God causeth to live." The same work claims for Israel a superiority
over other angels : "I am Israel and archangel of the power (or host) of the
Lord and a chief captain among the sons of God."
[3219 e~\ The context represents a rivalry between Uriel and Jacob in which
the latter claims superiority. Such a rivalry, and such a superiority of the human
being over the non-human angel, might be illustrated abundantly from Jewish
literature. See From Letter 658 folL, Notes 2998 (xi) foil.
1 [3219/] Ps. Ixxviii. 49 A.V. "He cast upon them the fierceness of his
anger. ..by sending evil angels [among them]," R.V. "angels of evil, 1 ' Gesen.
521 b "messengers of evil" (and sim. Tehillim ad loc., Wiinsche " Ungliicks").
But Gesen. 948 gives no instance of the Heb. masc. pi. adj. meaning anything
exc. "evil men." This would suggest "messengers of, i.e. sent to, evil men."
Gesen. 9480 paraphrases it as "fierce messengers." Symmachus has "angels
working harm (ica.KovrTui>)," probably to indicate that they are not themselves
'' evil " but that they work physical evil for the sake of chastisement.
[3219 j>-] The Targum, in accordance with the later Jewish view of some
"angels," as being evil and jealous of mankind, makes the adjective "evil"
agree with "angels." So, probably, does the LXX (a
211 14 2
[3221] "THE SON OF MAN"
The first mention of " angels " assigned by Mark to our Lord
like the first Johannine mention occurs with "the son of man":
Mk viii. 38 Mt. xvi. 27 Lk. ix. 26
"the son of man "...the son of man "...the son of man
...when he shall come is destined to come ...when he shall come
in the glory of his in the glory of his in the glory (lit) of
Father with (lit.) the Father with his him[self], and of the
angels the holy angels...." Father, and of the
[ones]." holy angels."
In Matthew, Jesus has previously mentioned "angels," thus 1 , "The
reapers are angels... the son of man shall send his angels and they
shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause offence and them
that do lawlessness, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire."
This parable is peculiar to Matthew, and it represents the " angels "
as those of punishment alone. On the other hand, the parable of
Lazarus and Dives, peculiar to Luke, says "The beggar died and...
was carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom." The rich
man has no "angels," he simply "died and was buried," and then we
are told that he was "in Hades 2 ."
[3221] From Matthew's peculiar and previous mention of "angels"
as being those of "the son of man" ("his") and yet angels of punish-
ment 3 , we infer that in this, his second mention of "angels" in
Christ's doctrine, he regards "his angels" as being those of "the son
of man " and as executing judgment on sinners. And this suggests
a reason why he does not, as Luke does, follow Mark in inserting
the epithet "holy." This epithet for "angels" is unusual in the
1 Mt. xiii. 39 42. There is also a quotation in Mt. iv. 6 (Lk. iv. 10),
(Ps. xci. n " He shall give his angels charge...") but not in words of Jesus.
2 [3220 a] Lk. xvi. 11 3, on which comp. Hor. Hebr. (quoting Bemidb. R.
fol. 245. 4) " The Rabbins have an invention that there are three bands of angels
attend the death of wicked men, proclaiming, ' There is no peace, saith the
Lord, unto the wicked.' " Hor. Hebr. also quotes a tradition about the death
of the revered Rabbi [Judah], who is personified as " the Tables," i.e. the Law :
" Holy men and angels took hold of the Tables of the Covenant ; and the hand
of the angels prevailed, so that they took away the Tables." That is, the Angel
of Death and his fellow angels prevailed over the prayers of holy men, so that
the Rabbi died. The word here used for "angels" (Levy i. 1570, Is. xxxiii. 7,
Gesen. 7-2 a) is of disputed origin and meaning.
3 Comp. Mk xiii. 27 " And then he [i.e. the son of man] shall send the
angels," parall. Mt. xxiv. 31 " his angels." Lk. omits the whole.
212
WITH ANGELS [3221]
New Testament ; Mark, however, not only inserts it but appears to
emphasize it by putting it last, with the repeated article 1 .
These facts bring again before us the question as to our Lord's
use of the terra "angels," and, in particular, what is their precise
relation to "the son of man." Are they angels in the strict Hebrew
and Greek sense, that is, " messengers " ? Or are they ministers of
wrath executing the judgment of God or of "the son of man"?
Or are they co-assessors in the act of judging ?
We have seen that the eighth Psalm, as interpreted by Jewish as
well as by Christian comment, appeared to place " man " and " the
son of man" ahove at least ultimately above "angels 2 ." Also
the Epistle to the Corinthians says, not arguing but assuming that
everyone ought to know it, "Know ye not that we shall judge angels 3 ?"
This may not be really incompatible with the view that " the holy
angels," along with " the holy-ones " (that is, along with " the saints ")
of Christ, may be co-assessors in the final judgment. But at all
events the Pauline dictum makes it more necessary than ever that
those " angels" who are to judge should be emphatically called "holy"
to distinguish them from those other "angels" who are to be
judged.
Why, then, we have to repeat, is "holy" omitted by Matthew?
Is it likely that he would have omitted the reverential epithet simply
because the task of the angels included punishment? Is there any
ground for suspecting that the meaning here and perhaps the
original text was, not "holy angels" but "holy [ones]," and that
this, having been variously interpreted as (i) "angels" and (2) "holy
[ones]" has been rendered by Matthew "angels" and conflated by
Mark as " the angels the holy [ones] " * ?
1 [3221 a] Mk viii. 38 ruv dy-ye\uv TUV a.fiu. On the emphasis sezjok. Gr.
1983. This is almost the only occasion where "angels" (pi.) are called "holy"
in N.T. The only other instance is in Rev. xiv. 10 " Before the face of holy
angels," v.r. (Swete) "the holy angels," "the angels" etc. In Mt. xxv. 31,
A.V. reads "all the holy angels," against the best Mss., and Alford explains
the insertion as the "usual epithet." But it is not "usual" in N.T., though it
may be in later writings. Comp. 3562.
2 Heb. ii. 7 " Thou madest him a little (marg. for a little while) lower than
the angels," see 3034 foil.
3 i Cor. vi. 3.
4 On conflation, see 3266 a.
213
[3222]
"THE SON OF MAN"
3. "Holy [ones]" and "angels"
[3222] The first step towards answering the question will be to
compare parallel passages that may throw light on the use of "holy"
and " angels " :
Mt. x. 32 Lk. xii. 8 Rev. iii. 5
"I also will confess "The son of man "I will confess his
(lit.) in him before also will confess (lit.) name before my Fa-
my Father who is in in him before the ther and before his
heaven " angels of God" angels"
This variation might be explained from an original in which "the
Holy One" was used for God, as it is both in the Bible 1 and in the
Talmuds", etc. On this supposition "the Holy One" was taken
by Luke as an error for "the holy ones," the latter being by far more
frequent. Matthew paraphrased it by "the Father in heaven." The
tradition followed in Revelation seems to have combined the two 3 .
Compare :
Prov. ix. 10
A.V.
"The knowledge
of the holy"
R.V.
" The knowledge
of the Holy One?
LXX
" [The] counsel of
holy -ones" i.
saints.
of
Targ. "of saints."
R.V.
"The knowledge
of the Holy One."
Targ. "of saints."
Prov. xxx. 3
A.V.
"The knowledge
of the holy."
LXX
" [The] knowledge
of holy-ones" i.e. of
saints.
1 [3222 a] Gesen. 872 b shews that "[the] Holy [One] of Israel" is thrice
condensed into Heb. " Holy," without the article, but LXX (in two of these three
passages) and Targ. have "the Holy." "Holy [ones]" (Gesen. intensive pi.)
rendered by R.V. "the Holy One" occurs in Hos. xi. 12, Prov. ix. 10, xxx. 3.
In N.T. " the Holy [One] " probably occurs in I Pet. i. 15 " Like the Holy [One]
that called you, be ye also holy " (this is probably the correct rendering). In Job
vi. 10 "the sayings of [the] Holy [One]," LXX has "the holy sayings of my God."
2 [3222^] See Levy iv. 754 5, and Dalman Words p. 202, for "the Holy
[One]" and "the Holiness" meaning "God." But would Jesus (3490) speak thus?
3 [3222 f] An explanation might be based on the Talmudic expression "The
Family Above " or " The Family in Heaven," if there were evidence that it was
used by our Lord. None is at present alleged. But see 3342, 3492 a foil.
214
WITH ANGELS [3223]
Hos. xi. 12
R.V. A.V. LXX
"Is faithful with "Is faithful with "Shall be called
the Holy One." the saints (marg. the [the] holy people of
most holy)." God."
Targ. "are called the Holy People in that they were faithful."
[3223] In Matthew's parable of the Sheep and the Goats the
following words about angels should be compared with the corre-
sponding words from Zechariah, from which Westcott and Hort
assume Matthew to be quoting :
Mt. xxv. 31 Zech. xiv. 5
"But when the son of man "There shall come the Lord
shall come in his glory, and all my God, and all holy ones with
the angels with him, then shall he thee," LXX " all the holy ones
sit on the throne of his glory...." with him."
Here the Targum on Zechariah has "all His holy ones with
Him." Presumably the Hebrew or Aramaic original of Matthew
had "holy ones," not "angels," but it has been paraphrased as
"angels." Such a paraphrase may be illustrated by the Targumistic
versions of "the ten thousands of holiness," or "of holy ones,"
mentioned in Deuteronomy, where " holy" has been transliterated by
LXX as " Kades " :
Deut.xxxiii. 2 (Heb.) LXX Onk.
" From the ten " with ten thou- " ten thousand
thousands of holy sands of Kddes 1 ." holy ones"
ones (Heb. holiness)?
Jer. I Jer. II
"ten thousand times ten thou- "ten thousands of holy angels"
sand holy angels"
A tradition of this kind is quoted by Jude, as from Enoch :
1 [3223 a] Perhaps the Greek translator was aware that "Holiness," Kades,
might be a name of God (see 3222 ), so that his rendering was meant for
" ten thousands of God."
215
[3223] "THE SON OF MAN"
Jude 14 Enoch (^Ethiop.) Enoch (Greek)
" Enoch... prophe- "Lo, He cometh "He cometh with
sied saying, Behold with ten thousands His ten thousands
the Lord came in his of [His] holy ones to and His holy ones to
holy ten thousands to execute judgment...." do judgment.... 1 "
do judgment."
THE MEANING OF " HOLY ONES "
1 [3223 b] Prof. Charles in his note on Enoch (i. 9) compares Daniel (vii. 10)
"ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him" and (iv. 13, viii. 13)
"a holy one "as meaning an "angel," and he gives copious references to shew
that the angels are often called simply " holy ones " in Enoch, though sometimes
" holy angels " and once " holy ones of heaven."
[3223 c] But it cannot be safely inferred that Daniel would use the plural
"holy ones" by itself, to mean "angels." For although Daniel (in viii. 13)
does use "holy one" (sing.) to mean "angel," he has previously used it (iv. 13,
iv. 23) with " a watcher," so that the meaning is, to some extent, previously
defined. When he uses the word in the plural, it means "saints"; and he uses
it thus, as will be seen subsequently, in connection with the Day of Judgment.
[3223 d] In Job v. i "which of the holy [ones]," the Greek MSS. vary between
"angels holy" and " holy angels." The variation in order maybe explained
as in many other passages by supposing that .an explanatory word (in this case
" angels ") was placed in the margin. Afterwards it was transferred to the text,
but some scribes placed it before, others after, " holy [ones]."
[3223 e\ Precisely the same explanation may apply to the variation of order
above noted in Mk viii. 38, Lk. ix. 26, and may indicate that, there also, "angels "
was not a part of the original text.
[3223/] Job v. i and xv. 15 are regarded by Gesen. 872 3, and perhaps rightly,
as belonging to the instances (5 + 2 in Dan. viii. 13 (sing.)) of "holy ones" meaning
"angels" but the Targum has "sancti" and "sancti superiores" in Job, and the
Talmudic comment on Job xv. 15 has "sancti" in Chag. 5 a. Moreover it is to be
remembered that both utterances proceed from the profane Eliphaz. Neither
Eliphaz, in Job, nor Nebuchadnezzar, in Daniel, could be regarded as correctly
expressing Hebrew religious thought.
[3223 g\ Two of the remaining three instances in Gesen. are in Ps. Ixxxix. 57
"And the heavens shall praise... thy faithfulness also in the assembly of the holy
ones. For who in the skies can be compared unto the Lord ? Who among the
sons of the mighty is like unto the Lord, a God very terrible in the council of the
holy ones, and to be feared above all them that are round about him " ? Here the
Targum retains "holy ones" in both cases, but uses "choirs of angels " to represent
"sons of the mighty," and "all the angels that stand round Him" to represent
" them that are round about him."
Rashi renders "in the assembly of the holy ones" "in congregatione
Sanctorum." But afterwards taking ' ' very " (" very terrible ") in its Hebrew order,
as meaning "great," and as being connected with "council" he interprets "in
secreto Sanctorum multo" as "in secreto multo angelorum"
I am informed by the Rev. Isaac S. Meisels (to whom I am indebted for much
information on points of this kind) that some of the "more modern commentators "
2l6
WITH ANGELS [3223]
These facts indicate the facility with which "holy [ones]" might be
confused with "angels"; and the substitution of the latter for the
former would be favoured by the natural tendency to place sinless
angels above sinful men, even when men have become children of
God. Zechariah, Jude, and Enoch, all indicate that Matthew
(xxv. 31) has substituted "angels" for an original "holy [ones]."
take " holy ones " as " holy men " in Ps. Ixxxix. 5. On Gesen.'s remaining instance,
Zech. xiv. 5, all Jewish commentators take "holy ones" to mean "angels"
except Maimonides, who (Afore Nebuchim i. 12) takes it as meaning " prophets" ;
Rashi has " ' Omnes sancti,' i.e. angeli," but Breithaupt adds " Aliam explica-
tionem vid. in not. ad librum Prec. Jud. part. i. pag. 94. b. princ." This I have
been unable to verify.
[3223 K\ It is sometimes said that " angels are frequently described as ' holy '
in O.T. and later Jewish literature." If that is intended to mean that "angels"
are frequently denoted by the term "holy ones" in New Hebrew, the statement
requires authority. Levy iv. 755 mentions no such instance in New Hebrew, and
the only Aramaic instances given by him are from Daniel, where it must be
remembered that the term is in the first instance introduced by Nebuchadnezzar.
Levy Ch. ii. 347 8 mentions no such instance.
[3223 i] On Ps. xvi. 3 " As for the holy ones that are in the earth, they are the
excellent...," the Midrash takes "in the earth " as meaning "buried," " departed,"
and free from temptation to sin. It proceeds to quote the above-mentioned Job
xv. 15 " He trusts not his holy ones," as referring to the Patriarchs, in whom God
did not trust till they were dead. It is possible that, even if the writer of Job
regarded the heterodox Eliphaz as meaning "angels," pious Jews in the first
century might assume his meaning to be "saints."
[3223y] In Test. XII Patr., "holy-ones" almost always refers to men, as in
Simeon vi. i "holy-ones shall be multiplied from me." In Levi xviii. 10 14
" He shall open the gates of Paradise... and shall give to the holy-ones to eat from
the tree of life... ; then shall Abraham and Isaac and Jacob exult and I will be
glad ; and all the holy-ones shall clothe themselves with joy (v.r. righteousness),"
there is a suggestion of beatified saints along with departed saints. This resembles
Dan v. u "[The] holy-ones shall rest in Eden and in the New Jerusalem will
[the] righteous-ones rejoice " where Prof. Charles raises the question whether the
New Jerusalem here perhaps for the first time mentioned in Jewish literature is
to be " identified with the Eden that precedes or the Jerusalem that is mentioned
in the next verse." In Dan v. n "and He shall receive the captivity from Beliar
[the souls of the holy-ones\," brackets are inserted by Prof. Charles, but the clause
is strongly supported (3062 6). In Dan v. 10 there is a reading " He shall call
souls of holy-ones to Himself." Issach. v. 4 has "all the holy-ones from Abel till
now (v.r. holy-ones, His holy -ones, and the righteous-ones)"
The only probable instance of cryioi in Test. XII Patr., as "angels," is in Levi
iii. 3 4, where Prof. Charles says, " The holy ones in the second heaven here are
most probably to be regarded as ' angels. ' The higher classes of angels are in the
third heaven." But the variations in the different versions make the meaning
doubtful.
217
[3224] "THE SON OF MAN"
4. " Holy ones," or " saints" in Daniel
[3224] In Daniel, "holy ones" (apart from a single instance
(iv. 17) where it is mentioned with "watchers") always means
" saints," and this, in connection with the war against " the beast "
and the final judgment. The mention of "the holy ones" is
prefaced by a mention of a " kingdom," thus : " I beheld till thrones
were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit... thousand
thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand
stood before him: the judgment was set... I beheld even till the beast
was slain.... And as for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was
taken away There came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a
son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they
brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion,
and glory, and kingdom,... 1 ."
Then it is explained that this " kingdom " is really given to " the
holy ones of the Most High" who are apparently identified with the
figure "like unto a son of man," somewhat perhaps as the pious
children of Abraham may be described as being "in Abraham's
bosom " after death, or as Israel may be regarded sometimes as a
person, sometimes as a nation: "These great beasts... are four kings....
But the holy ones of the Most High shall receive the kingdom 2 ."
This, however, is not to be until after a struggle not until "the
ancient of days came and judgment was given to (marg. for) the holy
ones of the Most High and the time came that the holy ones possessed
the kingdom 3 ."
[3225] In this vision, much is left vague and impersonal. It is
not clear who "bring" the figure that is " like a son of man" to the
Ancient of Days ("they brought him near") if indeed any definite
" bringers " are intended (3041 a and 3282). It is not clear who
" judge " : " thrones were placed" " the judgment was set" "judgment
was given to (ma.rg.f0r) the holy ones," "the judgment shall sit and they
1 Dan. vii. 9 14. 2 Dan. vii. 17 18.
3 [3224 a] Dan. vii. 22. The "kingdom" of "the people of the holy ones"
is identified with God's kingdom thus (ib. 27) " The kingdom, and the dominion,
and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to
the people of the holy ones of the Most High : his kingdom is an everlasting
kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey htm." But "his" and " him"
may mean "its" and "it" referring to "people." And "the Most High,"
being literally "the Most High Ones" requires consideration, see 3492 c.
WITH ANGELS
[3226]
shall take away his dominion." But the impression left on the reader
is that the only judge is He that "sits" later on made less personal by
the expression "the judgment shall sit" namely, the Ancient of
Days, but that the judgment is to be manifested and executed through
"the people of the holy ones," who are represented by the figure
"like unto a son of man."
" Angels " such as Gabriel and Michael who play a prominent
part elsewhere in the book of Daniel play no part at all in this
manifestation or execution of judgment. There may be a reference
to unfallen angels in the words "thousand thousands ministered unto
him." But it may refer to the "holy ones" of Israel, to those who
have observed the precept " Be ye holy for I am holy 1 ."
5. "Like angels," or "equal to angels"
[3226] In the following parallels, Luke might give the impression
that human beings were inferior to angels until death, after which
time those that rose from the dead became " equal to angels." But
his text indicates that he is accumulating paraphrases to explain what
Mark has left undefined, and that we cannot rely on any one phrase
of his as representing the original. He gives three clauses where
Mark and Matthew each give one :
Mk xii. 25 Mt. xxii. 30
" For when " For in the re-
[people] rise from surrection [people]
neither marry nor
are given in marriage,
but as angels in
the heaven 3 [they]
are."
the dead they neither
marry nor are given
in marriage, but are
as angels
heavens*."
the
Lk. xx. 35 6
" But they that
have been counted
worthy to obtain that
life (//'/. aeon), and
the resurrection from
the dead, neither
marry nor are given
in marriage; for nei-
ther can they die
any more, for they
are equal-to-angels,
and are sons of God,
being sons of the
resurrection."
1 Lev. xi. 44, quoted in i Pet. i. 16. On Gabriel and Michael see 3385 a foil.
1 W.H. have in marg. " the angels that are in the heavens," and so has SS.
3 There are various readings, "angels of God in the heaven," and "angels in
heaven."
219
[3227] "THE SON OF MAN"
Perhaps Luke dropped the clause "in the heavens" because
some interpreted it as meaning that the risen saints would henceforth
live " (like angels) in heaven," and this would exclude a millennium
on earth 1 . Or perhaps the original from which Mark is derived
and to which (in some respects) Luke may have returned used
some Jewish form such as "sons of the family of God," "sons of
resurrection," "sons of the age to come." This Mark may have
paraphrased by " angels 2 ."
[3227] If we may suppose that the parable of Lazarus and Dives
is not radically inconsistent with Christ's doctrine, we must infer that
He would not have shrunk from describing the faithful children of
Abraham as being brought by angels to his bosom, and Abraham
himself as addressing one of his unfaithful children in a "place of
torment 3 ."
In that case we must assume that He regarded Abraham as
being above angels, or rather as being (without rivalry) spiritually
apart from angels a conception that would exclude the view that
Abraham is merely "equal to" the "angels" who bring the departed
to him. Probably there was no thought in our Lord's mind of the
departed as being promoted to an " equality " with angels.
Nor does He seem to regard Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as
sleeping in death with the mere prospect of a resurrection. God is
called by their name, and that, He says, is a proof that they are not
dead: "God is not a God of the dead but of the living*? This
1 [3226 a] That interpretation is precluded by W.H. marg. and SS ("The
angels that are..."). There may have also been in Luke's mind a desire to
guard against misconceptions in connection with the unions of " sons of God,"
LXX "angels of God," with "daughters of men" in Genesis (vi. 2).
2 [3226 b] See Wetstein on Lk. xx. 35 6 and xvi. 8. In Job i. 6, ii. i,
xxxviii. 7, "sons of God" is rendered both by LXX and by Targum by some
clause with "angels." In Hos. i. 10 "sons of the living God " is rendered by the
Targum " Papule Dei vivi."
3 Lk. xvi. 23 8.
4 [3227 a] It may be argued that orav with the aorist subjunctive in
Mk xii. 25 (R.V.) " When they shall rise" implies a future "rising," and that,
until that rising, they must be regarded as sleeping in death.
[3227 b~\ That does not seem to be a necessary inference. "Orav with the aorist
subjunctive (Joh. Gr. 2535) means "as soon as something has happened" in Jn xvi.
21, " But as soon as she hath given birth to the child, she no longer remembereth
the anguish." So, in Mark, the meaning may be, "As soon as [people] have risen
from the dead, they neither marry...." That may imply that they are at once
in some intermediate condition, between life on earth and the second resurrection,
WITH ANGELS [3227]
view is confirmed by the fact that Jesus is described as conversing,
in the Transfiguration, not only with Elijah, who was believed to
have ascended to heaven, but also with Moses, whom Scripture
expressly declares to have died and to have been buried. And
besides, how can Abraham be regarded as " sleeping," if he receives
Lazarus in his bosom and expostulates with his unfaithful descendant
whom he still calls " son " ?
Horae Hebraicae (on Lk. xvi. 22) says "The Jewish schools
dispose of the souls of Jews under a threefold phrase r , I can hardly
say under a threefold state:" (i) " In the garden of Eden, or
Paradise" (to which Abraham and Moses pass), (2) " Under the
throne of glory? where Moses (inconsistently) is placed, (3) "In
Abraham 's bosom" (inconsistent with (i)). The inconsistencies shew
why the author of Horae Hebraicae makes the distinction between
"a threefold phrase" and "a threefold state" The same work (on
Mt. xxii. 32) quotes Talmudic expressions similar to "God is not a
God of the dead" as meaning those spiritually "dead," and proving
that "the righteous, even in death, are said to live." These passages
confirm the view that Jesus might describe one and the same "state"
in many "phrases" and that He regarded the "state" as a spiritual
one describable only by metaphors that must not be taken literally.
If this is the case, it would seem that He would have described
Abraham, not as " sleeping," but as " living to God."
where souls await a second resurrection. Jesus is recorded by Luke to have said
to the penitent thief (Lk. xxiii. 43) " To-day shall thou be with me in Paradise."
[3227 c] Hor. Hebr. on Lk. xx. 37 quotes from Shemoth R. fol. 159. i, a
tradition that the Lord said unto Moses "I look for ten men from thee, as
I looked for that number in Sodom (Gen. xviii. 32) ; find me out ten righteous
persons among the people and I will not destroy thy people." Moses pointed
to himself, Aaron, Eleazar, Ithamar, Phineas, Caleb, and Joshua. " But," said
God, "where are the other three?" ^ hen Moses knew not what to do, he said,
"O eternal God, do those live that are dead?" "Yes" was the reply. Then
said Moses (Exod. xxxii. 13) "Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Comp.
Berach. 18 b, interpreting Deut. xxxiv. 4 as "Go thou and say to Abraham,
Isaac etc."
[3227 af] Luke's adjective " equal-to-the-angels" urd-yyeXoy, is not found in
pre-Christian literature; but Luke closely resembles Philo i. 164 "Abraham,
' having departed (XZTWI') ' from mortality, 'is added to the people 1 of God,
...having become equal to angels." The words in single inverted commas are from
Gen. xxv. 8 (LXX) " And Abraham departing (eK\fiiruv) died... and was added to
his people." Philo takes " his people " as " the people of God." The Jerusalem
Targum transfers (Gen. xxv. 8) "was gathered to his people" from Abraham
to Ishmael (ib. 9).
221
[3228] "THE SON OF MAN"
6. " Holy ones" or " saints" in the Pauline epistles
[3228] The first epistle to the Thessalonians says (iii. n 13)
" Now may our God and Father himself and our Lord Jesus direct
our way unto you... to the end that he may stablish your hearts
unblameable in holiness before our God and Father at the coming
of our Lord Jesus with all his holy ones (or, saints)." Many authorities
add " Amen." In any case a section of the epistle terminates here.
And the writer appears to be closing it with a kind of benediction,
as to which Lightfoot argues that " all his saints " means " not only
the spirits of just men made perfect, but the angels of heaven also."
His arguments are these, (i) "Though the angels are never
called simply o! ayioi in the New Testament, yet the term is found in
Ps. Ixxxix. 5, Zech. xiv. 5, Dan. iv. 10 (13)." (2) "The imagery of
Daniel has so strongly coloured the apocalyptic passages of the
Thessalonian epistles that this passing use of the expression is not
surprising." (3) "The presence of the angels with the returning
Christ is expressly stated in several passages (Mt. xiii. 41, sq. ;
xxv. 31, Mk viii. 38, Lk. ix. 26, 2 Thess. i. 7)." (4) "In two of
these (Mk viii. 38, Lk. ix. 26) the epithet ayioi is applied to them in
this connection."
[3229] But against these arguments are the following, (i) As
to Dan. iv. 13 "a watcher and a holy [one]," and other similar
passages that might have been alleged, it has been shewn above that
they do not apply (3223 < foil.). Moreover they are not connected
with the final judgment. And on the other side is Daniel's habitual
employment of the plural "holy ones" in such phrases as " the holy
ones of the Most High," and sometimes simply " the holy ones," to
mean '''the saints" or "faithful Israel" and this in connection with
the final judgment^.
(2) What has been said above reverses the argument from
"the imagery of Daniel." It is now against the interpretation
1 [3229 a] As regards Ps. Ixxxix. 56 (i) "holy ones" and (2) (R.V. marg.)
"the sons of God (or, of the gods)," (R.V. txt.) "the sons of the mighty," the
latter are called by the Targum "choirs of angels," the former are called "holy
ones." In Zech. xiv. 5, it does not seem certain that "angels" are intended.
Lightfoot might have alleged Job v. i and xv. 15, but perhaps avoids them
because they are utterances of Eliphaz, so that they do not represent orthodox
Hebraism. In Job xv. 15 "the holy ones" is paraphrased by Targ. as "sanctis
superioribus " and " the heavens" as "angeli excelsi." See 3223 fg.
222
WITH ANGELS [3230]
"angels," and for the interpretation "holy ones," i.e. saints, in
accordance with Pauline usage elsewhere.
(3) As regards N.T. attestation of " the presence of the angels
with the returning Christ" it has been pointed out that Matthew
seems to take a somewhat different view from that of Mark and
Luke, and it is doubtful whether the expression "his angels" (that is,
" the angels of the son of man ") in Matthew, includes " the angels "
as a whole. It is true that Matthew, when quoting Zechariah
(xiv. 5 "holy ones") paraphrases it as "angels." But the question
arises whether Paul, who maintains that "the saints" will "judge
angels," would follow Matthew in this error and would not rather be
particularly careful to keep the two terms distinct.
The reference to 2 Thess. i. 7 8 certainly attests " the presence
of the angels with the returning Christ." But it also calls attention
to a contrast between " angels " and " holy ones " in that passage,
" In the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven along with \the\
angels of his power in flaming fire... when he shall come to be
glorified in his holy ones" Here, as Lightfoot says, the " holy ones "
are "the mirror in which His glory shines." But surely they are not
to be identified with "the angels of his power." The "angels"
appear to be ministers of wrath, punishers of the disobedient, and
distinct from "the holy ones" who are the "mirror" of His "glory."
(4) As regards the " two passages " in which the epithet " holy "
is applied to " angels " by Mark and Luke, it is to be remembered
that the " two " are parallel, so that they represent only one saying of
Christ's. Moreover this single saying is recorded by three evangelists,
of whom two insert " holy " while the third omits it. The attestation,
therefore, of " holy " is not strong.
7. " Saints" not " angels" are to judge
[3230] The emphatic mention of " all " in " the coming of our
Lord Jesus with all his holy ones 1 " appears to be illustrated by the
alarm of the Thessalonians for those that "are fallen asleep in Jesus,"
1 [3230 a] i Thess. iii. 13, comp. Zech. xiv. 5 (lit) "all holy ones," LXX
"all the holy ones," Targ. "all His holy ones." The Heb. may mean (Gesen.
481 a) "every holy one." Comp. Didach. xvi. 6 7 "...thirdly, the resurrection of
the dead ; but not of all [the dead], but, as it is said, The Lord [Jesus] shall come,
and all the holy-ones with Him (^ffei 6 xuptoj KO.I irdj/res ot 0710* per' OVTOV)." The
insertion of the article before /n/pios seems intended to denote the Lord Jesus as
distinct from Zech. xiv. 5 Kvpios 6 6eoj /MOV. The writer clearly takes "the holy-
ones " to be departed saints (not " angels " in the ordinary sense).
223
[3231] "THE SON OF MAN"
lest they should not be included in the triumphant return. The
apostle begs them not to sorrow, and explains to them that " God
will bring with him," that is, with Jesus, the departed also. The
dead, indeed, " shall rise first." Then the survivors on earth will be
"caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air 1 ." Thus He
will come "with all his saints." All alike, living and dead, will be
united with Him, and, henceforth, will " ever be with the Lord."
After that, apparently, will follow the judgment.
Some doctrine of this kind, a doctrine of the judgment of man
by man necessarily expressed by metaphor, and not to be narrowed
down by taking metaphor as fact appears to be implied by the
teaching of Jesus concerning the men of Nineveh and the queen of
the .South, that even they will " rise up in the judgment along with
this generation and condemn it." Part of the meaning of this, is,
that all the "sons of man," in so far as they have turned from
darkness to receive some glimmerings of the light, will rise up in the
day of judgment and condemn those who have loved the darkness.
[3231] This is appropriate to real judgment, which includes
conviction, or convincing of sin. It is conceivable that Michael,
Gabriel, and Raphael, could not thus convict or convince us. For
how could those superhuman beings know or, if they knew, how
could they persuade us that they knew the difficulties in the way of
belief, and the temptations not to believe, since they, archangels,
have always lived in the very brightness of the face of God?
Only the faithful sons of man could fairly and justly (according to
our powers of conception) take any part in manifesting God's judgment
and bringing it home to the hearts of their guilty brethren, so that the
latter might be forced to confess, "We, too, might have believed."
The good and true in all ages such appears to have been
Christ's doctrine have been, and will be, oppressed, for generation
after generation, in this present world. From time to time there
have been movements of humanity toward the divine throne whence
issue what we call on earth "the judgments of God." But these
have been but beginnings. Not till the very end will this great body
of holy humanity which has fulfilled the precept "be ye holy for I
am holy" and has been made like to the image of God be
"brought" (as in Daniel) right onward into the presence of the
Ancient of Days, whence they will judge their oppressors, filling
1 i Thess. iv. 13 17.
224
WITH ANGELS [3232]
their hearts with a tormenting shame and with a purifying pain.
Then and not till then will the final judgment be pronounced and
everlasting dominion be bestowed on "the son of man," recognised
as the Son of God, whose Kingdom is that of the Father in heaven.
8. Conclusion
[3232] The conclusion, as regards the special Synoptic passage
under consideration, is that the slight verbal divergence mentioned
above (3220 foil.) between the three evangelists as to "angels"
probably points to a very important difference of thought in the
original. It appears to have contained "holy ones." This has been
paraphrased in our gospels as "angels" or as ''holy angels."
It is more in accordance with the traditions derived or derivable
from the eighth Psalm, and from Daniel, and from Jewish literature,
and with early Pauline doctrine, that " holy ones," when mentioned
as accompanying " the son of man " in glory, should be human
"saints," not "angels."
This is also in harmony with various prophecies which speak of
Israel as being raised up and exalted, sometimes collectively, but
sometimes as a Person representing the Nation. And it agrees with
what appears to have been a historical utterance of Jesus, namely,
that He would raise up a "new temple," concerning which John says
that "he spake of the temple of his body." It agrees also with the
Johannine doctrine that judgment was to be given to the Son
because He was not although He was "son of man 1 ." From this
it would logically follow that His assessors should be "sons of man,"
not angels without experience of human trials and temptations 2 .
In discussing the nature of the "holy angels," or "angels,"
mentioned by the Synoptists in the special passage under considera-
tion and, as we have concluded, probably meaning "holy ones"
or " saints " we have been obliged to touch on Daniel's and Paul's
use of "holy ones" in connection with a Day of Judgment, in
which the Judge was to come in glory and to receive a kingdom.
But we have not discussed the nature of the "coming," or the
"glory," or the "kingdom." These points will now be considered.
1 Jn v. 11, 27.
2 [3232 a] The first epistle of Peter (i. 11) says that "angels desire to look
into" the mystery of Redemption. The epistle to the Hebrews (i. 14) says of
them, "Are they not all ministering spirits?" Neither of these writers says
anything about angels as judging the saints.
A. S. 225 1C
CHAPTER IX
"THE SON OF MAN" COMING IN GLORY
i. Origen's comment
[3233] The conclusion arrived at in the last chapter was that
the "holy angels," or "angels," associated in a special Synoptic
passage with the coming of " the son of man " " in glory," were
rather "holy ones," or "saints," than "angels" in the ordinary sense.
Returning to the same passage we have now to ask the meaning
of " coming " when applied to " the son of man." Whence and
whither is He to "come"? Locally? Or spiritually? Or both?
And of what nature is the " glory " ?
For convenience, the passage is repeated :
Mk viii. 38 Mt. xvi. 27 Lk. ix. 26
"the son of man... "...the son of man "...the son of man
when he shall come is destined to come ...when he shall come
in the glory of his in the glory of his in the glory (lit.) of
Father with (lit.) the Father with his him[self] and of the
angels the holy angels...." Father, and of the
[ones]." holy angels."
[3234] Origen 1 illustrates the revelation of "the son of man" as
"coming in the glory of his Father with his angels" by a reference
to the Suffering Servant in Isaiah. In his view, " glory " refers not
to material fire, or brightness, but to the splendour of truth. The
Servant " had no form or beauty " in the eyes of Israel, because
Israel was blind; "the son of man" "had no form or beauty" in the
eyes of the Pharisees, because the Pharisees were blind. But under
that external aspect of humiliation Jesus was preparing His disciples
to recognise His spiritual " form and beauty."
1 On Mt. xvi. 27, Lomm. iii. 176 foil.
226
"THE SON OF MAN" COMING IN GLORY [3236]
The "coming," also, Origen deemed to be spiritual. It did not
mean or at all events it did not mean merely coming down from
the clouds, or from one of the seven heavens above the clouds, but
coming into the heart. The vision, or feeling, of that " coming "
depends on the disciple's acceptance of the above-mentioned
preparation : " To the perfect He ' comes in the glory of His
Father,' and they can say [with John the Evangelist] ' We beheld
His glory, the glory as of the only begotten from the Father.' "
[3235] We naturally ask, " Who, according to this interpretation,
are the ' angels ' or ' messengers ' with whom He is to come ? "
In answer, Origen bids us ask ourselves who are "the co-operators
of the glory of the Logos, or W T ord...who sojourn on earth with
Him." They are manifestly " the prophets." As to these he says :
"Consider whether you can say that, among these, those prophets that
formerly suffered have had some analogy with the Logos, or Word,
who 'had no form or beauty' in virtue of the Logos or Word
[in them] which 'had no form or beauty 1 .'"
Origen would probably not restrict " suffering " to the endurance
of death. He would include all the great and good champions of
the oppressed, who have received ingratitude from those whom they
have striven to help, as well as hatred and persecution from those
whom they have resisted or assailed such as Moses, Elijah,
Jeremiah, and many a nameless prophet beside those whose books are
extant, ending with the last of the prophets, John the Baptist. All
these, in various ways and degrees, have been " messengers," that is,
" angels " besides being " holy ones " and have prepared the way
for the development of humanity, the "coming" of "the son of
man."
2. John the Baptist's relation to the coming of
" the son of man "
[3236] Among all these "prophets," these "messengers" (or,
"angels") of "the son of man," there stood pre-eminent, for Christians
in the first century, John the Baptist. He was declared by Jesus to
be "a prophet and more than a prophet" He was also the special
preparatory ''messenger" mentioned by Malachi*. No doubt Jesus
(in the fourth gospel) says of Moses also, " He wrote of me." And
1 Origen, Lomm. iii. 177 8.
Mt. xi. 10, Lk. vii. 27 quoting Mai. iii. i, on which see From Letter
817 foil.
227 152
[3237] "THE SON OF MAN"
elsewhere "Moses and the prophets," or "the Law and the prophets,"
are appealed to as witnesses and (as Origen expresses it) "co-
operators." But none of them is described, precisely like John the
Baptist, as the special " angel " appointed to prepare the way for
" the son of man."
In another respect John the Baptist was pre-eminent. Among a
multitude of prophets he is almost the only one of renown, concern-
ing whom scripture has recorded by name 1 that he "suffered*"
A tradition peculiar to Luke represents Jesus as exclaiming, " Shall
not God avenge his elect, who cry to him day and night 3 ?"
Whether Jesus used these exact words, and, if so, in what sense He
used them, may be open to question : but who can doubt that He
must have had some such feeling about all the good oppressed by the
evil in His days, and especially about John the Baptist?
The Baptist had been perhaps Christ's teacher. At all events he
had been a foster-father introducing Him to the world, and accord-
ing to the testimony of all the four evangelists pointing Him out
as "the coming one," the "stronger one," who was to develop his
own work, and in whose favour he, the older prophet, was to retire
into obscurity. Surely Jesus would have been less than human if
John had not been poignantly in His thoughts during his imprison-
ment, more poignantly still when his disciples came to say "Art thou
he that is to come?" but most of all in the moment when they
came again, not to ask further questions, but to make a final report :
"We have buried our Master."
[3237] All the Synoptists place the Transfiguration at this point;
and Mark and Matthew report that, when Jesus was descending from
the Mount, He spoke in mystical terms about Elijah as having
already come and suffered martyrdom 4 .
1 Comp. Mt. xvii. 12 13 where "John the Baptist" is mentioned, after a
prediction of "suffering" as having himself had a similar experience.
2 [3236 a] Comp. Heb. xi. 37 "they were stoned, they were sawn asunder,
they were tempted, they were slain with the sword," and see the marginal
references which refer to no prophet whose writings are extant. "Sawn" is
supposed, but only on traditional grounds, to refer to Isaiah.
3 [3236 ] Lk. xviii. 7, preceded by "And the Lord said...." Concerning this
use of "the Lord" for Jesus, see Jo A. Voc. 1779 81: "most of the passages
[containing this use] in Luke are peculiar to his Gospel : and they give the im-
pression of having been taken from some book (perhaps containing the teaching
or preaching of Peter) in which Jesus was habitually called 'the Lord.'"
*[3237a] Mark has (ix. 13) "I say unto you that Elijah hath come and they
228
COMING IN GLORY [3238]
Luke, it is true, omits this mention of Elijah. But the omission
can be explained, partly by his tendency 1 to omit Elijah-references
of a certain kind, which he probably regarded as misunderstood,
and partly by the obscurity and difficulty of this particular passage.
This Mark-Matthew mention of Elijah and the Baptist should be
combined with the Matthew-Luke tradition about the Baptist as
being, in a special way, God's " messenger 2 " whom Jewish tradition
identified with Elijah. Thus we have two apparently independent
traditions shewing that Jesus, a little before the Baptist's death, and
a little after it, identified him with Elijah the messenger. We also
find Luke, in his account of the Transfiguration, saying that Moses
and Elijah discoursed with Jesus concerning His forthcoming " de-
parture," that is, martyrdom, in Jerusalem 3 . This implies that the
martyr John the Baptist, in the glorified form of Elijah, had been
joined with Moses in a vision that predicted the Passion, Death, and
Resurrection of Jesus.
[3238] What was the "glory" in which Moses and Elijah
appeared? It was certainly not the glory of archangels free from
imperfection, struggle, and error. Both of these great Saints had to
some extent failed in accomplishing the heavy task imposed on them.
God had rebuked both. Both had left their work imperfect. But
they had done and suffered ever-memorable and ever-helpful things
for their people, and, through their people, for the world, in bearing
have done with him as many things as they desired even as it is written of him"
and there stops short. "As it is written" raises a difficulty (see 3246 foil.). But
none can doubt that Jesus meant the Baptist. Jesus Himself had described the
Baptist as the "messenger" (in Malachi) whom many traditions identified with
Elijah. The Baptist had "suffered" at the hands of Herod "as many things" as
the world had "desired" to inflict. And Matthew (xvii. 13) expressly adds
"Then understood the disciples that [it was} concerning John the Baptist [that} he
spake unto them."
1 [3237 b\ We must beware of assuming "tendency" to have been the only
cause. Such "tendency" would be, in fact, dishonesty. Obscurity, or the
likelihood (sometimes amounting to the certainty) of being misunderstood, must
be regarded as often a contributory cause. Comp. Mk xv. 35 6, Mt. xxvii.
47 9 omitted by parall. Lk. xxiii. 45. where HAIOT may have been taken as
"sun," instead of " Elias " (see From Letter 1057 60) so that Luke took the
words as referring to a supernatural eclipse or darkening of "the sun." See
also Lk. i. 17 ''in the spirit and power of Elijah," that is to say, "not in the
body and form of Elijah."
1 Mt. xi. 10, Lk. vii. 27. Mk i. i has a fonn of this tradition ("my
messenger") but not as an utterance of Jesus.
3 Lk. ix. 31.
229
[3239] "THE SON OF MAN"
witness to the unity and righteousness of God. Therefore they now
" appeared in glory."
If the companion of Moses on this occasion had been sent as
the mere representative of written prophecy so that "the Law and
the Prophets," side by side, should testify to the Son, it seems
probable that Isaiah, not Elijah, would have been chosen. But it is
not book-message but life-message that is represented by Elijah. It
is also the message of a life cut short and of a work half done and
passed on to a successor with a twofold portion of the prophet's
spirit. In these respects Elijah resembled John the Baptist. But
how great a difference in the manner of " cutting short " !
Perhaps this, too, was part of the revelation on the Mount of
Transfiguration, namely, that " glory " was independent of the scenic
accompaniments of death. The Baptist's death, in prison, under the
hand of the executioner, was humiliating and inglorious. Elijah's
ascent to heaven according to the narrative accepted by all Jews
as historically true 1 was glorious beyond all human precedent ; yet
here was the Baptist shining in the glory of Elijah. This was a
lesson in " glory " as to the past " departure " of John. Perhaps it
was intended to be also a lesson in " glory " as to the future
" departure " of Jesus.
3. "Art thou he that is to come?"
[3239] There is another strong reason for connecting Christ's
utterance about His future "coming" with the thought of John the
Baptist. John's last recorded words contained an apparent reproach
to Jesus for not "coming." The imprisoned prophet, while in daily
danger of death, seems to have expected that Jesus, about whose
mighty works he had heard many reports, would speedily come to
save him. As He had not done this, the prophet sent Him a
1 [3238 a] That it was accepted as historical is perfectly compatible with the
tradition of R. Jose (Succah 5 a) that Moses did not really go up to the Height (in
spite of Exod. xix. 3 " went up unto God ") nor did Elijah (in spite of i K. ii. n
"went up... to heaven"). It is quaintly said that each of them went " ten spans
lower." So (it might be said) the Shechinah will not come down here below (in
spite of Zech. xiv. 4 "His feet shall stand. ..on the Mount of Olives") for this
means "ten spans higher." The rule holds (said R. Jose) (Ps. cxv. 16) "The
heavens are the heavens of Jehovah, and the earth hath he given to the children of
men." R. Jose merely denied a materialistic ascent to "heaven." He said,
in effect, "Climb to heaven by cubits! You will always be cubits off."
230
COMING IN GLORY [3241]
message through two of his disciples, "Art thou he that is to come, or
must we expect another 1 ? "
It is not possible to believe that Jesus was not pained by the
necessity of disappointing this expectation shared, doubtless, by the
Baptist's disciples, and by many of His own followers, not to speak
of multitudes of patriotic and pious Galilaeans. Although He
could not deviate in action from the course revealed to Him by the
Father, yet He could endeavour to lessen the pain in store for His
disciples by encouraging them to believe that, after all, in some real
and effective form, He was "he that is to come," and that they need
not " expect another."
[3240] And this leads us to ask what precisely, or whom
precisely, the populace did " expect," and by what popular phrases
they expressed their expectation. The message of John the Baptist
assumes that "he that is to come" literally "the coming [one]" was
such a phrase, a phrase intelligible at once to Jesus and to all those
in whose hearing the message was delivered. Even if it stood alone,
such a message would suffice to prove that " he that is to come "
was a phrase in common use to denote an expected Deliverer of
Israel. And this conclusion is confirmed by the cry of the multitudes
that welcomed Jesus when He rode into Jerusalem, " Blessed is he
that cometh in the name of the Lord 2 ."
To the same effect probably are Johannine traditions about
"the prophet, [namely] he that is to come into the world," and
" the Christ, the Son of God, he that is to come into the world 3 ."
[3241] In the Riding into Jerusalem, "Blessed is he that cometh
1 Mt. xi. 3, Lk. vii. 19.
2 [3240 a] Ps. cxviii. 26, quoted in Mk xi. 9, on which Prof. Swete says that
"the accents of the Hebrew" shew that "in the name" must be connected with
"blessed." This view, however, is not apparently taken by Gesen. 139 a, which
quotes Ps. cxxix. 8 as an instance of this connection, but Ps. cxviii. 26 under a
different head. Neither Ewald nor R.V. indicates such a connection. The
evidence of the present Hebrew accents is of little value as an indication of the
way in which Jews interpreted the text in the first century.
3 [3240(5] Jn vi. 14, xi. 27. See/0A. Gram. 1940. Wetstein, Schottgen, and
Hor. Hebr. on Mt. xi. 3 quote no Jewish instances of this use of "he that is to
come"; and Heb. x. 37 "he that cometh" is derived from a misquotation of
Hab. ii. 3 foil., giving neither the Heb. nor the Gk correctly. But the evidence
from N.T. is very strong as to vernacular usage in the first century. Such usage
would naturally leave no permanent record in the Talmuds, because the popular
expectations were not fulfilled, and because the phrase had acquired Christian
associations.
231
[3241] "THE SON OF MAN" COMING IN GLORY
in the name of the Lord " occurs not in Mark alone but in all four
gospels as a popular cry quoted from one of the Psalms 1 . Mark
connects it with "the kingdom of our father David " ; Matthew with
"the son of David"; Luke with "the king"; John with "the
king of Israel." The only other passage in the Bible where "come
in the name of the Lord" occurs is in the words of David to Goliath
" I come unto thee in the name of the Lord*."
The Targum on the Psalm makes this sentence of the Psalm part
of a little drama about the anointing of David as king by Samuel in
the midst of his family. It assigns the words " Blessed [is] he that
cometh in the name of the word of the Lord" to "the builders,"
that is, to the parents of David 3 . We know from the Mishna 4 that
words from this Psalm were regularly repeated during the procession
of rejoicing at the feast of Tabernacles.
Taken all together, these facts shew that " he that cometh in the
name of the Lord " perhaps condensed, for brevity, into " he that
cometh " must have been in the first century a popular name for the
anticipated Deliverer or Messiah, especially when regarded as a son
of David the slayer of Goliath, David the Champion, as well as
King, of Israel. The title was too long to become popular (apart
from the annual celebration of the Feast) in the uncondensed form ;
but in its condensed form we may well believe that Galilaeans
uttered it about many a supposed Messiah. In the first decade of
the Christian era, the children then known as John the son of
Zechariah and Jesus the son of Joseph, doubtless heard it uttered
concerning the rebel or patriot Judas of Galilee, " Is this man the
King Messiah ? Is this man he that is to come, or must we expect
another?" Probably Jews repeated this question for several genera-
tions, up to the time of Bar Cochba who was accepted by many
patriots as the Messiah during the reign of Hadrian.
1 Mk xi. 9, Mt. xxi. 9, Lk. xix. 38, Jn xii. 13, quoting Ps. cxviii. 16.
2 i S. xvii. 45.
3 The same or a similar arrangement is found in Pesach. 1190, where Samuel
is added as an interlocutor.
4 J. Soucca iii. 8 and iv. 3 (5) (Schwab).
232
CHAPTER X
"THE SON OF MAN" COMING IN HIS KINGDOM
i. "Behold, thy king eometh"
[3242] In the light of the popular expectations of a King
Messiah mentioned in the last chapter we may better understand the
Synoptic narrative of Christ's riding into Jerusalem on an ass. The
Synoptists represent Jesus as expressly giving minute instructions to
the disciples to procure the ass 1 . Matthew and Matthew alone adds
that this was done to fulfil the prophecy of Zechariah, " Behold, thy
king eometh,... meek, and riding upon an ass... 2 ." This addition
laid Christians open to the obvious accusation that the " fulfilment "
was a pre-arranged affair. The fourth gospel, which quotes the
prophecy, suggests an answer to this charge by saying that Jesus did
what He did, " having found an ass," and by adding that the disciples
did not understand anything about the fulfilment of the prophecy
till after the resurrection 3 .
But what if Jesus gave those express commandments to the
disciples about bringing Him the ass in order that He might impress
upon the multitudes, in part, it is true, the fulfilment of Zechariah's
prophecy of the coming of a "king," but in part also and in greater
part, because the lesson was more needed the fulfilment of the
prophecy of the coming of a "meek king"?
It has been said above that J ohn agrees with Matthew in quoting
the prophecy. True, but John leaves out the word " meek" thus,
1 Mk xi. i foil., Mt. xxi. i foil., Lk. xix. 29 foil.
- Zech. ix. 9 "Behold, thy king eometh unto thee; he is jusi and having
salvation (Heb. saved), lowly and riding upon an ass...." Matthew omits the
italicised words. John also omits "lowly," i.e. "meek."
3 [3242 a] Jn xii. 14 16. We are not to suppose that the evangelist meant
"having found by chance." But he probably meant " by -what the world would
call chance." That is to say, there was no pre-arrangement. God decreed that
Jesus should thus, as it were casually, fulfil the prophecy. Seeyivi. Gr. 2756.
2 33
[3242 (i)] "THE SON OF MAN"
"Behold, thy king cometh [ ] sitting upon an ass's colt 1 ."
Yet, in spite of John's omission, it would seem probable that our
Lord's intention was to teach the multitude by a sign (intelligible,
without a word, to tens of thousands of pilgrims amidst an uproar
that would have made words unintelligible) that He came as a King
indeed, and as a King bringing a " yoke " for His subjects, but that
the yoke was that of salvation and righteousness, and the coming
was that of a King " meek and lowly of heart," in that peculiar
sense in which the word " meek " is used in the scriptures.
2. The "meek" Xing
[3242 (i)] To explain John's omission of the word " meek" in
connection with the coming of the Messiah, involves a digression.
But the subject is of extreme importance, including, as it does, some
things that throw light on Christ's alleged Beatitude, pronounced,
according to Luke, on "the poor" but, according to Matthew, on
" the poor in spirit." I have therefore thought it desirable to insert
the following remarks.
The Hebrew word in Zechariah (" meek and riding upon an ass ")
usually means "poor? or " afflicted" but is exceptionally rendered
"meek" here by LXX, as also by Aquila, while Symmachus and
another translator render it "poor" and Theodotion "responsive*."
1 [3242 b~\ Comp. Sanhedr. 98 a (on which see King's Yalkut on Zechariah
pp. 48 51), "It is written, 'And lo, with the clouds of heaven' (Dan. vii. 13);
but it is also written, 'Meek and riding upon an ass' (Zech. ix. 9). If they
(i.e. Israel) are meritorious, then, ' With the clouds of heaven ' ; if they are not
meritorious, then, 'Meek and riding upon an ass.'"
[3242 c] It is doubtful whether Jesus would have accepted this very definite
distinction ; for, later on, He mentions the "coming with the clouds of heaven" in
circumstances that imply nothing specially meritorious. But some Jewish distinc-
tion of this kind may very well have existed in the first century and may have
influenced Jesus in His attempts to make it clear that He contemplated a spiritual
rather than a material coming of " the son of man," and perhaps also that He
contemplated more than one act of "coming," varying with the circumstances of
those to whom the "coming" was to be manifested.
[3242 d] Matthew perhaps has in view the words of Christ, which he alone has
recorded (Mt. xi. 29) "Take my yoke upon you and learn of me ; for I am meek
and lowly in heart."
THE SENSE IN WHICH JESUS USED THE TERM "MEEK"
2 [3242 (i) a] In Zech. ix. 9, Hebrew ^J7, LXX and Aq. have irpavs, Sym.
and E'. irro>x6s, Theod. eiraKovuv. In LXX, the word = ir/>ai5s only 3 times, but
irtvi)s 13, TTTuxfc 38, raireivhs 9. Gesen. 777 a gives the rendering "humble,
234
COMING IN HIS KINGDOM [3242 (i)]
The verb "be afflicted." corresponding to the adjective "Afflicted,"
is applied to the Suffering Servant in Isaiah. Here A.V. has " and
he was afflicted? but R.V. " yet he humbled himself^" The transla-
tions and Jewish interpretations shew astonishing variations given
below. These arise from the fact that there is an identity, as regards
their radical letters, between the two Hebrew verbs meaning
(1) "answer, respond," (2) "be bowed down, afflicted 2 ."
lowly" elsewhere only for Prov. iii. 34 (Kt.) (R.V.) "the scorners.. the lowly
" ib. xvi. 19 (Kt.) (R.V.) "Better it is to be of a lowly spirit
with the poor (marg. meek) (Taj-eu-wo-ews) than to divide the spoil with
the proud," Ps- xviii. 27 (R.V.) "thou wilt save the afflicted people, but the
haughty eyes thou wilt bring down,'' LXX rareu^, Aq. -rtnrra, Sym. -rpao*, rep.
in i S. xxii. 28 (R.V.) "afflicted," LXX TTWXOV but al. ejcempl. ra-rfivor and
IT/MOP. These facts indicate that the word was generally rendered " poor" by
LXX, except where the antithetical presence of " proud," " haughty," etc.,
compelled the translators to render it "humble." Gesenius (772 foil.) gives to
i"l3T four meanings (i) "answer," (2) "be occupied" (only in Eccles., "perh.
Aramaic loan word"), (3) "be bowed down," "afflicted," (4) "sing."
1 Is. liii. 7, not the same Heb. word as Is. IxiiL 9 "afflicted." See 3550 b.
* [3242 (i) b\ See Gesen. p. 772 for the meaning "answer," and p. 776 for the
meaning "be bowtd down." In the passive (occurring 4 times) it is said to mean
(Gesen. 776 a) "humble oneself" in Exod. x. 3 (as it certainly does) but "be
afflicted" in the other instances, including Is. liii. 7 (R.V.) "He was oppressed
yet he humbled himself. "
To understand the following divergent interpretations of Isaiah we .must re-
member that " to answer" when substituted for " to bow down " may mean (as
in our vernacular " answer the door ") to " obey " ; but it may also mean to " gain-
say." The Targ. has "He prayed, and he was answered"; Theod. " He was
brought near (wpoorfofli;) and he himself hearkened (^jcowre) " ; Sym. " He was
offered up (irpoffT]rtxffi), ? brought near) and he himself obeyed (wrij*owre) '* ; Vulg.
" He was offered up, because he himself desired it" ; R. Sa'adyah Gaon " He was
tossed to and fro, and he was punished" ; Yepheth ben 'Ali interprets "he was
afflicted " as referring to " degradation and defamation." Rashi and Kimchi
severally take the two clauses as meaning (i) "He was oppressed... and [war]
answered, i.e. in words of treachery" ; (2) " He was pressed [for money] and ke
was afflicted, i.e. bodily (for his body was afflicted with stripes)."
[3242 (i) c] On A both i. 5 " Let thy house be opened wide, and let.jvor[men]
be the sons of thy house " that is. Let the poor be thy guests treated as thy house-
hold the comment of R. Nathan gives two interpretations (i) "-poor,"
(2) "humble." In the second sense, he gives the meaning as being, in effect,
" Let thy household be gentle and sympathetic, so that they will not turn away the
poor from thy door."
[3242 li) d) That there was a very early identification of words meaning
" affliction " with words meaning ' ' responding " (and especially " responding " to
God's trials) appears from several passages where modern editors suggest altera-
tions of the text, e.g. Zeph. ii. 3 "Seek ye the Lord, all ye meek (rarofoi) of the
earth, who have wrought his judgment ; seek righteousness, seek meekness
2 35
[3242 (i)] "THE SON OF MAN"
(Gesen. 776 b "prob. gloss"). Here LXX has dropped the third "seek" and
has "answer these things" Jerome has two very long explanations, ist according
to the Greek, 2nd according to the Hebrew. Commenting on (Heb.) " mansueti
terrae," (LXX) " humiles terrae," he observes that the " humilis terrae " is one
who " peccatis humiliatus est," and who must say "My sins are heavy," but
" according to the Hebrew, ' It is said to the saints... Ye have imitated my meek-
ness (mansuetudinem)...seek the Lord in your meekness?" The Targum also has
" seek meekness" using a word similar to the Hebrew one.
[3242 (i) e] Gesen. ib. renders the same word " condescension " (but " dub.")
in Ps. xviii. 35 (R. V.) " Thy [i.e. God's] gentleness (marg. condescension} hath made
me great." Here LXX has i) iraidla (i.e. Traideia) aov, perhaps meaning " thy
affliction, or chastisement [on me}," "thy training [of me\" Targ. "with thy
word" Aq. " thy meekness, or gentleness (7rpa6rr;s)," Sym. " to respond obediently [to
thee~\ (TO vwaKoveiv [<roi])." Rashi has "auxisti mensuram mansuetudinis tuae ut
illam erga me exerceres."
A striking testimony to the early confusion of various forms of this word is
afforded by the parallel 2 S. xxii. 36 (R.V.) " Thy gentleness (marg. condescension)
hath made me great " (in which a vau is omitted, but R.V. translates without
differentiating). The LXX has what, if found in N.T., we should feel bound to
render "Thy [i.e. God's] obedience (?? viraKo^ aov} hath multiplied me" ; but the
translator meant "Thy response to my prayer" (as in Philem. 21 "Having
confidence in thy response I write unto thee knowing that thou wilt do even beyond
what I say") but al. exempl. (Field) "humiliations (raTmi'cicreis) have multiplied
for me," and " thy chastening (r\ TreuSeia <rov) hath held me upright."
[3242 (i) f\ The same word (as that in Ps. xviii. 35) occurs thrice in Proverbs,
xv. 33 "The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom, and before honour
[goeth] humility," LXX "...the beginning of glory will respond to it (airoKpiQrifffTa.1.
0,1/7-17)," Sym. and Theod. TrpavT-ijs (but "AXXos'" raireivo'is), comp. ib. xviii. 12
(LXX) irpb dol;r)s Tairewovrai, and xxii. 4 (R.V.) "the reward of humility [and]
the fear of the Lord [is] riches..., "LXX "the generation of wisdom [is] the fear of
the Lord," Sym. "after meekness (irpavTi)Tos) [cometh] the fear of the Lord, "
Rashi " Propter mansuetudinem (sive humilitatem} venit timor Domini." He
adds "alia explicatio, Mansuetudo (s. humilitas} est fundamentum...."
[3242 (i) g\ The same word, differently pointed (rVIJJA is rendered " affliction"
in Ps. xxii. 24 " He hath not despised... the affliction of the afflicted." Here the
LXX has "prayer, rfj def/a-ei rov wrwxov," Aq. " gen tie ness, TT)V irpaoTrjTa rov
TT^TOS," Targ. "prayer" Vulg. " deprecationem , " Syr. " clamor em" and hence
it has been proposed (Gesen. 776^) to substitute for the Heb. text a word meaning,
in LXX, Kpavy/i (15 times). Rashi says (Breithaupt) "...omnis [dictio] n^31?
(sic) quae in S. Scriptura habetur, significat ' clamorem ' ; praeterea poterit exponi
[dictio] ni3U quod [hie] signified l humililatem '...." On this Breithaupt refers
to Deut. xxvi. 45 "And the priest shall take the basket out of thine hand... And
thou shall answer (LXX he shall answer} and say before the Lord thy God,"
where Rashi says that "answer" signifies "an elevation of the voice" ; and the
word means "utter a clear and solemn acknowledgment of thanks before God."
[3242 (i) h] This leads us to return to the fact (3242 (i) a} that Gesenius (777 a)
recognises "sing" as a separate meaning of H3U. It gives as the first instance
Exod. xv. 21 "And Miriam answered them (masc.)" LXX "led the song for
them (i^pxev Se avrwv)," Vulg. " quibus praecinebat" Onk. "answered them
(fern.}" Jer. "sang to them (masc.)," Syr. "caused them (fern.} to sing," Aq.
236
COMING IN HIS KINGDOM [3242 (ii)J
[3242 (ii)] A slightly different form of the word under considera-
tion occurs as a noun, meaning "poor [one], afflicted, humble,
meek." It is said to occur in the last two senses nowhere (in the
written Hebrew text) except in a description of Moses: "And
Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses Now the man Moses was
meek exceedingly, above all mankind on the face of the earth 1 ." The
(and Sym.) "recited (xartXeyev) to them (fern.)." Mechilta says (ad loc.) "As
Moses sang to the men so Miriam sang to the women."
Other instances where Aquila renders this word by KoraX^yw are in Numb. xxi.
17 "Then sang Israel this song, Spring up, O well, sing ye to it"; Ps. cxlvii. 7
"Sing unto the Lord with thanksgiving," Targ. "give-praise" ; Jer. xxv. 30 "a
shout (Field, celeusma)... he shall utter'''' (LXX, and the rest, "they" not "he");
ib, li. 14 " they shall utter ...a. shout."
Mandelkem (p. 899) combines under one head the meanings (i) "sing,"
including, perhaps, "nuntiare futura," "carmine celebrare," " oraculum dare,"
and (2) " answer," "respondere." Thes. Syr. 2924 foil, combines under one head
these meanings, and the meaning " be occupied with," "devoted to."
[3242 (i) i] The reason for accumulating these instances of confusion, to which
many others might be added from Hebrew and Syriac, is that they shew H3U to be
a word (i) freq. in Aramaic as well as Hebrew, (2) capable of many different
meanings, (3) liable to be paraphrased in a difficult passage, and (4) consequently
not unlikely to throw light on the following divergence in Matthew and Luke :
Mt. xi. 25 6 Lk. x. 21
" In that season Jesus answered and " In that very hour he rejoiced in the
said, I give acknowledgment to thee, Holy Spirit and said... before thee"
O Father... because thou didst hide [almost verbatim as in Matthew],
these things from wise and prudent
[men] and didst reveal them to babes ;
yea, O Father, because thus it seemed
good before thee."
It is scarcely credible that Matthew substituted " answered' 1 ' 1 for "rejoiced in
the Holy Spirit" ; but it is easily credible (in the light of the facts adduced above)
that the original had Hit? (which indeed is the word actually used in Matthew by
SS, as well as by Delitzsch) and that this was taken by some as simply
(i) "answered"; by others as (2) "responded to the divine will" by others as
(3) " gave forth a solemn utterance of praise after the manner of a song" (like
" dedit oraculum'''' in Mandelkem above). This is all the more likely because
Luke places before this utterance the words (x. 18) "I beheld Satan fallen as light-
ning from heaven...," which indicate that Jesus had received a vision. To this He
"responded" acknowledging the divine wisdom and justice in " hiding" the truth
for a time from the so-called wise (comp. i Cor. i. 19 foil.) but not exactly
"rejoicing" in the ordinary sense of the word, since, beneath the deep joy of
consenting with God's will, there could not but be some sorrow for man's failure.
See 3622 n. on " in the Holy Spirit '' parall. to "in the book of Psalms."
1 [3242 (ii) a] Numb. xii. 3. See Gesen. 776 6. Mechilta says (on Exod. xx.
21 "and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was") "This
[access to God] was procured for him by his meekness, since it is said (Numb. xii. 3)
237
[3242 (ii)] "THE SON OF MAN"
context would justify the supposition that Moses was "afflicted"
beyond measure by the gainsaying of his brother and sister ; but the
general consent of Jewish tradition takes the words as meaning that
Moses refrained from answering their attack owing to his exceeding
" meekness." In the whole of the historical books of the Bible the
word "meek" does not occur again. It can hardly be doubted that
Jews and Christians would think of the "meekness" of Moses along
with that of the "King" in Zechariah. Christians might also
connect it with the meekness of Christ, " who, when he was reviled,
reviled not again... but committed himself to him that judgeth
righteously 1 ."
But more than mere Stoical self-restraint was implied by the
Hebrew word. The Mosaic and Messianic "meekness" implies
" affliction" both etymologically and historically. The first instance
of the word in Genesis is when it is predicted to Abraham that the
enemies of his posterity shall "afflict them four hundred years.
Exodus takes up the story and tells how "the more they afflicted
them the more they multiplied," and passes rapidly to the first
appearance of God to Moses, when He says, " Surely I have seen the
affliction of my people 2 ." Then comes the Epistle to the Hebrews
shewing how Moses took upon himself a share in this affliction :
" choosing rather to be jointly-afflicted with the people of God. . .valuing
' the reproach of the Anointed ' above the treasures of Egypt 3 ." This
kind of " affliction " like the " meekness " of Moses in Numbers, and
the "meekness" of the Saviour King in Zechariah, and like the
' And the man Moses was very meek.' 1 The Scripture shews that everyone that is
meek finally causes the Shechinah to dwell with men upon the earth, since it is
said (Is. Ivii. 15) ' I dwell... with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit '";
and the context quotes Is. Ixi. i "to preach good tidings unto the meek (marg.
poor)," id. Ixvi. 2 and Ps. li. 17. Rashi's comment on Numb. xii. 3 is simply
" Mansuetus, i.e. 'humilis et patiens.'" Breithaupt says that according to "the
opinion of the Rabbis" Moses was called "meek" for refraining from answering
his brother and sister (comp. Wagenseil on Sota p. 820). Chag. <)b describes '
"Elijah" as saying on Is. xlviii. 10 "the furnace of affliction" that God
" searched among all good things to give to Israel and found only poverty (or,
affliction nVJU)."
1 i Pet. ii. 23. 2 Gen. xv. 13, Exod. i. 12, iii. 7.
3 [3242 (ii) <$] Heb. xi. 25 6. "Jointly afflicted," ffwKa.Kov\flaOai, illustrates
Aquila's freq. use of KCLKOVX^U to represent the Heb. "afflict" (as in i K. ii. 26
(LXX), xi. 39 (A)). For "the reproach of the x/"<""6sj or Anointed," comp.
Ps. Ixxxix. 51 "they have reproached the footsteps of thine Anointed." The
Epistle to the Hebrews seemingly implies that Moses, in some sense, anticipated,
or partook of, the afflictions and reproaches that fell on Christ.
238
COMING IN HIS KINGDOM [3242 (iii)]
oppression and "affliction" of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah
implies a sympathy with the sufferings of man and also a patient
expectation that looks toward God, a twofold response, or answer,
to man's appeal for pity and to God's appeal for faith, trust, and
patience.
[3242 (iii)] Origen goes to the root of the complex Hebrew
conception of "meekness " when he connects the term with "expec-
tation " or patient " waiting." Quoting from the Psalms " Those that
wait for (or, expect) the Lord, they shall inherit the land," he says
that it is the " land " of the spiritual milk and honey, of which the
Saviour says " Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the land,"
and then : "We wait for (or, expect) (expectamus) the Lord, because
He is our expectation and patience, as it is written, ' And now what
is my expectation (quae est expectatio meet) ? Is it not the Lord ? '
As therefore the Saviour is wisdom and peace and righteousness, so
also is He expectation or patience, and as, by sharing in His right-
eousness we are made righteous, and by sharing in His wisdom we
are made wise, so, by sharing in His patience we are made patient 1 ."
This confirms the view that "meekness" implies an attitude of
looking up to God, a response to God's appeal, " Be patient and
trust me."
The context in Origen seems to imply that the Psalmist's saying
" The meek shall inherit the land " was used in controversy in con-
nection with Matthew's similar saying. Perhaps there was felt, in
very early days, a doubt among the Christians of the West as to the
meaning of "meekness." Clement of Alexandria, after quoting
Matthew's Beatitude, says, "[By] 'meek' are [meant] those who
have utterly suppressed the battle against faith [waged] in the soul
by passion and covetousness in their various forms : He praises as
' meek ' only those who are so voluntarily, not those who are so by
constraint*."
1 [3242 (iii) a] Origen, on Ps. xxxvii. 9, Lomm. xii. 173 4 quoting Ps. xxxix.
7. He adds (on Ps. xxxviL n "The meek shall inherit the land," ib. 176)
" Adversum Valentinianos et ceteros haereticos, qui putant Sal valorem meum dicere
in Evangelio quae in antiquis literis non sunt, proferendus est iste versiculus, sicut
et nos didicimus a quodam presbytero proferre haec ad convincendos eos. Quod
enim dictum est in Evangelio ' Beati mansueti, quoniam ipsi haereditabunt terrain,'
vide quomodo ante jam dictum est a Spiritu sancto per David : imo ipse Christus
nunc in Evangeliis dicit ' Beati mansueti quoniam ipsi haereditate possidebunt
terram.' "
s [3242 (iii) b\ Clem. Alex. 579 " the battle against faith," TTI* OTMTT
239
[3242 (iv)] "THE SON OF MAN"
[3242 (iv)] These facts point to two important conclusions.
First, as to the Johannine omission of " meek " in the quotation from
Zechariah, they indicate that one reason for the omission was that
the Greek word was not adequate to express the Hebrew thought.
The Greek (Origen says) meant "absence of disturbance in the
mind," or (as Clement says) " the suppression of the battle of the
passions against faith." But the Hebrew meant more than these
negations. It was associated with the thought of the trials of this
world borne by one who is led by them to look up to God in trust
and to look round on his fellow creatures in sympathy.
Secondly, we are led to a conclusion about Luke's omission of
Matthew's tradition concerning "the meek" in the Sermon on the
Mount :
Mt. v. 3 5 Lk. vi. 20 21
"Blessed [are] the poor in " Blessed [are ye] the poor, be-
spirit 1 , because theirs is the king- cause yours is the kingdom of
dom of heaven. God. . . .
Blessed [are] they that mourn, Blessed [are ye] that weep now,
because they (emph.) shall be because ye shall laugh."
comforted.
Blessed are the meek, because
they (emph.) shall inherit the
earth."
Clement's context (575 foil.) clearly indicates the difficulties and diversities of
interpretation connected with the Beatitudes, and especially with the meaning of
"poor (TTTwxot)-" " Not 'only in wealth," he says (577), " and in glory, and in
marriage, but also in poverty (trevias), to him that does not bear [it rightly] (r<
pi) fepovTi), there are myriads of anxieties (^/ooi/rtSes)."
Comp. Origen 's two comments on Ps. cxxxii. i (LXX) " Remember David and all
his affliction (Trpao'rTjTos)...." What follows describes David's determination not to
rest till he had found a place for the Lord's temple, and does not, on the surface,
refer to "affliction" or to "meekness." Origen's first comment is merely a
definition of 7r/raor?;s as being drapa^La Ovpov /card artpyaiv rjdovuv irpoffyivo^vif
<f>6apruv. But his second is, "Instead of irpaorijs Aquila has ' evil-entreating
(KaKovxiav),' Symmachus 'ill-treatment (KOKUffiv),' but the Fifth [Version]
' humiliation (Taireivuffiv).' 1 " Perhaps these writers took "affliction " as referring
to the days when David was persecuted by Saul. Const. Apost. vii. 7 alludes to
it thus: "Be meek, as were Moses and David, since 'the meek shall inherit the
earth.' " Jerome takes it as referring to the meekness of Christ, " led as a meek
lamb to the slaughter." But Rashi says that David " toiled-hard and wearied
himself in the effort to find a site for the temple." This resembles the freq. Syr.
use of the word ("occupied with") mentioned in 3242 (i) h.
1 Oi TTTwxoi T trvftJ/J-ari, Lk. oi irru'xoL
240
COMING IN HIS KINGDOM [3242 (iv)]
It is improbable that Luke would have omitted Matthew's ckuse
about the " meek " which we assume here that he did not regard as
spurious unless he thought that it conveyed a wrong meaning, the
right meaning being "poor" It is also improbable that Luke would
have omitted "in the spirit" if it had been part of the original. As
to "the earth 1 ' ("shall inherit the earth") explained by Origen as
" the spiritual land of milk and honey," but probably taken by others
as the literal earth in the Millennium of the Kingdom of God it
is easily credible that some should have paraphrased it as " the
kingdom of heaven" or "the kingdom of God"
Hence we are led to the conclusion that what Jesus primarily
said was the quotation from the Psalms, only meaning " meek " in
a spiritual sense and " earth " in a spiritual sense. With this He
began His New Law : " Blessed are those who are meek, or poor, as
the Scripture says that is, chastened and looking up to God the
Chastener, like Abraham, and Moses, and David, and the Suffering
Servant of the Lord. They shall be the Lord's people and inherit
the Land of His Promise 1 ."
1 [3242 (iv) a] In the course of His doctrine Jesus might often feel it necessary
to explain the meaning of the scriptural terms here mentioned. So might His
apostles, after His death. They might teach, for example, that "foer" meant
(i) "poor in their spirit," that is, longing after righteousness ; or (2) " mourning"
because of unrighteousness ; or (3) "meek." Also they would teach that "earth"
meant (i) "the kingdom of heaven (or, of God)," or (2) (Lk. ii. 25) "the
Consolation of Israel," or (3) simply "the earth" as used in the Scriptures, to
mean "God's earth." See 3442 c foil.
[3242 (iv) b\ Matthew appears to have added the first two of these explanatory
paraphrases to the third clause, which was the original. Luke appears to have
altogether rejected the original, and to have substituted the two paraphrases,
taking (apparently) "poor" in its literal sense, and therefore preferring vT<a\oi to
-pas. In this he was justified by the precedent of LXX in several passages.
But Luke also appears to have inserted "now " (which Matthew would hardly have
omitted if he had known the reading) in order to emphasize the antithesis between
this world and the next ("blessed are ye that weep now").
[3242 (iv) c] Matthew's habit of grouping together similar sayings affords here
perhaps a sufficient explanation of the phenomena of his text, without resorting to
the hypothesis of conflation. Otherwise the latter might be illustrated by Prov.
ii. 21 (R.V.) "The upright (/0s) shall dwell in (/caTaff/tijvuxrowri) the land
(marg. earth), and the perfect (5<7iot) shall remain in it." Here two MSS., or
correctors of MSS., by combinations of synonyms (xjniaroi with e0etj, and O.KO.KOI.
with dffioi, and otViTropes (yip) with /faraff/cijvuwoixri), have converted two clauses
into three or four. [For "dwell in," Sym. has "inherit,"
Similarly Justin Tryph. 53 conflates Zech. ix. 9 as " meek
[3242 (iv) d] Perhaps Luke's omission of the words about "inheriting the
A. s. 241 16
[3243] "THE SON OF MAN"
3. The "coming" spiritual
[3243] Some of Christ's sayings about " coming " present special
difficulty owing to our ignorance of the time and circumstances of
utterance. For example, Matthew and Luke agree in assigning to
Jesus the words: "Ye shall surely not see me henceforth (Lk. om.
henceforth) until ye say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of
the Lord 1 ." Luke places this early in his narrative and apparently
finds the fulfilment of it in the cry of the people " Blessed is he that
cometh," when Jesus rides into Jerusalem. But the context 2 makes
it probable that the words were His last utterance on leaving the
Temple for ever. Until Israel received a new heart and a new
spirit they would never " see " Him. This may be illustrated from
the Johannine prologue "The true light" had "come unto his own
and his own received him not 3 ." Also it may be illustrated from
what may be called the Johannine epilogue : " These things spake
Jesus and went away and was hidden from them 4 ."
earth " may be explained or at all events illustrated by his omissions of
Matthew's quotations of " Thou shall not kill " and " An eye for an eye." In both
these instances Matthew begins with a rudimentary O.T. doctrine and then adds
the N.T. development. Not only, says Matthew (v. 21 6) are we not to "kill,"
but we are also to be reconciled to our brethren with all speed ; Luke omits all
mention of "killing" but inserts (xii. 57 9) the warning to be reconciled. "Ye
have heard," writes Matthew (v. 38 9) "that it was said, An eye for an eye
(Exod. xxi. 24 etc.)... ; but I say unto you, Resist not... but whosoever smiteth
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also..."; and here again Luke
omits all mention of the words of scripture, but has (vi. 29) " To him that smiteth
thee on the [one] cheek offer also the other " Similarly as regards the statement
(obviously liable to be misunderstood) that "the meek shall inherit the earth,"
Luke may have regarded it as true, and even as uttered by Jesus, but as uttered
by Him merely as a basis for His own developed doctrine : " I say unto you, ' the
earth ' that is to be ' inherited ' is ' the Kingdom of God.' And this blessing
belongs to you who are ' poor,' that is to say pining for the spiritual gifts of His
Kingdom. You must needs be afflicted now, but such affliction is blessed because
it prepares you for the highest joy." This, in substance, is expressed in Lk.
vi. 20 21.
1 Mt. xxiii. 39, Lk. xiii. 35.
3 Mt. xxiii. 37 8 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem... behold your house is being left
unto you desolate "
3 Jn i. 9 n.
4 Jn xii. 36. John does not tell us where Jesus was when He "spake these
things" ; but probably He was (see Westcott on Jn xii. 29) "in the outer court of
the temple." At this point the drama of Christ's public life closes, except for
the Passion.
242
COMING IN HIS KINGDOM [3244]
[3244] It is more difficult to explain a saying peculiar to Matthew
and grouped by him with Christ's precepts to the Apostles when He
sends them out as missionaries : " When they persecute you in this
city flee to the next : for verily I say unto you, ye shall surely not
accomplish the cities of Israel until the son of man come 1 ." Origen's
comment on the "coming" in this most perplexing passage (which
Jerome, so far as concerns the "coming," makes no attempt to
explain) has been preserved only in the following brief extract given
by Cramer: "He does not mean the supremely bright and glorious
coming, the universal consummation, but the visitation of coming
and going* at different seasons ; through which [visitation] He, being
manifested in visions, was to afford His succour, owing to their
persecutions, filling them with confidence... as He promised, saying
(Jn xiv. 23) 'My Father and I will come unto him and make our
abode with him.'"
The rare word above translated " being manifested in visions "
occurs nowhere in the New Testament except in a single passage of
the Acts 3 describing the post-resurrectional appearances of Christ.
On this ground, and because of the context and the Johannine
quotation, there can be little or no doubt that Origen takes
Matthew's prediction as referring to Christ's resurrection, and to the
immediately following appearances to the disciples. But it is very
difficult to imagine the time or circumstances in which Christ could
have said to His apostles, in effect, "Go and preach to Israel;
I shall have risen from the dead and shall come to help you before
you have gone through all their cities."
A more probable, though far from certain, explanation is, that the
"coming" means, in this case, Christ's manifestation to the world at
large, including the Gentiles. If so, this tradition, which is peculiar
to Matthew, should be read with another, also peculiar to Matthew,
in the same discourse, "Depart not into the way of the Gentiles... but
go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel 4 ." Then might come
1 Mt. x. 23.
8 "Visitation of coming and going." ffL<f>oi-rrjffi.v, see 3353 h.
3 [3244 a} Acts i. 3 faTa.v6fi.evos. The word is very rare in Greek literature.
It mostly means appearing in dreams or visions. In LXX it occurs twice,
i K. viii. 8 "they (*'.. the ends of the staves) were not seen" Tobit xii. 9 of an
angel in human form, "All these days I did appear unto you but I did neither eat
nor drink, but ye did see a vision." On i K. viii. 8, see Breithaupt's Rashi.
4 [3244 ] Mt. x. 5. See 3349 foil. On the hypothesis that a saying of Christ
243 1 6 2
[3245] "THE SON OF MAN"
this supplementary tradition, " By the time you have gone through
the cities of Israel, the son of man will have come to the whole world."
This would agree with several ancient traditions, which say that Jesus
commanded the Apostles to go forth to the world after twelve years,
but, until that time, to preach only to the Jews, or not to depart
from Jerusalem 1 . In that case, it is best to suppose that the words
were uttered after the resurrection (3349 53).
4. " Coming in his kingdom "
[3245] In the following tradition about the " coming," Matthew
has preserved the most difficult version. It occurs in a saying of
Christ's placed by all the Synoptists just before the Transfiguration.
The first part is practically identical in the three Synoptists: "There
are some of those standing here 2 , who shall not taste of death till
they see...." Then they diverge as follows:
Mk ix. i Mt. xvi. 28 Lk. ix. 27
" ...the kingdom of " ...the son of man " ...the kingdom of
God having come in coming in his king- God."
power." dom."
Luke's version is the vaguest and easiest, Matthew's the most
difficult, and, all things considered, the most probable.
The Transfiguration might be recognised by all Christian
evangelists as being, in some sense, a manifestation of "the kingdom
in Mark and Matthew was regarded by Luke as post-resurrectional, we can under-
stand its omission by the latter, as he professed to write (Lk. i. 3) "in [chrono-
logical] order," and appears to limit his gospel to events occurring on , or immediately
after, " the first day of the week " (ib. xxiv. i, 13, 33, 50), the day of the resurrection,
apparently describing (3613 a b) Jesus as merely "parted from" the disciples at that
time, and reserving his account of the Ascension for the Acts. In the Acts (i. 4 9)
Luke gives a brief summary of post-resurrectional utterances as to the time when
God would " restore the kingdom to Israel," and as to the mission of the Apostles
to "the uttermost part of the earth." Some sayings, corresponding to these, are
placed by Mark (xiii. 32) and Matthew (xxiv. 36) before the resurrection, e.g. the
saying that no one except the Father knows the date of the end of all things.
1 [3244c] Clem. Alex. 762, Euseb. v. 18. 14, comp. Pistis Sophia i. i "Cum
lesus resurgeret e mortuis et transigeret undecim annos loquens cum suis /ta^Teus."
See Afoter 2892 foil. " After [some] years," AIAETEHN, would become "after
eleven years" by the repetition of IA after A I A.
2 Mk ix. i "There are some here of those standing [by me]," Mt. and Lk.
differ slightly.
244
COMING IN HIS KINGDOM [3246]
k
of God." But many might fail to see in it "the son of man coming."
And yet, according to any spiritual interpretation of " coming," we
must admit that " the son of man " would, in some sense, " come "
into the hearts of Peter and James and John, and, through them,
ultimately into the world at large, so far as He was revealed to the
three apostles along with Moses and Elijah in the glory of impending
martyrdom, not as lawgiver, and not as prophet, but as "son"
called thus from heaven, " my son," as being not only " son of man "
but also "son of God 1 ."
5. The perplexity of the disciples
[3246] According to Mark and Matthew, when Jesus and the
disciples were descending from the mountain of the Transfiguration,
He bade them tell the vision to no one till "the son of man" should
have risen "from the dead 2 ." Mark adds that they kept the saying
to themselves "questioning together what it meant the [expression]
* rising from the dead.' "
Matthew omits this addition, and Luke omits the whole. Perhaps
Luke thought it impossible that the disciples could misunderstand
"rising from the dead." Perhaps he knew that some oriental or
metaphorical phrase had been misunderstood, but did not feel
certain of the precise nature of the misunderstanding 3 ; he also
omits a saying about the similarity between the sufferings of "the
son of man" and those of the Baptist, thus:
1 See Origen's view, 3234 5.
2 [3246 a] Mk ix. 9 "arise (araffrij)" Mt. xvii. 9 "be raised (fyfpfrij) (W.H.
marg. dvaffrrj)." Comp. Mk viii. 31 "after three days arise (oyeurnji-at)," Mt.-
Lk. "on the third day be raised (fyepffrjrai)." Mark has the same Gk word as
the one in Hosea vi. i (LXX) "on the third day we shall arise (ifaari^ofjieOa.)"
3 [32463] See Jn xvi. 16 18, where, after Jesus has repeatedly used "a little
while" in connection with His approaching death and resurrection, the disciples
express their inability to understand what He means.
Mark has previously stated that Christ's prediction that He would (Mk viii. 31)
"be killed" and "rise again" caused Peter to "rebuke" Him. But now Mark
says that Christ mentioned (Mk ix. 9) "from the dead" and that the disciples
asked one another what it meant. Does this imply that at first Jesus merely
predicted "smiting" and "rising up,'' but afterwards prepared them for a
"smiting" unto death ? If so, why did not Jesus, in the prediction coming shortly
afterwards (Mk ix. 31), add "from the dead" especially as we are told in Mk
ix. 32 that the disciples "understood not the saying"? The best answer
appears to be found in the hypothesis that originally "smiting," not "killing,"
was mentioned (3198 foil.) and that Jesus restricted His words to those in Hosea.
245
[3246] "THE SON OF MAN"
Mk ix. 1113 (R-V.) Mt. xvii. 1013 (R.V.) Lk.(om.)
" And they asked him, "And his disciples asked
saying, The scribes say that him, saying, Why then say
Elijah must first come the scribes that Elijah
(marg. [How is it] that the must first come? And he
scribes say... come?). And answered and said, Elijah
He said unto them, Elijah indeed cometh, and shall
indeed cometh first, and restore all things : but I
restoreth all things : and say unto you that Elijah is
how is it written of the son come already, and they
of man, that he should knew him not, but did
suffer many things and be unto him whatsoever they
set at nought? But I say listed. Even so shall the
unto you that Elijah is son of man also suffer of
come, and they have also them. Then understood
done unto him whatsoever the disciples that he spake
they listed, even as it is unto them of John the
written of him." Baptist."
One reason for Luke's omission (though not perhaps the only
one, for he omits other traditions of Mark and Matthew relating to
John the Baptist or to Elijah) may have been that Mark and
Matthew differ greatly and that the text of both, and especially of
Mark, is very obscure. Mark's "as it is written of him 1 ," applied to
the Baptist's death, appears inexplicable. But " him " may have
meant, not the Baptist, but " the son of man 2 ." The Talmud teems
with instances of ambiguous " he," " him " etc.
1 [3246 <-] Prof. Swete ad loc. says "So Mk only. In this case Scripture
had foretold the future not by prophecy but by a type. The fate intended for
Elijah (i Kings xix. 2, 10) had overtaken John: he had found his Jezebel in
Herodias." But might it not be replied that Jezebel failed, Herod ias succeeded ;
so that John found a good deal more than "his Jezebel" in Herodias?
It is possible that "as it is written" is a corrupt repetition of "and how is it
written?". Matthew omits both mentions of "written."
THE "COMING" OF ELIJAH
2 [3246 d~\ On this hypothesis, the best explanation of Mk ix. 12 13 is that
Mark assumes the reader to know that "the son of man," or "Messiah" whose
"coming" has just been predicted (Mt. xvi. 18 "son of man," Mk ix. i
"kingdom of God") and who has been proclaimed "Son" from heaven is
the person uppermost in the thoughts of the disciples, and is designated by the
pronoun in "even as it is written about him."
[3246 e\ In the next place we are perhaps to suppose that the disciples have
not yet been able to lay aside the notion that Elijah with mighty works, aided
246
COMING IN HIS KINGDOM [3246]
^ A
perhaps by fire from heaven will prepare the way as a herald for the Messiah
to conquer all enemies and mount the throne of David. They have not been able
to grasp the thought that the throne has to be reached through martyrdom
of some kind, and that the highest glory is to be reached by this, and no other,
path. The disciples fail to understand what is written concerning the Servant
of the Lord, that He must "pour out his soul unto death" before He can ''divide
the spoil with the strong." And this, which "is written" contenting the Messiah,
has also been fulfilled concerning His fore-runner.
[3246 f\ These being the circumstances, we have to imagine a dialogue that,
if fully reported, would be to the following effect.
. Disciples. [How] say the scribes that, before the coming of King Messiah in
glory, Elijah must needs come first ?
Jesus. Elijah, it is true, is to come first [but not in the way in which you
expect him, descending in a chariot of fire from heaven. His coming is to be
spiritual and he is] to restore all things [spiritually (Mai. iv. 5 6) turning the
heart of the fathers to the sons, and the heart of the sons to their fathers].
And [if you think that an easy task] how is it written [in Isaiah] concerning
the son of man [whose task is to complete what John began] that he must suffer
many things and be set at naught [before he can achieve the victory and the
glory]? Nay, but I tell you [that the task is not to be accomplished in the way
that seems glorious to you and to the world, but with that other kind of glory.
I tell you] that Elijah has already come [in the form of John the Baptist to
prepare the way for the son of man] and they have done unto him [in the prison
of Herod] all things as many as they desired to do even as it is written about
[the son of man] A/w[self].
[3246^] This explanation supposes that the mission of John was to prepare
the way for Christ's religion of humanity, based on fatherhood and sonship, which
the Law, as interpreted by the Pharisees, was tending to smother under various
kinds of artificialities, typified by Corban (Mk vii. n comp. Mt. xv. 5). This was
implied by Malachi's "fathers" and "sons" in connection with Elijah's mission.
[3246 K\ Besides all these difficulties there is the one raised by the use of
"they" (not "Herod Antipas" but "they") in Mk ix. 13, Mt. xvii. n, " they-
have-done (lit. did) with him as many things as they desired." Origen (ad he.
Lomm. iii. 206) calls attention to this. He explains it thus ; Jesus speaks about
"the scribes" and their ignorance of the Baptist's mission, "in respect of which,
having been ignorant of him [i.e. of his mission and character] as being accomplices
(ffwomoi) in his imprisonment by Herod and \also\ in his execution by him [i.e. by
Herod] they [are in effect seen to\ have done (rerot^jtcuru') 'unth him as many
things as they desired? "
[3246 ] This view is consistent with the Synoptic account of the attitude of
the rulers of the Jews toward the Baptist ; they would have denied his divine
authority, only (Mk xi. 32, comp. Mt. xxi. 26, Lk. xx. 6) " they feared the people."
The fourth gospel implies that they favoured the Baptist (Jn v. 35) ' for a time "
but afterwards cast him off. It is consistent also with Matthew's account of the
Baptist's bitter attack on (Mt. iii. 7) " Pharisees and Sadducees" (3499 (vi) a), that
is, apparently, the upper classes. They probably felt about the Baptist what the
Sanhedrin is said to have felt about Jesus (Jn xi. 48} " If we let him alone, the
Romans will come and take away our place and our nation." Josephus favours
the same view. Herod Antipas, he says, thought it best to get rid of the Baptist
as being a revolutionary character (3338 b).
247
[3247] "THE SON OF MAN"
[3247] It is easy to understand Luke's motives in omitting these
obscure and perplexing traditions, but we are greatly indebted to
Mark and Matthew for preserving them, even in what may be a
corrupt condition. They help us to understand that Jesus, speaking
of the dead, may have used language in which the thought of their
fleshly personality was swallowed up in the thought of their spirit
and power. Ezekiel represents God as saying, concerning redeemed
Israel, " I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David prince
among them 1 ." There the meaning of " David" appears to be "one
who will reign in the spirit and power of David" presumably the
Messiah. Luke describes a vision in which the angel Gabriel predicts
that John (hereafter to be called the Baptist) will go before the Lord
11 in the spirit and power of Elijah*" that is, like Elijah in spirit and
power. Carrying this simile, so to speak, into metaphor, Jesus appears
to have said that John, the last of the prophets, was Elijah, just as
Ezekiel said that the new King was to be David.
After this, according to analogy, Jesus might prepare His
disciples for a difference between His glory and David's, corre-
sponding to the difference between John's glory and Elijah's.
Hitherto He may have used about Himself Hosea's words "smitten"
and "raised up" without intending to convey definitely to the
disciples, and without Himself definitely believing, that He would be
"smitten unto death" and " raised up from the dead" But now, in
the glorious manifestation of Elijah, whom He identified with John
the Baptist, it may have been revealed to Jesus that He too must
die, or must come so far into the darkness of death that He must
prepare His disciples for such a darkness and must not shrink from
the mention of " the dead."
[3248] If this is the meaning, it is not surprising that the
disciples were perplexed at the sudden introduction of this clause,
*from the dead" and that Luke omits it. For Jesus is not represented
as inserting it just before, or just afterwards, on the two occasions
when He speaks of being "raised up." It seems to have been suddenly
revealed to Him as a result of the vision of " Elijah " that the
1 [3247 a] See Gesen. i88a on David as "represented in coming (Messianic)
ruler," and comp. Ezek. xxxiv. 23 4, xxxvii. 24 5, Hos. iii. 5, Jer. xxx. 9,
also Is. Iv. 34 "...the sure mercies of David. I have given him for a witness..."
where Ibn Ezra explains "him" as Messiah.
2 Lk. i. 17. Concerning John the son of Zechariah : "And he shall go before
him in the spirit and power of Elijah."
248
COMING IN HIS KINGDOM [3248]
disciples must be prepared for such a trial : " Tell no man the vision
until ' the son of man ' shall have risen, or shall have been raised.
This ' rising ' I have predicted before, but I now say, not risen from
'smiting,' but risen from 'smiting unto death,' risen from ' the dead,'
I do not tell this to the rest but only to you. If it should prove so,
fear not. John, too, was killed. He shared in the fate of the Suffering
Servant of the Lord concerning whom Isaiah has written. Yet now
you have seen him in glory. You have heard him conversing with
me about my 'departure.' Be comforted then 1 . So will it be with
'the son of man.' It will be 'even as it is written.'"
1 [3248 a] Comp. the comment on Mk ix. n foil, in Cramer "So also must
the son of man suffer at their hands [i.e. like John, both in suffering, and in rising
from the dead in glory the glory that you have seen]. By the mention of the
death of John great was the comfort that He afforded them" Unless we supply, in
sense, the words bracketed above, "the mention of the death of John," so far
from "conveying comfort," would heighten fear.
[3248 b\ See From Letter etc. 866 foil, for an attempt to explain the Trans-
figuration from the exclamation of Peter about making three tabernacles for Jesus,
Moses, and Elias, and from such a Talmudic expression as " I saw the son of
Pedath sitting and. ..even as Moses...." The phrase " Thou art to us Moses, thou
art to us Elijah," being turned into unimpassioned prose, might become "He
appeared to them Moses and Elijah " ; and that might be changed into " There
appeared to them Moses and Elijah." But this, far from excluding, would favour
the view that Jesus, in the presence of the three disciples, had had a vision of
Moses and Elijah, and had spoken to them (as Luke says) of His future
"departure."
[3248 c] Elijah is the type of those prophets and martyrs who (Heb. xi. 37 8)
"went abtntt in sheepskins, in goatskins .. .of whom the world was not worthy,
wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and the holes of the earth."
Clement of Rome ( 17) quotes the italicised words about Elijah, Elisha, and
Ezekiel. He refers, no doubt, to the mantle of Elijah (inherited by Elisha).
Scripture makes copious mention of Ezekiel's transportations from place to place,
but no mention of Ezekiel's clothing, except in Ezek. viii. 3 (LXX, according to
Jerome) "border" (Symm. "fleece") of which Jerome says "in vestibus accipi
solet." "Border" is really omitted by LXX but is the rendering of Aq. and
Theod. Apart from such details, however, these traditions about the wanderers
"of whom the world was not worthy" recall Christ's saying that (Mt. viii. 20,
Lk. ix. 58) "the son of man " had not " where to rest his head." They suggest
to us that sometimes, when He was forced (Jn x. 40, xi. 54) to withdraw from
Judaea because of "the Jews " who sought to kill Him, and was warned (Lk. xiii.
31) to flee from Galilee because of the same danger from Herod, He may have
connected Himself, in thought, with the wanderings of Elijah, vindictively pursued
by Jezebel.
[3248 </] Another point in the record of Christ's life, in common with the
249
[3248] "THE SON OF MAN"
The more one studies the gospels and the prophets together, the
more is it forced upon the student that modern Christians, in spite
of a genuine worship of Christ, as in some sense their Saviour, will
never appreciate intellectually, historically, or morally, the mysterious
and pathetic nature of His sacrifice and the intensity of His trustful
surrender to the Father's will, until they recognise that He spoke and
thought and saw, not only as a divine Being but also as a human
being; not only as a Messiah but also as a poet and a prophet; high
indeed above the highest level of Hebrew psalmody and prophecy,
records of Ezekiel and Elijah, is this, that both these prophets are described
as lifted up by the spirit and carried to far-off places as Jesus is in the Tempta-
tion. The prophetic narratives describe these journeys mostly, if not always, as
miraculous. And these "liftings up" of Elijah through "the spirit" lead to the
thought of his being finally taken up (i K. ii. i) " into heaven by a storm " (R.V.
calls it " whirlwind" but Gesen. 704 does not give the word that meaning. The
word is the same as that in Ezek. i. 4 "a wind, or spirit, of storm" from which
issues what the Jews called "the Chariot " (see Index " Chariot")). Later on it is
said (ib. n) "Behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire, which parted them
[Elijah and Elisha] both asunder ; and Elijah went up in a storm into heaven.
And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariots of Israel, and
the horsemen thereof! " Afterwards, when Elisha's servant is alarmed by the sight
of a Syrian host, with horses and chariots, bent on surrounding the prophet, Elisha
prays, and (ib. vi. 17) "the Lord opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw ;
and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of Jire round about
Elisha."
[3248 e] All these passages, and the numerous parallelisms pointed out above
between Ezekiel's prophecy and the doctrine of the Gospel, suggest that the
thought of Ezekiel's Chariot and of " the chariots of Israel," must often have been
in our Lord's mind when He contrasted the death of John the Baptist with the
departure of Elijah. As seen by the eyes of Jesus, in Gethsemane at the foot of
the mount of Olives, on the night of His arrest, "the mountain was full of horses
and chariots of fire round about" Him. Historically, perhaps, Matthew (xxvi. 53)
was not justified in declaring (alone among the evangelists) that Jesus actually
exclaimed, at that moment, that the Father could send Him ''twelve legions of
angels." Yet, spiritually, Christ's belief up to the last in the ''horses and chariots
of fire round about" able to help Him as they had helped Elijah, if the Father
willed it, was (so Christians are convinced) a historical fact.
As to the Transfiguration, so far as it concerns the hypothesis that Jesus saw a
vision of Moses and Elijah, and held converse with them, our conclusion is that
antecedently it is in the highest degree probable. We ought to regard it as
marking a stage in the journey in which Jesus, certain of His goal but ignorant of
the exact path, went forward in the spirit of His ancestor Abraham, who (Heb. xi.
8) " when he was called, obeyed to go forth unto a place which he was to receive
for an inheritance ; and he went forth, not knowing whither he went."
250
COMING IN HIS KINGDOM [3249]
but still a poet and a prophet. He cannot be adequately appre-
hended (we do not say " comprehended " but even " apprehended ")
as long as we regard Him as a prosaic incarnation of God 1 .
6. Marks first use of the phrase " raised from the dead"
[3249] It has been noted above that, in Mark, the first mention
of being "raised from the dead" occurs in connection with John the
Baptist' 2 . The parallel Luke, though using the phrase, gives an
altogether different context from that of Mark and Matthew, who
place the words " raised from the dead " in the mouth of Herod
Antipas. Herod (R.V.) is supposed by them to say that Jesus is
John " raised," or " raised from the dead," Luke attributes the saying
to "some." Luke also uses the ambiguous "arisen" about another
" prophet," thus :
1 [3248 y"] To recognise Jesus as a poet is to recognise in Him that insight into
the "correspondence" between earth and heaven, or " respondence " of earth to
heaven, which has been mentioned elsewhere (3242 (i) (iii)) as an element in the
Hebrew conception of the suffering Mediator. The strong man of action, the man
of "this world," recognises in poets this sense of correspondence, but calls it
"frenzy" (as, in Plato's time, men called poets "mad"). The "forms" that a
Shakespeare sees a Theseus calls "airy nothing" :
" The poet's eye in a fine frenzy rolling
Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven ;
And as imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen
Turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name."
Mids. N. D.\. i. 127.
Paul \vas keenly alive to the man of the world's view, about "airy nothing,"
or, to use the Pauline phrase, about " the things that are not," and he says (i Cor.
i. 27 8) " God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame
them that are wise ; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might
put to shame the things that are strong ; and the base things of the world, and the
things that are despised did God choose, [.?,] the things that are not, that he
might bring to nought the things that are." The same thought of "from heaven
to earth and from earth to heaven" is implied in Jn iii. 13 "No man hath
ascended into heaven but he that descended out of heaven, 'the son of man.'"
There must be a coming down before there is a going up (3386 90). Concerning
Jesus, as a poet, originating the insight into the "glory" of flowers, see
3665 bd.
2 Mk vi. 14, comp. Mt. xiv. 2, Lk. ix. 7 9. Matthew and Luke have
previous mentions of raising the dead, Mt. x. 8, xi. 5, Lk. vii. 22. See 3183, and
3190.
251
[3250]
THE SON OF MAN"
Mt. xiv. i 2
" At that season
Herod the tetrarch
heard the report of
Jesus and said to his
servants 'This 1 is
John the Baptist.
He was raised from
the dead, and for this
cause the powers
work in him.'"
Mk vi. 14 16
"And King Herod
heard, for his [i.e.
Christ's] name had
become manifest, and
[people] were (or, he
was) saying 2 (lit.)
that John the Baptist
has been raised from
the dead, and for this
cause the powers
work in him. But
others were saying
that it was Elijah,
but others were saying
that [it was] a prophet
as one of the [well-
known] prophets.
But when he heard
it Herod was saying,
(lit.) '[He] whom I
beheaded, John, this
[man] was raised
[from the dead].'"
[3250] Luke's account seems to attempt to explain Mark's
and Matthew's tradition about Herod's utterance, as if they had
misunderstood "John I beheaded, who is this [that has arisen]?"
And a tendency to make Herod's utterance interrogative is apparent
in the various reading of Matthew "Can it be that this is...?" But
the important point to note in this passage is independent of these
verbal variations, and is to be looked for in the saying that "the
powers work in him."
"Powers" is a frequent Synoptic term for what most Christians
Lk. ix. 7 9
" Now Herod the
tetrarch heard all the
things that were being
done and he was
greatly perplexed be-
cause it was said by
some that John was
raised from the dead,
but by some that
Elijah had appeared,
but by others that
some prophet of the
ancient [prophets]
had arisen. But
Herod said, 'John I
beheaded, but who is
this about whom I
hear such things?" 1
1 Some authorities have "Can it be that this is...?"
2 W.H. txt. "were saying," marg. "was saying," R.V. vice versd ; f\eyov ev,
might mean "began to say." The translation given above attempts to distinguish
Mk eyJryepTcu, "has been raised," from Mk Mt. Lk. rjytpOi), "was raised" and
from Lk. avfyrri, " had arisen"
252
COMING IN HIS KINGDOM [3251]
call "miracles" and the fourth gospel calls "signs 1 ."' The precise
meaning of " the powers " here is doubtful, especially since it may
be the utterance of Herod Antipas, who might be supposed by
Christians to speak in a loose way of "the powers," meaning "the
Powers of heaven." But in any case the ultimate meaning is that
" miracles " are being worked*. It is stated in the fourth gospel,
as a well-known fact, that John worked no "signs." If that was
well known in Galilee, then Herod's utterance might mean, in effect,
" John the Baptist worked no miracles before. But now that he has
risen from the dead in Jesus of Nazareth, l the powers' (i.e. the divine
or supernatural Powers) work [thus mightily] in him."
[3251] In this form, it is possible that some version of the
Synoptic utterances may have been current in Galilee, even among
those who had seen John the Baptist and Jesus together and the
latter perhaps as a disciple, following "behind 3 " the former. We
may illustrate the position from that of Elisha, when he appeared to
Israel after the departure of Elijah, with " a double portion " of his
master's spirit, causing Jezebel, perhaps, to exclaim, "Elijah has come
back again to us in Elisha ; for this cause the Powers work in him,
with 'a double portion' of his spirit," without any thought that
Elijah had actually come back to live on earth. This view is hinted
1 [3250 a] Jn x. 41 "sign (<ninfio)" in the Synoptists ft/rajus, that is,
"power," or "mighty work."
- [3250 b] In Mk vi. 14 (Mt. xiv. i) (vepyoveiv ai 5wd/xis e* airrtf is the
meaning ' ' acts " or ' ' powers " ? If it is " acts " " the miracles [of which we hear
so much]" we should expect frepyourrai. Perhaps the meaning "powers" might
be supported by Swdjfett in Gal. iii. 5 ivepywv dwd/iett ev vfjlv "working in you
\wonder-working\ powers" (comp. i Cor. xii. 10, 28 9) ; but neither hi Heb. (Gesen.
150 b) nor in Aram. (Levy Ch. i. 124 b) does " mighty- works " seem to be thus
used, and Wetstein, Schottgen, and HOT. Heb. (on Mt. xiv. 2 and i Cor.) give no
instances of it. In i Cor. xii. 10, 28 9, the condensation of the style weakens
inference as to the exact meaning). Awdncts is a technical word for " Medicines
that work powerfully" in Galen, and Porphyry uses it for "divine Powers"
(Steph. Thes.) daino<ru> i) ffeots 77 run $wd/ie< ffvffai. It is perhaps appropriate to
the Herodian atmosphere to reject God and yet to have a superstitious belief in
"the Powers" (comp. Dan. ii. n, etc. "the gods"). To believe in "the Powers'
is quite a different thing from the orthodox Jewish belief in (Dalman, Words
p. 201) "the Power."
Prof. Dalman thinks Mk's text may be a misunderstanding of ' ' mighty-deeds
are done in Him," i.e. "by Him." The middle might easily be confused with the
passive. Some confusion is suggested by SS, which has, both in Mk and Mt..
"great is his power"
3 On "following behind," see 3519 a.
2 53
[3252] "THE SON OF MAN" COMING IN HIS KINGDOM
at, perhaps, by Luke's " arisen " in connection with " some prophet
of the ancient [prophets] 1 ."
[3252] However they may be interpreted, the narratives help us
to imagine the mental condition of large masses of the Galilaeans
after the Baptist's execution a seething indignation against the
murderer, a disposition to find fault with Providence for permitting
the murder, and a disappointment at the inactivity of the murdered
prophet's successor, who made no attempt to avenge him, and took
no step to prove himself the Deliverer or the Coming One. Besides all
these feelings there could not but be, among many, a questioning as
to the nature and time of that resurrection which was to precede the
Day of the Lord, when such sinners as Herod were to be finally
judged and such sins suppressed for ever.
These searchings of heart, if they influenced the disciples, may
well have influenced Jesus Himself, so far as concerns the shape into
which He threw the teaching intended to encourage them : " As it
has pleased God to suffer the Baptist to be smitten, so, or after some
such manner, will ' the son of man ' also be smitten. But it will be
nothing but what is decreed, nothing but what is 'written.' Even if
it should be 'from the dead,' yet 'the son of man' must needs be
' raised up/ "
1 [3251 a] "Some prophet of the ancient [prophets]," i.e. "some prophet of
the nature of the ancient prophets." "Of the nature of" is expressed in Mark
("as one of the prophets"). It would be possible to confuse "there has arisen
[as it were] one of the prophets" with "there has arisen [from the dead] one
of the prophets. "
[3251 fr] The statement that Jesus worked miracles because He was in some
way representative of John the Baptist, when joined to the tradition that John was
Elijah, would naturally lead to the conclusion in the minds of those who were
ignorant of the non-miraculous character of the Baptist's work that Jesus was
to John what Elisha was to Elijah. It would then follow that Jesus owed His
miraculous powers to John.
This may well have been a reason for Luke's omission of the Marcan tradition,
and for the Johannine emphatic intervention (x. 41) (lit.) "John indeed did not
perform a sign [, no] not-one (o-ij/xetw iiroi^ffev obbtv) " where the order is intended
to emphasize the negation.
[3251 f] It is difficult for us to believe that "the Jews" said to John the Baptist
(Jn i. 21) " Art thou Elijah?" But the appearances of Elijah sometimes called
by his name, and sometimes called "an old man," or (Chag. 25 6) "that old man"
are so frequent in the Talmud that (Levy iii. 463 a) some ventured to assert that
"aw old man" always meant " Elijah"
254
CHAPTER XI
"THE SON OF MAN" TO BE DELIVERED UP
i. The first passage mentioning the "delivering up" of
" the son of man "
[3253] We now come to a number of passages in which we shall
find " the son of man " described as destined to be " delivered up "
to persons variously designated in the parallel narratives :
(i) " into the hands of men " or " into the hands of sinful men" (2) " to
the chief priests and the scribes" or "/<? the Gentiles" (3264), (3) "info
the hands of the sinful" (325961, 3320).
The first and most difficult of these sayings is placed by the three
Synoptists after the healing of the demoniac boy, which follows the
Transfiguration. Mark and Matthew connect it with "Galilee."
Luke does not. But, later on, Luke mentions a similar saying of
Christ as having been uttered " in Galilee," thus :
Mk ix. 30 31
ML xvii. 22 3
Lk. ix. 44
Lk. xxiv. 6 7
"And... they
" But while
"'...for the
"'Remember
were going
they were gath-
son of man is
how he spake
through Gali-
ering together
destined to be
to you yet being
lee... 'The son
in Galilee ...
delivered up
in Galilee say-
of man is [to
' The son of
into the hands
ing [about] the
be] delivered
man is destined
of men.'"
son of man that
up into the
to be delivered
he must be de-
hands of men,
up into the
livered up into
and they shall
hands of nun,
the hands of
kill him, and
and they shall
sinful men, and
having been
kill him and on
be crucified,
killed, after
the third day he
and on the
three days he
shall be raised
third day a-
shall arise.'"
up(\V.H.marg.
riseV "
arise).' "
1 [3263 a] Lk. xxiv. 67 refers to an utterance of Jesus in "Galilee" about
being "crwified." But Luke's own version of the utterance in Galilee mentions
2 55
[3254] "THE SON OF MAN"
Part of the problem is to explain the divergences ("men," "sinful
men" "chief priests" etc.) not merely in the four parallel columns
quoted above, but also in the other instances hereafter to be quoted.
Another part is to ascertain the precise meaning of the " delivering
up," and the reasons for emphasizing it. This includes an answer to
the question, " Who was to ' deliver up ' Jesus ? Did the prediction,
from first to last, always mean ' the son of man will be delivered up
by Judas Iscariot'? Or had it any other meaning?" The solution
of this problem, in detail, has been attempted in a previous work
by the author 1 . The following pages will state the conclusions there
reached, adding confirmatory facts.
2. The "delivering up" referred to Isaiah liii. 12 (Heb.)
"intercession" (LXX) " delivered up"
[3254] " Delivered up " etc., when applied to Christ in the
Pauline epistles, regularly means the " delivering up," or " giving
up " (sometimes called " giving ") of the Son by the Father as a
sacrifice for the sins of the world. Though the word may also mean
"betray," it probably never has that meaning in the epistles 2 , but is
always used in a sense akin to that in which Paul quotes it from
Isaiah, when he writes to the Romans that Jesus " ' was delivered up '
for our trespasses 3 ."
This quotation is from the last words of Isaiah's description of
the Suffering Servant. This, as we have seen (3184 foil.), appears to
neither "Galilee" nor "crucify" Luke nowhere contains any prediction of our
Lord that He would be "crucified." In Lk. xxiv. 7, Luke appears to be
following a version of Christ's words spoken in Galilee that differs from his
own previous version. It is characteristic of Luke in the Acts to follow his
documents without reducing them to exact consistency. On the hypothesis that
he is doing this here, we have in Lk. xxiv. 7 another version of Mk ix. 31,
Mt. xvii. 22, Lk. ix. 44; and this, instead of "men," had "sinful men."
1 Paradosis, or, "/ the night in which he was betrayed." Part IV of
Diatessarica (A. and C. Black, 1904). That treatise gives in full, and dis-
cusses, all the passages in the gospels mentioning " delivering up " (as well as
those in the epistles) together with the passages in the Prophets to which they
seem to refer.
2 [3264 rt] Not even in i Cor. xi. 23 "the night in which he was (R.V.)
betrayed." The connection in Greek between 5l8u(u "give," and irapadlSufu
"give up," is necessarily sacrificed when we render the latter "deliver up."
3 [3254J Rom. iv. 25, quoting Is. liii. 12 (LXX) as indicated by Westcott and
Hort, but they should not have printed "trespasses (Trapa.irTwfj.aTa)" as part
of the quotation, for the LXX has "lawlessnesses (
256
TO BE DELIVERED UP [3255]
be alluded to in Christ's previous predictions about being "rejected"
and " suffering many things." But the Hebrew has " made inter-
cession " instead of " was delivered up" thus : " Therefore will I
divide him a portion with the great ... because he poured out his soul
unto death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bare
the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." If
therefore Jesus, immediately after the Transfiguration, began to
inculcate on the disciples that His being "rejected," and His
" suffering many things," both of which He had previously predicted
in accordance with Isaiah, were parts of an intercessory sacrifice
the sacrifice predicted by the same prophet we should naturally
expect Him now to resort to the language of Isaiah again, and to
predict that "the son of man" would ''make intercession." And if
He did this, we should naturally expect that the evangelists writing
in Greek for the churches at large would express the prediction in the
same Greek in which we find Paul expressing the fulfilment of the
prediction when writing to the Romans. Paul has written " was
delivered up," i.e. as a sacrifice. The Synoptists have written " will
be delivered up." This is just what might have been expected 1 .
3. The "intercession" of Moses
[3255] It has been shewn above (3184-5) that our Lord's phrase
about His own Passion, "suffer many things," is probably an
idiomatic Greek paraphrase of Isaiah's "man of sorrows" or ' ac-
quainted with grief." The phrase is used in The Assumption of Moses,
a work supposed to have been written at the beginning of the first
century, in which Moses is represented as saying "And all the tribes
will mourn Then they will remember me, saying, in that day, tribe
unto tribe and each man unto his neighbour 2 : ' Is not this that
which Moses did then declare unto us in prophecies, who suffered
many things in Egypt and in the Red Sea and in the wilderness
during forty years 3 ?"'
1 On the various renderings of Is. liii. 12 "made intercession," and on the
difficulties of the Heb., see Paradosis (Index, ira.pa.8i5u/jj.).
2 Comp. Zech. xii. 10 11.
3 [32S5a] See The Assumption of Moses (ed. Charles) iii. 8 it. Prof.
Charles says in his introduction that it was possibly written (p. xiii) 7 29 A.D.
In this work (ib. p. 106) "a twofold presentation of Moses appears: one is
' Moses living in the spirit,' which is carried up to heaven ; the other is the
dead body of Moses, which is buried in the recesses of the mountains. ''
A. S. 2 57 I?
[3255] "THE SON OF MAN"
This "suffering many things " might refer to the distress caused to
Moses at different times 1 by the backsliding of Israel. The writer is
perhaps blending Isaiah's phrase " man of sorrows," in the idiomatic
Greek paraphrase "suffer many things," with the prophecy of
Zechariah about the ungrateful Jews " mourning " for the Deliverer
whom they had "pierced 2 ."
It is not likely that a passage of this kind should have been
interpolated in the Assumption from Christian sources. But if it
comes from Jewish thought, committed to writing during the life of
Christ or not long after, then it shews that Moses who is pre-
eminently called " the servant of the Lord " might be regarded by
Jews in somewhat the same light in which we Christians regard the
Suffering Servant in Isaiah. Christians do not usually regard Moses
as " a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief." But that is
certainly one aspect of him presented in the Pentateuch, and
especially toward the close of his life 3 . And everyone must admit
that the dying speech of the first Christian martyr traces in the
temporary Hebrew rejection of Moses a forecast of the Jewish
rejection of Jesus 4 .
Whatever may be the explanation of the coincidence between
the gospels and the Assumption as to the phrase " suffer many
1 [3255 ] e.g. Numb. xi. n "Thou layest the burden of all this people upon
me," and Exod. xxxii. 32 "Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin : and, if not,
blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written." See also 3255 d.
2 Zech. xii. 10 14.
3 [3255 f] Comp. Sotah \\a (Driver and Neubauer on Isaiah, p. 8) on the
tradition of R. Shimlai (A.D. 230) that Moses "poured out his soul to die"
(Exod. xxxii. 32), that he was "numbered with the transgressors" (for he was
numbered with those that died in the wilderness) that he "bore the sin of many,"
because he atoned for the making of the golden calf, and that he "interceded for
transgressors," and see Mechilta quoted in 3242 (ii) a.
4 [3255 of] The Rev. E. G. King (Yalkut on Zechariah, p. 102) traces "suffer
many things" in the Assumption to Numb. xii. 3. He regards the book as
"dating probably from A.D. 6," and thinks that "at this period Moses was
regarded as the Prophet 'who suffered many things 1 for his people (cf. Numb,
xii. 3)." At first sight, this seems improbable. Numb. xii. 3 (R.V.) "was very
meek" is rendered in the Targums by a word that does not generally mean
"suffering" or "afflicted," but (Levy Ch. ii. 227) "lowly," "esteeming others
above oneself," like Hillel (as compared with Shammai). But see 3242 (i) foil,
on the close connection between "afflicted" and " meek," and on the many shades
of meaning of the Hebrew word. On the whole, it seems probable that, in the
Assumption, "suffer many things" does come from Numbers. In the gospels, it
might come from a paraphrase of Isaiah that applied to the Suffering Servant the
traditional phrase used about Moses.
258
TO BE DELIVERED UP [3257]
things," it appears clear that in the latter Moses is regarded as a
mediator. And these conclusions suggest that Christ's vision of
Moses on the Mountain of Transfiguration pointed back to a
mediation in the past typical of a more complete one in the future.
4. Could Elijah be called an "intercessor"?
[3256] Can it be added that Elijah, too, is regarded as a
mediator or intercessor ? Against this is the obvious objection that
he is said to have "made intercession against Israel 1 ."
Nevertheless there is a kind of intercession on the part of Elijah
for what may be called the spiritual Israel, that is to say, for the
nation regarded as worshipping the One True God, both when he
stands up alone against the priests of Baal, while the nation looks on
and oscillates, and afterwards, too, even when he believes that the
whole nation except himself is apostate. He seems to be hastily
assuming that God is suffering the true Israel to perish : " Why
forsakest thou thy people? Why sufFerest thou Baal to rule over
them?" This is, in a sense, an intercession for the true Israel as
well as a protest against the false one.
[3257] The combination of "Moses" and "Elijah" with
"Horeb"in Malachi 2 is very significant. Outside the Pentateuch,
Horeb is scarcely mentioned in the Bible except in connection with
the journey of Elijah for forty days and forty nights to Horeb the
mount of God 3 . Moses receives the Law in Horeb. Elijah, after
a vain attempt to restore it in a rebellious nation, flees to Horeb to
protest that the Law is destroyed except in himself. Herein, like
Moses, he " spake unadvisedly with his lips." But he was comforted
and taught better things by God.
Perhaps, then, in some sense, both Moses and Elijah were
regarded as mediators. They were at least mediators in this respect,
that both were willing to lay down their lives for Israel, though they
had not that perfect and trustful insight into the will of the Father
which only the Son could possess. If this view is right, then it is
not as mere representatives of written law, and of prophecy whether
unwritten or written, but rather as representatives of God's method of
1 Rom. xi. 2.
2 Mai. iv. 4 5 "Remember ye the law of Moses my servant which I
commanded unto him in Horeb... Behold, I will send you Elijah "
3 The only other instances are i K. viii. 9, i Chr. v. 10 " tables of stone
which Moses put there at Horeb," Ps. cvi. 19 "made a calf in Horeb."
259 172
[3258] "THE SON OF MAN"
redeeming men through men, that Moses and Elijah appear in glory
along with "the son of man" on this second " Horeb," where the
second law is briefly announced from heaven as the Law of Sonship :
" This is my beloved Son ; hear ye him."
5. Jesus implied " intercession for the transgressors"
[3258] In favour of the conclusion that Jesus predicted His
" intercession for transgressors," may be alleged, first, a general
correspondence between the predictions of the Passion and Isaiah's
prophecies about the Suffering Servant, secondly, special facts indi-
cating an original mention of "transgressors," or "lawless men,"
which has been obscured or suppressed.
First, as to the general correspondence. We have seen above
that the prophecy begins with the " man of sorrows and acquainted
with grief," and that this appears to be expressed by the Synoptic
" suffer many things." The prophecy adds " despised and rejected."
This, too, in various forms, the gospels contain. Then, after
diverging to the language of Hosea to express a "raising up," it
remains that Jesus should predict what Isaiah calls the " dividing of
the spoils." This is implied in the coming of "the son of man" in
glory with "the holy ones." Then He reveals to chosen disciples
a foretaste of this glory with two pre-eminent " holy ones," Moses
and Elijah, Law-giver and Law-restorer, to whom the Lord had
conspicuously given "a portion with the great."
Amid all these coincidences between the Old Testament prophecy
and the New Testament prediction and vision, it would come very
appropriately that Jesus should take up Isaiah's final words implying
that the Sufferer would become, as the Hebrew implies, an " inter-
cessor," or, as the Greek implies, one " delivered up " (that is, a
hostage, or vicarious sacrifice) for the transgressions of mankind.
[3259] As regards the verbal facts that point to the same con-
clusion, the reader is referred for details to Paradosis^; but the outline
of the argument will be given here, together with some evidence that
has been discovered by the author since writing Paradosis.
In Isaiah, "for transgressors " is literally " to transgressors." The
Hebrew preposition " to " (like the Latin and Greek dative) is here
used in the sense of "for" "on behalf of" or "on account of*." But
1 On the nature and object of that work see above, p. 256, n. i.
2 [3259 a] Comp. Gesen. for the Heb. "to" (^) meaning (514^) "on
260
TO BE DELIVERED UP [3260]
Justin Martyr once quotes the passage with the dative, and Symma-
chus renders it by the dative. Justin (in that quotation) and
Symmachus alter the LXX verb, as well as the preposition.
It is reasonable to suppose that, among the very many ren-
derings of the passage, some would retain the LXX verb, "was
delivered up " along with the literal dative of the Hebrew "to trans-
gressors" In that case the meaning would be ambiguous. No one
could tell whether the meaning was "to transgressors" or "for
transgressors." For those who accepted the former, the obvious
means of removing ambiguity was to substitute the frequent Biblical
phrase "into the hands of" for "to 1 /"' The result would be "the son
of man will be delivered up into the hands of transgressors." Now
this is substantially the actual version given once by Mark and
Matthew, and once (independently) by Luke*.
Moreover we have seen above (3253) that although Luke, when
recording the first prediction made in Galilee, in its order, parallel to
Mark and Matthew, has "into the hands of men" omitting "sinful"
yet later on repeating the prediction as a quotation in his own
independent tradition he inserts " sinful." This indicates, either
that Luke has erroneously inserted " sinful " in his quotation, or
that he, following Mark and Matthew, has erroneously omitted it in
the first prediction.
[3260] It remains to shew why, and how, "transgressors," rendered
by LXX "lawlessness," was apparently omitted in our gospels except
in the instances quoted above.
As to the " why," or motive, one motive may be discovered in
account of" and also (ib. 515 b) meaning "on behalf of ." Thus Gen. xxiii. 8
"intercede for me" is, in Heb. and Onk., "to me," but LXX and Jer. Targ. have
"concerning (irepi) me." "Be jealous for" is, in Heb., "be jealous to," and the
LXX has in Numb. xi. 29 accus. (v.r. dat.) i K. xix. 10 dat., i K. x. 16 dat. (but
""AXXos" has virtp, "on behalf of"). In Judg. vi. 31 "plead for" is rendered
first by birtp and then twice by dative. See also Paradosis 1162 b.
[32593] In the passage under consideration, Is. liii. 17, "make intercession for
(lit. to]" is rendered in LXX by Std, "on account of" and it is thus quoted in
Rom. iv. 25, but Sym. has the dative and Justin Martyr once (Apol. 50) quotes it
with the dative.
1 [3259 r] Comp. Deut. vii. 2, 23, xxiii. 14 (AF), where "deliver up before the
face of Israel" has been rendered by LXX, more definitely, "into the hands of
Israel," also Prov. xxx. 10 "accuse not a servant to his master," LXX "deliver
not a servant into the hands of his master."
2 Mk xiv. 41, Mt. xxvi. 45 (in Gethsemane), Lk. xxiv. 7 (said to have been
uttered in Galilee).
261
[3260] "THE SON OF MAN"
the fact that " for the transgressors? if understood as referring to
the lawless in Ibn Ezra's sense 1 that is, the Gentiles, who are
without the Law of Moses would seem to limit Christ's inter-
cession to those who are "without the law/' Paul avoids this by
inserting " our," and by substituting a word that does not contain
"law" "our trespasses 2 ." And codex A in Isaiah has "sins."
Jerome, however, in his comment on Isaiah, while quoting Paul
("traditus est propter peccata nostra, et resurrexit propter justi-
ficationem nostram ") immediately adds a quotation from Luke's
description of Christ's intercession for the Roman soldiers, as
though he took " lawless " to mean " Gentiles."
Those evangelists who took "lawless" as meaning "Gentiles"
would naturally insert in the gospels a tradition to that effect, and
accordingly the three Synoptists agree in inserting "delivered up to the
Gentiles" in one of the predictions of the Passion 3 . But, if we may
be guided by the trend of the evidence, it would seem that Jesus did
not say this, but said that He would be delivered up for, or make
intercession for, " transgressors."
And this throws light on Christ's words in Gethsemane, "The
son of man is on the point of being delivered up into the hands of
sinners*." It would be generally admitted that "sinners" would
1 On Is. liii. 12, Ibn Ezra says "the heathen nations are meant."
2 Rom. iv. 25 iraped60r] Sia TO. Tra.pairTij)fj.ara. tytuDv.
3 [3260 a] Mk x. 33, Mt. xx. 19, Lk. xviii. 32. Amid considerable differences
all agree in the statement about delivering up "to the Gentiles."
* [32603] Mark (xiv. 41 3) and Matthew (xxvi. 45 7) who alone record
these words of Jesus do not indicate that the soldiers were Romans. They give
a contrary impression (mentioning a "multitude," "chief priests," "scribes,"
"elders"). So does Luke (xxii. 52) though he adds "captains of the temple."
John alone makes it clear that Roman soldiers took part in the arrest (xviii. 3)
"Judas therefore having received the cohort (TTJV ffirtipav} and..., cometh there
arms," (ib. 12) " The cohort, therefore, and the captain-of-thousand
----" On this, Westcott observes that the title x'^'apx 05 ' ar| d tne
N.T. use of ffireipa, favour the view that a "cohort " is meant, but (i) refers to
Polybius as shewing that ffireipa sometimes meant the Latin "maniple," and
(2) adds that the two terms may be " both used in a general and not in a technical
sense for a detachment of soldiers and the officer in command of it. (Comp.
Rev. vi. 15, xix. 18, and Suidas s.v. ffireipa).' 1
But Rev. vi. 15, xix. 18 (mentioning "chiliarchs" next after "kings" (or
"kings" and "nobles")) and Suidas (merely mentioning the pi. ffireipai : irXridi}
ffTpa.Ttvf4d.Twv, <f>a.\ayyes, voti/j-epa, \eyeuv) do not favour the view that a captain of
any force less than "the cohort " could be intended. In Paradosis (1365 a) it is
shewn that the ffireipa. is also called fftj^ata, and it is suggested that John may
262
TO BE DELIVERED UP [3261]
convey, to Jews, and therefore to Christ's disciples, the impression
that those who were advancing to arrest Him were Roman soldiers.
But it is in the highest degree unlikely that Jesus, at such a moment,
would lay emphasis on the fact if it was a fact that His captors
were not Jews, but what a Jew might call "sinners of the Gentiles 1 ."
[3261] This evidence alone would seem to suffice to make it
decidedly probable that (i) Christ's prediction about being "delivered
up" has been recorded by the Synoptists in such a way as not
to convey its full meaning to those unacquainted with the LXX
meaning of the term, namely, "delivered up as a ransom" and
also that (2) the original prediction contained the words "for
tra nsgressors. "
In addition to this, there is further evidence shewing that, in very
early Christian traditions, " lawless ones," anomoi, was connected in
various ways with Christ's crucifixion, although the word scarcely
occurs in the gospels 2 . One of these traditions represents the
anomoi as being Roman soldiers 3 . Others endeavour to shew that
have confused some "sign (o^futof) " (comp. Mt. xxvi. 48), appointed for Judas
by the chief priests, with the "cohort (o-ijfMia)."
Westcott says that, whether ffireipa means maniple or cohort, "it will naturally
be understood that only a detachment of the whole body was present with their
commander." The "naturalness" of this "understanding" requires illustration by
instances, and I do not know of the existence of any. " The regiment and the
colonel " would hardly be used to mean a dozen or score of soldiers detached from
the regiment, in English ; and I must doubt the " naturalness " of such a use in
Greek, until it is supported by proof. Perhaps Westcott means that it would not
be "natural" to send so large a force as a cohort to make one prisoner. But the
whole of the narrative at this stage seems to disregard what is "natural." The
statement that the force whether cohort or maniple "went backward and fell to
the ground," cannot be fairly explained except as describing a miracle. The mis-
understanding from which this narrative arose is explained elsewhere (3326 a).
1 [3260 f] Gal. ii. is "We, being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the
Gentiles"
- [3261 a] Only in Lk. xxii. 37, quoting Is. liii. 12 "reckoned with the
lawless (dvofuav)."
3 [32613] In Acts ii. 23, Peter says to the Jews, concerning Jesus, "This
[man] by the ordained counsel and foreknowledge of God being (lit.) given
up [to death] (tK&orov) through the hand of lawless [men] (dia. x et P* arofwr)
ye having nailed to [the cross] slew." On this, Chrysostom (see Cramer) suggests
first, that "the lawless [men]" are "Judas Iscariot," and then, that they are "the
soldiers."
[3261 r] The latter is probably the meaning. " Lawless," in that sense, may
include the whole of the human machinery of Rome set in motion by the Jews,
from Pontius Pilate down to the soldiers that nailed Jesus to the Cross.
[3261 a'] Test. XII Patr. Benj. iii. 8 d^w/uoj vrb avonuv -rapaSo9^fffrai parall.
263
[3261] "THE SON OF MAN" TO BE DELIVERED UP
the Jews were really anomoi, since they broke the Law of God 1 .
Others indicate a confusion between anomoi " lawless " and anoi
which is the abbreviation for "men 2 ." It happens that the Greek
anooi or anoi also means "senseless [men]" or "mad [men]," and
though this word is not found applied to the Jews, we find a form
of it thus applied by Justin Martyr, and forms of this word also are
confused with forms of anomoi 3 .
It is not often that so great a mass of verbal evidence could be
found supporting a supposition so antecedently probable as the
hypothesis that Jesus described Himself as destined to "make
intercession for transgressors."
to 6 aju.WiU.os virep dv6/j.wv /ju.av9-no~fTai, shews Greek corruption, and perhaps also
Hebrew corruption. By the former, virtp is corrupted into vwo, and this shews
one way in which "delivered up for the lawless" might be corrupted into
"delivered up by, or, by the hand of, the lawless." By the latter, a Heb. g&al
meaning ''make redemption for" has perhaps been interpreted as "be defiled"
which meaning it sometimes has (Gesen. 145 6).
[3261/| The Heb. "in the hand" (Gesen. 390 i) means both "into the
hand" and "by the hand," so that misinterpretation of Heb. might explain the
tradition in the Acts, "into the hand (of the lawless)" being taken as "by the hand."
1 [3261 /] See Paradosis 1183 c quoting Acts of John ( n) "Before He was
arrested by the lawless (dvo/j.ui') Jews.... He said, 'Before I am delivered up to
them...'," where one text explains that "Jews" could be called "lawless"
because they were "under the law-giving of the lawless Serpent." Paul (Acts
xxiii. 2) describes a high priest as "breaking the law," comp. Test, xii Pair.
Levi xvii. n ifpets...civo/j.oi.
[3261 ] Test, xii Patr. Renj. iii. 8, in one of two parallel versions, besides having
"shall be delivered up by" (error for "for") "the lawless," adds (in an interpola-
tion) " in the blood of the covenant, for the salvation of the Gentiles and of Israel."
This illustrates the trend of thought, which would naturally lead evangelists to
change "lawless" into "men" if they found a version supporting the latter
reading. The interpolator might wish to shew that Jews, as well as Gentiles,
were interceded for by Christ.
- [3261 h] In Test, xii Patr. Levi iii. 2, two parallel versions have "men"
and "lawless," i.e. dvQpuiruv and avonuv. One MS. has avw/tc, which shews how
the error arose. The word dv6/j.wv being spelt avwfj.ui> (o and w being frequently
interchanged, seefok. Gr. 2114, 2691) was taken as an error for the very common
avbiv i.e. dvOpuwuv, "men." In Zeph. i. 3 "man,'' LXX has av&ftaot, apparently
an error for avovs.
:t [3261 i] See Paradosis 1163 a quoting Justin Apol. 63 about the sufferings
inflicted on Jesus "by the senseless (aVo^rwv) Jews," and notice (ib. 1183 d) Sir.
xxi. 19 dvorirois (A dvofj.ia rov). See also the confusion (Corrections 466 (e) b)
between forms of dvotw and forms of dvontu in r K. viii. 32, Dan. xii. 10,
Job xxxiii. 23.
264
CHAPTER XII
"THE SON OF MAN" MAKING ATONEMENT
i. "Delivering up," by itself, first mentioned by Luke
[3262] The facts brought forward in the last chapter bearing on
" delivering up " in Isaiah, must now be applied to the doctrine of
" delivering up " in the gospels. The two most important passages
setting forth this doctrine follow the Transfiguration and are them-
selves closely followed by the doctrine of Christ's "ministration,"
explained by Mark and Matthew as meaning that He "came to give
his life (///. soul) as a ransom for many*."
Concerning the first instance, fully quoted at the beginning of the
last chapter, little remains to be said except as to the omission by
Luke of all that follows the words " delivered up into the hands of
men," namely, (Mk) " and they shall kill him and having been killed
after three days he shall arise" (Mt.) " and they shall kill him and on
the third day he shall be raised up (W.H. marg. shall arise)" The
variations between Mark and Matthew indicate that the words are
an addition to the original, and that for this reason Luke omitted
them here, though later on he quotes a version of them (3253).
[3263] One reason for Mark's inserting the words may be found
in the following sentence, which Mark and Luke give thus, "But
1 "By itself,'' i.e. apart from "killing"' etc. which occurs in the parallel
Mark and Matthew. Luke "alone" (ix. 44) mentions it thus. See 3253 quoting
Luke and the parallels.
* [3262 a] Mk x. 45, Mt. xx. 18. Just before this, comes the petition that
the sons of Zebedee may be placed at Christ's right hand and left hand in the
Kingdom. This appears to be connected with their vision of Moses and Elijah
perhaps on Christ's right hand and left hand "in glory," with Jesus in the
Transfiguration.
265
[3264] "THE SON OF MAN"
they were ignorant of the [meaning of the] saying 1 " (where the
parallel Matthew has "and they were very sorry"*"}. "How could the
disciples" it might be asked "be 'ignorant' of the meaning of
the statement that Jesus would be 'delivered up,' as John the Baptist
had been 'delivered up'? If that was all He said, they might be
sorry, but how could they be ' ignorant ' ? "
One answer might be : "In this passage, the prediction about
being ' delivered up ' is an abbreviated and compendious one. It
was repeated by Jesus over and over again with predictions of being
'killed ' and ' raised up,' which are here to be implied. It was those
mysterious words about death and resurrection that the disciples did
not understand. If we insert those words, the mention of ' ignorance '
becomes intelligible." This course appears to have been adopted by
Mark, whom Matthew followed.
Another way out of the difficulty would have been to say, " The
disciples were not ignorant. They were sorry." This course appears
to have been combined by Matthew with the course adopted by
Mark.
Luke says that the mystery was as it were supernaturally "veiled
from the disciples that they might not perceive it," and also that they
"were afraid" to ask Jesus about it 3 . But the "veiling" and the
"fear" become much more intelligible if we suppose that the
original of his tradition ("delivered up into the hands of men"}
contained an obscure prediction for which the disciples were quite
unprepared that Jesus would be made an intercessory sacrifice for
the sins of men.
2. " Delivering up" with details of the Passion
[3264] In the following, it will be noticed that Mark and
Matthew mention two acts of " delivering up " whereas Luke
mentions only one. It is improbable that Luke would have omitted
one of the two acts if both had been recorded by traditions that
seemed to him trustworthy :
1 The words about "killing" and "arising," on the supposition that they
originally represented Hosea's "smiting" and "raising up" would be ambiguous,
and the disciples might be "ignorant of the [meaning of the] saying."
2 Mk ix. 32, Mt. xvii. 23, Lk. ix. 45.
3 Lk. ix. 45.
266
MAKING ATONEMENT
[3265]
Mk x. 334
"Behold, we go up
to Jerusalem, and the
son of man shall be
delivered up to the
chief priests and the
scribes . . . and they
shall deliver him up
to the Gentiles... and
after three days he
shall arise."
Mt. xx. 1 8 19
"Behold, we go up
to Jerusalem, and the
son of man shall be
delivered up to the
chief priests and
scribes ... and they
shall deliver him up
to the Gentiles... and
on the third day he
shall be raised up
(W.H. marg. shall
arise)."
Lk. xviii. 31 3
"Behold, we go up
to Jerusalem, and
there-shall-be-accom-
plished all things that
are written by (//"/.
through) * the pro-
phets unto 2 the son
of man, for he shall
be delivered up* to the
Gentiles... and on the
third day he shall
arise."
[3265] The repetition of "delivering up" in Mark (followed by
Matthew) may be explained by Mark's habit of conflation 4 . It
has been shewn above, ist, that the epithet "lawless," in connection
with Christ's Passion, was given sometimes to Gentiles, but sometimes
to Jews (3261); 2nd, that "delivered up far the lawless" was taken
as "delivered up to the lawless." Hence would arise, by conflation,
a tradition that Christ was " delivered up " to both : to the Jews,
first, and afterwards, by them, to the Gentiles.
Mark (followed by Matthew) has adopted this conflation. Only
instead of saying "Jews" a term that Jesus, Himself a Jew, could
1 [3264 <j] "Through" (5ta with gen.). Comp. Josh. xx. i (LXX) "I spake
unto you through Moses," Heb. "by the hand of Moses." The Hebraic "hand"
is inserted in the Gk of Acts xv. 23 (R-V.) "they wrote [thus] by them,'' Gk "by
their harui" i.e. wrote, and sent it by them that it should be expounded by them.
Lk. represents God as writing "by-the-hand-of (Sia) the prophets" as in Mt. ii. 5
(did). This use of 5ia with gen. is very rare in N.T. It is probably a sign here
of Hebraic origin. Ai=Heb. "by the hand of" ten times in LXX (Trommius).
2 [3264 b] R.V. "unto," representing the Gk dative. Perhaps "for" would
be better. Codex D and some versions have " about the son of man."' The use
of the dative to mean "about" is a Hebraism (3259 a).
3 [3264 c] For the divergence in Lk. from Mk-Mt. as to the voice of the verb,
comp. Is. liii. 12 (Heb.) " he poured out his soul unto death." LXX "his soul u'as
delivered up unto death," and Justin Apol. 50 "they delivered up his soul unto
death." Levy iii. 378 shews that the same form of the Heb. "deliver up" may
be either passive or middle in sense.
4 [3265 a] "Conflation," the habit of combining two renderings of one original
in a translation, a habit very frequent in some parts of the LXX, see Chu 20 155
and Indices to Diatessarica, "Conflation," passim.
267
[3266] "THE SON OF MAN"
not possibly use 1 he has used "chief priests," as to whom it has
been shewn above (3261) that early Christians might regard them as
practically breakers of the law, so that they came under the head of
" the lawless " in Isaiah's prophecy. Luke here rejects the interpre-
tation of "lawless" as referring to "Jews," and confines it to
" Gentiles 2 ."
[3266] Luke prefixes, as part of Christ's words, " There shall be
fulfilled all things that are written through the prophets for the son
of man." He also adds the comment, " But they [i.e. the disciples]
understood none of these things, and [the meaning of] this saying
was hidden from them and they did not know [what was meant by]
the words 3 ." This, combined with Luke's previous statement about
the " veiling 4 ," favours the view that these predictions of the Passion
in the form in which they were uttered by Jesus assumed the mystery
of atonement by human sacrifice, and that they were based on Hebrew
prophecy (" written through the prophets ") but at present beyond the
comprehension of the disciples 5 .
1 On "Jews" in Jn, see/0/fc. Voc. 1647, 1713.
2 [3265 ] Other Synoptic variations (Mk x. 33 foil., Mt. xx. iSfoll., Lk. xviii.
31 foil.) might arise, partly from Isaiah's prophecy, partly from the desire to
substitute, for a general term in Christ's prediction, a particular term in accordance
with the subsequent fact. For example, Mark's and Matthew's mention of
"condemning to death" might correspond to Isaiah's (liii. 8) "by oppression
(or, bonds} and judgment (or, condemnation) he was taken away," i.e. led away
to execution. The unique prediction in Mt. xx. 19 "crucify" substitutes a
particular for a general term, "kill," in Mk and Lk. It has been pointed out
above (3198 foil.) that "kill" in A.V. often corresponds to Heb. "smite" and
that Hosea uses the word "smitten" in his prophecy about being "raised up"
and restored to life "on the third day."
[3265 c] The Hebrew word for "smite" means in Aramaic (Levy Ch. ii. 109 b)
"abate (in value)" and in Syriac (Thes. Syr. 2368 9) "harm," "impair."
Onkelos (Brederek p. 73 a) renders it by several words implying "whipping,"
"scourging" etc., and also "killing." The nature of the word, and the difficulty
of explaining how God could "smite" the Messiah, would combine to favour
many interpretations of it.
3 Lk. xviii. 34. All this is peculiar to Luke.
4 Lk. ix. 45. See 3263. This also is peculiar to Luke.
6 [3266 a] Some brief phrases peculiar to Mark indicate that at this period
Christ's doctrine and even His presence, as though it still retained traces of
the vision of the Transfiguration caused amazement and awe to the disciples.
For example, when He came down from the mountain, the multitudes (Mk ix. 15)
"were greatly amazed and ran to him and saluted him." Also, just before the
utterance now under consideration (Mk x. 32) "Jesus was going before them, and
they were amazed, but those who were following feared."
[3266 b] But this " amazement," so far from bringing them closer to His
268
MAKING ATONEMENT [3267]
Two truths were still hidden from the minds of the disciples, first,
that " the son of man " must be in perfect spiritual unity with the
Father in heaven, and secondly, that the Father in heaven makes
Himself the Servant of His children on earth by giving to them
(in some sense) a portion of Himself. To teach the disciples this,
appears to have been the intention of Christ's next revelation.
3. " The son of man came... to minister"
[3267] In the following parallels it will be observed that Mark
(followed by Matthew) says the same thing twice, first using the
word "minister" (or "deacon") and then "slave" (or "servant").
Such duplication is the natural result of translation from a language
like Hebrew, where there is only one word to represent what we
in English distinguish as "slave" and "servant "whether the
scriptures mention Ham as "a servant of servants 1 ," or Moses as
"the servant of the Lord' 2 ." Luke omits the clause containing
" slave."
In the next place, Mark (followed by Matthew) has perhaps
misunderstood, and certainly obscured, Christ's words, by using,
instead of the imperative "let him become," the future "he shall
be." The former enjoins a duty, "Let him make himself last";
the latter appears to prescribe a penalty, " He shall be degraded
to be the last 3 ."
Still we shall find reasons for thinking that Mark has preserved
the meaning of the last part of Christ's utterance words omitted by
Luke, yet, if not uttered by Jesus, almost certainly expressive of His
meaning, as follows :
meaning, appeared for the time to be diverting them away from it, if we may
draw an inference from their disputes for precedence at this period, and from
their questions as to their reward. The distance between them and their Master,
now that He had been revealed from heaven as "Son," appeared so great that
they seem to have given up attempting to understand His predictions. They
were ready to bear the burden of all physical pains and penalties, because they
were satisfied that all would come well in the end when they shared the prize
with Him in His kingdom. But the invisible burden they did not yet know.
1 Gen. ix. 25. See Gesen. 713 foil.
2 Josh. i. i, 13, 15 etc. and freq. throughout the Bible.
3 On this ambiguity of the Hebrew "shall be," see 3394 j, comp. 3482 a c.
269
[3267]
"THE SON OF MAN"
Mk x. 43 5
" But not thus is
it [to be] among you.
But whosoever shall
desire to become
great among you 1
shall be your minis-
ter ; and whosoever
shall desire among
you to be first shall
be servant of all.
For also the son of
man came not to be
ministered unto but
to minister and to
give his life (lit. soul)
a ransom for many."
Mt. xx. 26 8
"Not thus is it
[to be] among you.
But whosoever shall
desire among you 1 to
become great shall
be your minister ;
and whosoever shall
desire among you to
be first shall be your
servant. Like as the
son of man came not
to be ministered unto
but to minister and
to give his life (lit.
soul) a ransom for
many."
Lk. xxii. 26 7
"But ye [are to
be] not thus. But
the greatest among
you let him become
as the youngest, and
the leader as he
that ministereth. For
who [is] greatest, he
that sitteth at meat
or he that minis-
tereth? [Is] not he
that sitteth at meat ?
But I in the midst of
you am as he that
ministereth 2 ."
1 [3267 a] 'Ev vfj.lv, "among you," in Mk x. 44, is altered to "of you" by
Codex D, and the second "among you" in Mt. xx. 26 is similarly altered by
Codex L. But "among you" may not be the same as "of you." 'Ev is a very
freq. LXX rendering of the Heb. "in the midst of," and this occurs in the
parall. Lk. "I am in the midst of you." " Desires to be great in the midst of"
would naturally mean "to be looked up to by all around as eminent," that is,
to be great as compared with others. Hence, in Matthew xx. 26 7 (W. H. txt.
and marg.) the variations (i) "great among you" or "desire among you," and
(2) "desire among you to be first" or "desire to be first of you," are not without
significance, as suggesting variety of interpretation.
- [3267 ] In Luke, after "the leader as he that ministereth," Codex D has
" rather than he that sitteth at meat ; for I in the midst of you came not as he
that sitteth at meat but as he that ministereth, and ye (emph.) grew [great] in my
ministration as he that ministereth." Codex e, instead of "Is not he that...,"
has " Among the Gentiles indeed he that sitteth at meat [is greater], but among
you not so, but he that ministereth."
[3267 c] On the ambiguity of the Marcan doctrine of "first and last"-
connected with Mk ix. 34 "Who [is the] greater (fj.dfuv)?" see Corrections
429 (i) foil, on Mk ix. 35, Mt. xxiii. 8 II, Lk. ix. 48, and on Mk x. 43 4, Mt.
xx. 26 7, Lk. xxii. 26. It may be occasionally a Greek paraphrase of the
Jewish doctrine of "elder and younger." Origen, on Mt. xix. 30, explains Mk
ix. 35 thus, " If any one desires (/JotfXercu) to take on himself the true 'first' 1 (TO
a.\t}6i.vbv wpurov) let him become (yevtaOw) among those who have been supposed
by the Israel of this world (inrb TOV vvv 'la-payX) to be last." Similarly in Jtrem.
Horn. viii. 4, he quotes Mk ix. 35 and i Cor. iv. 9 " the apostles last" as a proof
that " Paul observed this commandment (^roXiJ)," meaning the "commandment,"
or precept, that one is to make oneself " last" by being ready to suffer and to serve.
270
MAKING ATONEMENT [3268]
In parallels of this kind, words of an explanatory nature inserted
in the earliest documents, but not in the latest, will often be found to
have been rightly rejected by the author of the latest as additions. We
have now to ask whether this appears to be the case here. Since
Jesus is speaking of a " servant," and of the right kind of " serving,"
it is natural to suppose that here, as before, He may have in view
God's Servant as described in Isaiah. We start at all events from
that hypothesis.
4. The Servant in Isaiah
[3268] The clause mentioning the "servant" in Isaiah is very
variously rendered. " By his knowledge shall my righteous servant
make many righteous," in the margin of our Revised Version, is closer
to the Hebrew, verbally, than is the Revised text, "shall justify
many." The LXX has "to make righteous the righteous one [who is]
rightly (///. well) serving [as a slave] to many" (Driver and Neubauer
" to justify the just that serveth many well "). The reason why LXX
qualifies "serving" by "weir 1 is, to indicate to Greek readers that
" serve " must not be taken here in its very frequent bad and servile
sense, but in a good sense. Symmachus attains the same object by
using a different word, rendered by Driver and Neubauer "minister"
but usually meaning "serve" in a good sense 1 . These ancient and
modern renderings usefully illustrate the difference pointed out in
the last section between " being a minister" and " being a skive."
The Targum takes the noun "servant" as the causative of the
verb "serve." "By his wisdom he will hold the pure [as] pure
in order to make many sen-ants (lit. cause-to-serve many) to the
Law 2 ." R. Sa'adyah Gaon has "by his understanding shall the
righteous, as also my messenger, justify many 3 ," and Jacob ben
For instances of confusion between the future of statement and the future of
precept in Hebraic Greek, see 3394 j.
In Mk x. 31, Mt. xix. 30^ Lk. xiii. 30, the future appears to be a future of
statement, and the doctrine apparently states that many of those who are " first "
in order of time, as regards their calling to the Gospel, or in worldly esteem, will
be placed " last " in the final judgment.
1 [3268 a] e.g. Mt. iv. 10, Lk. iv. 8, quoting Deut. vi. 13 "Him alone shah
thou serve (Xarpewreis)."
- [3268 &] This appears to be also the view of Ibn Ezra, who omits " servant "
and has " 'justify many,' viz. the nations whom Israel will teach to fulfil the
Lawv'
3 Driver and Neubauer p. 18.
271
[3269] "THE SON OF MAN"
Reuben says that "my servant" as applied to the Godhead, would
be " a term of indignity^"
[3269] This last remark goes to the root of the matter. It shews
how hard it must have seemed to many not to Jews alone to
believe, as Paul believed, that the Son of God, when He became
flesh, was not only " made in the likeness of men " and " found in
fashion (or, outward frame) as a man," but also essentially incarnate
as a servant, " He emptied himself, having taken the [essential'] form
of a servant 2 ." Yet the whole of Christ's theology if we may so
call it is based on this.
Jerome gives the meaning of the Hebrew of Isaiah thus : " The
Father's 'Servant,' who had (Philipp. ii. 7) 'taken on himself the
form of a servant,' and had served the will of the Lord, will justify
(or, make righteous) many believers (credentes) from the whole of
the world." The LXX he renders thus: '"And to justify (or,
make righteous) the just (or, righteous) [one] who hath well served
(servierit) many,' for ' He came not to be ministered unto but to
minister ' (Mk x. 45, Mt. xx. 28) [for example], in Peter's feet 3
(Jn xiii. 6 10) washing away the sins of all the Apostles."
Summing up, we find three interpretations of Isaiah, (i) "the
righteous servant of God," (2) " the righteous servant, in a good
sense 4 , of men," (3) "making men righteous servants of God."
5. MarKs (and Matthew's] tradition
[3270] The verbal juxtaposition, in Mark, of "servant" "minister"
" soul," and " many," together with the mention of " ransom " which,
in such a context, implies atonement for sin makes it almost certain
1 lb. p. 60.
2 [3269 a] Philipp. ii. 6 7, "being in the form of God. ..having taken the
form of a servant," where Lightfoot says (p. no) " M-op<t>ti implies not the external
accidents but the essential attributes" and (p. 112) "the characteristic attributes."
3 [3269^] Why "Peter's feet" since Jesus had previously, it would seem,
washed the feet of others? Perhaps because (according to Jerome) it was not till
the washing of Peter's feet that the other disciples apprehended the meaning of
the act. When Jesus said to Peter " If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with
me," and when Peter exclaimed "Lord, not my feet only," then (Jerome supposes)
the disciples began to apprehend. On the Washing of Feet and its meaning, and
on the character of the narrative, see 3276.
4 " In a good sense," LXX "well," may be illustrated by Rom. xv. 2
" Let each man please his neighbour [not of course as a man-pleaser or flatterer
but] for that which is good, to edification."
272
MAKING ATONEMENT [3271]
that Mark 1 had in view Isaiah's context mentioning "servant" and
"many" and "he shall bear their iniquities" " he poured out his soul
unto death" "he bare the sin of many' 2 "
Mark seems to represent a combination of the second of the
three interpretations given above (namely, " the righteous servant of
men, in a good sense") with thoughts derived from the third
(namely, making men righteous servants of God, by an atoning,
purifying, or converting power). But instead of expressing " in a
good sense" by adding "well" to "serving" (as the LXX does)
Mark adds another version substituting for the lower word, " servant,"
the higher word, " minister 3 ."
[3271] It may be objected that the notion of "ransoming" is
incompatible with the notion of triumphing implied in Isaiah's "he
shall divide the spoil with the strong." Literally and logically it is
incompatible. But it is not incompatible to readers of the Law and
the Prophets. In Isaiah, God says, " Ye were sold for naught and
ye shall be ransomed without money," and in Exodus, " I will
ransom you with stretched out arm 4 ." Taken together, the two
passages suggest, as others do, a twofold view of ransom. From the
point of view of the enemies of Israel, it will be found that Egypt or
Assyria will receive no " ransom," except so far as a warrior in reply
to an enemy's demand for ransom may offer him the steel of a
menacing sword, saying, " Take this for ransom." But from the
point of view of Israel, it will be found that God will pay for His
beloved Child the ransom of His protection, His arm outstretchedj
His loving solicitude, since He is "afflicted in their affliction 5 ."
Nothing can be more confidently asserted about Jesus than this, that
He was "afflicted in the affliction" of the miserable beings whose
evils He bore and often healed; and that He did not ''drive out
devils" without sense of pain and sympathy with the oppressed, as
well as effort and struggle against the oppressor. The effort might
in some sense be called a "ransom." It was already, so to speak,
1 By " Mark" it may be useful to repeat here, as often elsewhere, is meant
" Mark's authority " or " Mark's original." 2 Is. liii. n 12.
3 [3270 a] "Minister," 5idicovoj (see Epict. iii. 24. 65, and comp. iii. 22. 63
and 69 etc.) is used by Epictetus in a noble sense, and applied to Diogenes as the
minister of Zeus.
4 Is. Iii. 3, Exod. vi. 6. The same word gdal, meaning " play the part of a
kinsman," is used in both passages, see 3512 foil.
5 Is. Ixiii. 9, on the interpretation of which, see 3518^", 3560 a.
A. S. 273 18
[3272]
"THE SON OF MAN"
an expenditure, drop by drop, of His life-blood, to be summed up in
the pouring forth of His soul on the Cross.
[3272] The language of Isaiah about "dividing the spoil" is
illustrated by the following passage from the Synoptists (3512 a) :
Mk iii. 27
" No one can enter
into the house of the
strong [man] and
plunder his goods,
except he first bind
the strong [man]; and
then he will plunder 1
his house."
Lk. xi. 21 2
" When the strong
[man] fully armed
guardeth his own
court, his goods are
in peace ; but when a
stronger than he shall
come upon him and
overcome him, he
taketh from him his
whole armour where-
in he trusted and
divideth his spoils 1 ."
In Isaiah, the Targum, the LXX, and Ibn Ezra 2 , represent the
Sufferer as dividing the spoil " of the strong " (not " with the
strong"). That was perhaps the interpretation adopted in this
Synoptic tradition. The parable seems to say, "Satan is not to be
Mt. xii. 29
" How can one
enter into the house of
the strong [man] and
plunder his goods,
except he first bind
the strong [man] ?
And then he will
plunder 1 his house."
1 " Plunder (Siapirdfa) " (instead of R.V. "spoil" which would be o-Ki/Xetfw) is
intended to disabuse the reader of the impression given by R.V. that there is a
verbal similarity between " spoil" in Mk-Mt. and " spoils (ffKvXa) " in Lk.
2 [3272rt] Ibn Ezra implies that "all commentators" take it as meaning "with
the strong." And this view has been taken above (3258) as possibly influencing
Jesus. But the Messiah might be regarded as fulfilling both interpretations.
[3272 b] Comp. Is. xlix. 24 " Shall the prey be taken from the mighty [one] "?
LXX " shall any one take spoils (ovcOXa) from a giant (yiyavros, Sym. 8vi>arov) ? "
The Targum gives what appear to be two opposite interpretations of this. Of
these, one is adopted in the Psalms of Solomon v. 4 ov yap X^^erat ffKvXa
avOpuiros irapa avdpbs dwarov, where " mighty man" represents God. The other
is adopted by Ibn Ezra and Rashi, namely, that " the mighty [one] " is Esau, the
oppressor of Israel. The Heb. rendered by LXX here "giant," and by Sym.
"mighty," is freq. rendered by LXX hrxvpos, "strong." In the gospels, "the
strong man" appears to be Satan, the oppressor of the sons of Adam, and "the
stronger " is that Son of Adam, or Son of Man, whom Paul calls the Last Adam.
[3272 c\ In Is. xlix. 25, " Even the captives of the mighty [one] shall be taken
away, and the prey of the terrible [one] shall be delivered," the LXX has, for the
first clause, " If a man take-captive a giant, he shall take [his] spoils (oTcOXa)."
This has considerable resemblance to Mk-Mt. " unless he do bind the strong man
first, and then he will plunder his house," with the addition of the word peculiar
to Luke ("spoils").
274
MAKING ATONEMENT [3273]
driven out of man by compromises, or negotiations. The Redeemer
must enter into the very house of Satan and grapple with him there
at close quarters. Only thus can He hope to triumph and to
distribute the spoils to the rescued captives, giving them back the
faith and hope and love of which the enemy has despoiled them."
[3273] If this is a metaphor, it seems at all events a metaphor
powerful in producing actualities that the way for a Redeemer to
redeem a lost soul is to enter into the house of Satan in that man's
soul and there to contend against Satan not with incantations and
denunciations but with such love as Christ first revealed to the
world, making Himself one with the sinful man or woman, as though
saying to the evil one, "Come, take me as prisoner in their stead, bind
me as their hostage. Then, keep me if you can. But if you cannot,
the Law is that you must let them go."
It may be true that this is largely subjective. It may be true
that we shall ultimately find the literal interpretation of " Satan " and
" the evil one " to have been a temporary and rudimentary phase of
truth. Yet even those who disbelieve in the existence of " the evil
one," will admit (many of them) that there is at any rate " evil," and
that such imaginary conflict as this the stronger entering into the
house of the strong has often proved wonderfully efficacious in
driving real evil out. If we believe that Christ did " drive real evil
out," that is one argument in favour of the genuineness of the
doctrine of ransom.
For these and other reasons reasons derived from the prophets,
the evangelists, the history of Christianity, and the nature of man
Luke's omission of the Marcan tradition of "giving ransom" must
not be regarded as proving that the doctrine was not Christ's. Luke
cannot be supposed to have disapproved of the doctrine put in a
slightly different form. For he himself uses four times and is alone
among the evangelists in using the verb " ransom " and the noun
that signifies "the process of ransoming 1 ."
Not improbably Luke disliked the word here used by Mark and
Matthew. It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Implying,
as it does, "price of ransom," and combined with the word "give"
it might seem to imply definitely that Jesus gave His soul, or life,
definitely to Satan, in order to ransom men from evil. And this
1 [3273 a] " Ransoming," i. 68, ii. 38 \i/r/>w<m, xxi. 28 diroXi/Tpfaxm, "ransom"
(vb) xxiv. 21 Xin-pdo/Mu.
275 l8 2
[3274] "THE SON OF MAN"
might well cause difficulty 1 . Moreover Luke was probably aware
that the Marcan tradition, although it expressed the essence of
Isaiah's prophecy on which it was based, diverged from it in form.
6. Luke's tradition
[3274] We pass now to Luke's parallel to the Marcan " give his
soul a ransom," namely, " I in the midst of you am as he that
ministereth." Luke places this (much later than Mark's and
Matthew's parallel) at the Lord's Supper. On that occasion Jesus
might be said to have "ministered" to the disciples the bread and
wine which He called His body and blood ; and that occasion may
have seemed to Luke to be, above all others, the one on which Jesus
set forth His doctrine of " service " or " ministry," in accordance with
which He fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah concerning the Servant
of the Lord.
It was said above (32689) that, in Isaiah, the "righteous servant
justifying many " was defined by interpreters in three ways, and that
the LXX had "rightly serving [as a slave] to many." Luke seems
to incline to this interpretation. He leaves the application of
" righteous " an open question ; but he expresses " rightly serve [as a
slave] " by the word " minister," which excludes the wrong kind of
" serving," that of an unwilling slave. Perhaps Christ's action at the
Last Supper in "ministering" the bread and the wine to the disciples,
was regarded by Luke as explaining in a definite way the expression
" as he that ministereth," and as defining exactly the occasion on
which the words were uttered.
[3275] Moreover the shorter form of the Lucan account of the
Eucharist adopted by Westcott and Hort, but placed by our
Revised Version in the margin omits all words that might define
the " ministration " as being not only to the disciples (a gift) but also
for them (a sacrifice}" 1 . Thus Luke differs from Mark and Matthew,
1 It has caused difficulty, even to Origen (on Mt. xx. 28) and much more
to others.
2 [3275 a] See Lk. xxii. 19, 20, where W.H. place in double brackets the
passage marked in the R.V. marg. as omitted by some ancient authorities.
Lk. xxii. 21, 30 twice mentions "table" (in the discourse during and after the
Eucharist). Lk. xxii. 21 "on the table" is omitted by the parall. Mk-Mt.
Lk. xxii. 30 "at (lit. on) my table" occurs in a tradition omitted by Mark and
placed much earlier by Matthew (xix. 28) who also omits "table." This bears
on the notion of the bread and wine as given to the disciples at a meal, rather
276
MAKING ATONEMENT [3276]
but especially from Mark, who alone uses in his account of the Last
Supper the strong preposition "in-behalf-of" ("shed in-behalf-of
many," Matthew ''about many") 1 .
Here it should be mentioned that, except in this single passage
of Mark, the mediatorial preposition, "in-behalf-of" is nowhere
applied by any Synoptist to any action of Christ's. But in the fourth
gospel it is very frequently thus used 2 . This small verbal character-
istic indicates an important doctrinal characteristic, which it will be
convenient to touch on here.
7. John's tradition
[3276] Toward Luke's doctrine, that Jesus on the evening of the
Last Supper said to the disciples " I am in the midst of you as he
that ministereth," John's attitude is that of one partly accepting, but
partly correcting and supplementing.
"Jesus did not merely say this, He did it" thus, briefly, might
be described the lesson taught by the fourth gospel. More exactly,
it may be said that in this gospel Jesus does not really say " I am
your minister" or "I am your slave," but symbolizes or dramatizes
the fact. He assumes the clothing 3 , as well as the office, of one of
the lowest class of those waiting at table.
Origen connects this act with what may be called expiation.
Christ, he says, "wiped off" the uncleanness from the feet of the
disciples, " perhaps to make their feet cleaner but perhaps to take
into His own body by means of the 'napkin,' with which alone He
was ' girt,' the filth that was on the feet of the disciples... for (Is. liii. 4,
comp. Mt. viii. 17) 'He bears our infirmities*.''" According to Origen,
than/or them as a sacrifice. See 3269 foil, where it has been pointed out that the
ambiguity of the Hebrew prepositional dative (^ meaning "to" or "for") has
produced many divergent interpretations of the words "delivered up for the
lawless."
1 Mk xiv. 24 virtp, Mt. xxvi. 28 icepL
2 Joh. Voc. 1885 A.
3 Jn xiii. 45.
4 [3276 a] See, for the quotation, Notes 2963 4. The parallel passages
Mk x. 43 5, Mt. xx. 16 8, Lk. xxii. 26 7 (and ib. in D) are compared in
Paradosis 1275 81, where it is suggested that asAam, "ransom," may have been
confused with shemesh, "minister." The Washing of Feet is also discussed (ib. 1282
foil.) and it is admitted that confusion may have arisen from taking literally such a
word as irepi^i^a, " offscouring " (used sometimes in phrases corresponding to our
epistolary use of "yoitr humble servant ") and also from such expressions as i Pet. v.
277
[3277] "THE SON OF MAN"
it is as a consequence of this act that Jesus says to the disciples at
least to all that frankly accepted the purification, to all but Judas
" Ye are clean."
[3277] John's omissions, as well as insertions, in his narrative of
the Last Supper, are curiously opposite to those of Luke. Luke
omits all mention of purification or atonement and lays stress on the
ministering at " the table " and on the future feasting of the Twelve
at " the table " of their Lord in His Kingdom. John gives the fore-
most place to purification and makes no mention at all of any
" table," present or future, nor even of the giving of the bread and
wine except to Judas.
It would be absurd to infer that, in John's belief, the bread and
the wine were not really given at the Last Supper. The right and
reasonable inference is that the fourth evangelist felt that enough of
varying tradition already existed as to the words accompanying that
gift, but not enough about its spiritual meaning, not enough to shew
that the gift was far from being the result of a sudden impulse of
divine love in Christ ; it was part of the principle of His divine love
dating from the days in Galilee, and from the very beginning of the
Gospel 1 .
5 which says, in effect, " clothe-yourselves-like-servants-waiting-at-table (e7/co/ot/3c6-
ffaffOe, lit. put-on-the-apron] with humility to [serve"] one another." But, even when
these admissions are made, it is still maintained that Jesus may have actually
performed this act, if not on the night of the Last Supper, on some other
occasion or occasions, and that nothing can be inferred from Mark's omission.
Further research has confirmed me in the following conclusion (Paradosis 1288)
"The more Mark is studied, the more his gospel suggests that it is (966) a narrative
based on notes conflated or elaborated in picturesque detail of a few isolated,
popular, and striking actions, or descriptions, that never aimed at completeness and
never attained accuracy. Considering the length of the time that must have been
spent by Jesus and His disciples in the ' upper chamber' together on the night of the
Last Supper, it is probable that He said to them more than a hundred times as
much as Mark has set down. And, while teaching so much in words, He may
very well have taught more than once in symbols. As, on another occasion, He
placed a little child in the midst of the disciples for an example of humility, so
now He may have made Himself a servant waiting at table, to teach them a
similar but deeper lesson. Whatever may have been the actual details never
perhaps now recoverable evidence, both textual and antecedent, indicates that
the Fourth Gospel, as regards the special subject of Christ's last words on
' ransoming ' and ' ministering,' goes closer to the mark than the Three, though it
mentions neither ' minister ' nor ' ransom ' but only strives to give the spirit of the
letter."
1 [3277 a] Comp. Jn xiii. i " having loved his own that were in the world
he loved them to the end," where the meaning seems to be "having [from the
278
MAKING ATONEMENT [3278]
To that early period, then, John throws back the doctrine that
Jesus gives His flesh and blood to men to be their food and their
life. And, so far, he differs from all the Synoptists. But he
differs more especially from Luke in that he emphasizes, from a very
early date, that "giving in behalf" (as well as "giving /<?") which
Luke entirely omits : " My flesh is in behalf of the life of the
world 1 ."
[3278] As regards the difficult question raised by the Synoptic
tradition of "ransom," namely, "ransomed from whom?" the fourth
gospel suggests an answer or, rather, a more accurate re-statement
in a metaphor, peculiar to itself, that of "the wolf." This is not
mentioned by any Synoptist, but it is implied faintly by Mark when
he says (before the Feeding of the Five Thousand) that Jesus " had
compassion on the multitudes because they were as sheep that had
no shepherd 2 "; more distinctly by the quasi-parallel Matthew 3 ,
which adds to this "they were worried (or, lacerated) 4 and scattered
[in flight] " ; but not at all by the parallel Luke, which omits the
whole of this simile and simply says that Jesus received the multi-
tudes and taught them and healed such as needed healing 5 .
first} loved them... he loved them {consistently} to the end." The Acts of John 8
"And He used to bless His own [loaf] and distribute it to us" makes the
communion in "one loaf" (such as the Jews practised on the eve of the sabbath,
but a miraculous one) habitual with Jesus. See 3422 h.
1 Jn. vi. 51. Mk vi. 34.
s Mt. ix. 36 called "quasi-parallel," because it is parallel only in expression,
not in chronological order.
4 [3278 a] The word (Steph. Thes. <TKV\\U) means " torn to pieces " by monsters
of the deep in Aeschylus Pers. 577, where it is explained by the scholiast as
"dragged about and eaten." It is rendered "tear to pieces" by Hesychius. In
this sense it is like our "worry," applied to a dog "worrying" a sheep.
Metaphorically, in vernacular Greek, it meant "worry" in the ist cent., as
in Lk. vii. 6 "worry not thyself," Mk v. 35 (Lk. viii. 49) "Why dost thou still
worry the teacher?" It is frequently so used in papyri.
5 [3278 ] Lk. ix. ii. It is true that Matthew and Luke imply a shepherd,
though they do not use the word, in their parable of the man seeking his lost
sheep in the wilderness. But in their parable there is no " wolf." John leads us,
metaphor by metaphor, to a deeper as well as broader conception of the
Shepherd's task, which consists in a great deal more than " seeking " and
"carrying" home. How much more, will be seen hereafter. For the present,
it must suffice to say that, as Mark, in his tradition about ransom, seems to have
given us a short paraphrase of Christ's doctrine about the Servant pouring out
His soul for men, so John, in his parable of the Shepherd, may have given us
a longer exposition of the same doctrine.
279
[3278] "THE SON OF MAN" MAKING ATONEMENT
That Jesus did not utter the precise words attributed to Him in the Johannine
parable may seem certain to many, who may nevertheless accept, as being one
of our Lord's fundamental thoughts, the conception of Himself as the Shepherd
conquering the wolf. What Jesus said as to a particular aspect of His redeeming
task has probably been more accurately expressed by Luke in his parable of the
"stronger man" dividing the "spoils" of the "strong"; but what He said
in general, expressive of His compassion for the redeemed as well as of His
conflict in their behalf this, or at least the thought of it, seems better expressed
by the Parable of the Good Shepherd.
ADDENDUM ON "TABLE" AND "ALTAR"
[3278 c\ In quoting above (3275 a) Lk. xxii. 30 " that ye may eat and drink at
my table in my kingdom," attention should have been called to the fact that " my
table " in N.T. occurs only there. In O.T., apart from a summons to birds and
beasts of prey (Ezek. xxxix. 20 "ye shall be filled at my table") it occurs, when
used by God, only in Ezek. xliv. 1516 "The priests... shall come near to my
table." This is previously mentioned thus (ib. xli. 22) " The altar was of wood...
and he said unto me, This is the table that is before the Lord" The Talmud
(Chag. 27 a, rep. Menach. 970) asks why the Merciful One "began with 'altar'
and ended with 'table,' " and replies, " R. Jochanan and Resh Lakish say, both of
them, As long as the Holy House stood, an altar made atonement for a man ; now
a man's table makes atonement for him." How did the "table" do this? Aboth
iii. 6 says " Three that have eaten at one table and have said over it words of the
Law, are as if they had eaten of the table of PLACE (3101 a), Blessed is He, for
it is said (Ezek. xli. 22) " Berach. 54 (also quoting Ezekiel) connects the
"atonement" with giving from "the table" to the poor. These passages indicate
how, in the first century, mystical traditions about "my table" in Ezekiel might
prepare the way for Christian doctrine combining Offertory with Communion.
Rashi, on Ezekiel, is silent about the teaching of the Rabbis, but seems to allude to
oral tradition ("as I have heard"}, while calling attention to the fact that the
Targum substitutes "table before the altar" for ''altar" in Ezekiel: "Jonathan
interpretatus est, mensa quae (erat) ante altare ligneum ; poterit dici quod mensa
(hie) vocetur altare, quae illo tempore (futuro) expiabit, sicut altare ; sic audivi."
If Jesus believed that the "altar" was soon to be cast down, His mind might
naturally turn to the question, " What was meant by the words of Ezekiel, This is
the table that is before the Lord!"
280
CHAPTER XIII
THE SON OF MAN" WITH CLOUDS
man coming/// clouds^
with much power and
glory."
man coming in a
cloud with power and
much glory."
i. The Synoptic texts
[3279] We pass to the two traditions in the gospels connecting
the coming of the Messiah with "clouds" or "cloud," ist, in Christ's
Discourse on the Last Days, 2nd, in the Trial before the High Priest
In the first, it will be observed that the three Synoptists have
three different forms of the phrase containing " cloud " :
Mk xiii. 26 Mt. xxiv. 30 Lk. xxi. 27
"And then shall "And then shall "And then shall
they see the son of appear the sign of they see the son of
the son of man in
heaven, and then
shall mourn all the
tribes of the earth,
and they shall see
the son of man
coming on the clouds
of heaven with power
and much glory."
1 [3279 a] D "on the clouds" but d "with [the] clouds" (and so a and
Vindebon.) k "in [a] cloud," e om. " in clouds."
" On the clouds" would be suggested by Ps. civ. 3 " Who maketh the clouds
(vt<fn) v.r. vftf>f\i]v) his riding-place (a unique word, Gesen. 939 b] and goeth
on the wings of the wind," Is. xix. i "the Lord rideth on a swift cloud (same
Heb.)," LXX ve<j>t\r)s, Aq. irdxovs. This Heb. word for "cloud " means, more
precisely, "dark cloud," "cloud-mass." Comp. Exod. xix. 9 "I come unto
thee (lit.) in a cloud-mass of cloud," LXX " in i. pillar (orvXy) of cloud (j-e^Aijs),"
R.V. "in a MzV^cloud," (Aq. -a-dxti, "thickness" for "cloud-mass," and so Gesen.
7i6a, but by reading >3U for 217). It occurs in Ps. xviii. 10 12 " He rode on a
cherub and did fly ; yea, he flew-swiftly (2 S. xxii. 1 1 was seen) on the wings of
the wind. He made darkness his hiding place,... cloud-masses of the skies.
281
[3280]
In the second, Matthew represents the first part of Christ's
utterance as an answer to the high priest ("thou hast said 1 "), but
the rest as addressed to the council ("ye"). Luke represents the
whole as an answer to the council, and he omits the clause men-
tioning " clouds " :
Mt. xxvi. 64
"Jesus saith unto
him, 'Thou (emph.)
hast said [it.] Never-
theless I say unto
you, henceforth ye
shall see the son of
man seated at the
right hand of the
power and coming
on the clouds of
heaven? "
[3280] It will be perceived that, on both occasions, the three
Synoptists agree in mentioning " the son of man." But there is no
other point common to the two occasions, in the three Synoptists' 1 ,
except the mention of "power" and that with slight differences, thus :
Mk xiv. 62
" But Jesus said,
' I am, and ye shall
see the son of man
seated at the right
hand of the power
and coming with the
clouds of heaven.' "
Lk. xxii. 67 9
" But he said unto
them, ' If I tell you,
ye will assuredly not
believe But from
now there shall be
the son of man seated
at the right hand of
the power of God.' "
Because of the brightness before him, his cloud-masses passed (? Gesen. 728 a om.
in Ps. xviii. 12 (13), as in 2 S. xxii. 13)." The parall. to riding on "the wings of
the -wind" is in Ps. xviii. " rode on a cherub" but in Ps. civ. it appears to be
expressed by making a chariot of " the clouds." It will be remembered (3040,
3048) that the " four living-creatures" in Ezekiel are subsequently called " cherubim."
But all these phrases appear to be metaphorical illustrations of the power of
Jehovah, who might be compared to the sun, rising over many-coloured clouds in
the East or driving the dark storm-clouds before him as a charioteer drives his
horses. Such metaphors might be said to belong to natural religion and they
appear to be distinct from Daniel's conception of ' ' one like a son of man " being
brought to Jehovah " along with the clouds of heaven."
The facility with which such metaphorical language may be diverted from its
original purpose may be illustrated by Jerome's treatment of Ps. civ. 3. He
renders it " Qui ponis nubem ascensum tuum," and applies it to Christ's
Ascension: " Dominus enim Jesus benedictis discipulis elevatus est, et nubes
suscepit ilium, et intuebantur eum euntem in coelum."
1 [3279 b\ Mark omits "thou," and has "said, 'I am, and ye shall see...'."
This Luke expresses more definitely, ''said unto them." Luke xxii. 66 makes
the questioners plural ("chief priests and scribes"); Mark xiv. 61 makes the
questioner the high priest.
2 " Coming " is common to five of the passages quoted but is omitted by
Luke on the second occasion.
282
WITH CLOUDS [3281]
(I)
power."
(2)
Mk
with much
at the right
Mt.
"with power."
" at the right hand
Lk.
" with power."
" at the right hand
hand of the power." of the power." of the power of God"
The questions raised by the texts are mainly as follows :
As regards " clouds," what was the exact phrase used by Jesus in
the first utterance ? What precise meaning did the Synoptists attach
to their several texts ? Why did Luke omit " clouds " in the second
utterance? What did Jesus mean?
As regards "power," what precise difference is there, if any,
between "power" and "the power"? Why did Matthew and Luke
alter Mark's " much power " by transferring the epithet to " glory " ?
What did Jesus mean 1 ?
[3281] In comparing the two utterances it should be borne in
mind that the Discourse on the Last Days (in which the first
utterance occurs) purports to be a " private " revelation to four
apostles, mentioned by Mark, two of whom are described in the
Epistle to the Galatians as being "of repute 2 ." Eusebius speaks
of a revelation (which he calls an " oracle "), presumably from Jesus,
conveyed " to those of approved repute " in Jerusalem, warning the
disciples to flee from the city before the siege 3 . If there was such an
1 [3280 d] To the questions about " power " an answer will be attempted later
on, 3306 15. There are many other points of great interest, such as Matthew's
peculiar mention of a "'sign of the son of man" in the first utterance (3289,
3407 (xi)). Also, in the second utterance, the insertion by Matthew and Luke
of "henceforth" and "from now," respectively, invites attention (3310 foil.).
But these and other details cannot be discussed in this treatise except so far as they
have a direct bearing on the relation between "the son of man" and "clouds."
- [3281 a] Mk xiii. 3 " Peter and James and John and Andrew began to
question him in private," Mt. xxiv. 3 "his disciples in private... saying."
Lk. xxi. 7 has " they-questioned him," where "they" points back to Lk. xxi. 5
"some" if indeed it points back to any noun or pronoun and is not used
indefinitely (D has "the disciples questioned him"). See Gal. ii. a, 6 "of
repute," comp. ii. 9 "James [i.e. the Lord's brother] and Cephas and John,
who were reputed to be pillars. "
3 [3281 b\ See Notes 2837 (iii) a quoting Euseb. iii. 5. 3. It is hard to see how
the " oracle" could be needed by Christians if they had already before them the
warning of Christ to flee (Lk. xxi. 20) " When ye see Jerusalem in the act
of being encompassed by armies. 1 ' The presumption is that this warning was
originated after the composition of Mark's and Matthew's gospels. It may have
been part of the ' ' oracle " mentioned by Eusebius, incorporated by Luke in his
gospel.
283
[3282] "THE SON OF MAN"
" oracle," or " Word of Jesus," it would naturally be combined with
the other " Words of Jesus " about the same subject in any gospel
written, as Luke's gospel appears to have been, at an interval (and
perhaps a long interval) after the siege. This may in part explain
Luke's very important divergences from, and additions to, Mark
and Matthew, throughout the whole of the Discourse.
It should also be borne in mind that the first utterance is about
men in general ("they shall see"), whereas the second is to the
Council which was about to condemn Jesus to death, to whom He
says "ye shall see" (but Luke has "there shall be"). There might
be a disposition in some evangelists to conform the second utterance
to the first, or vice versa, because they regarded the "coming" as a
local and material descent. But, if Jesus regarded it as spiritual,
though necessarily to be described by sensual phenomena, we ought
to be prepared for some difference of language in describing a
manifestation to friends and believers, and in describing it to
enemies and unbelievers.
2. " Coming with the clouds of heaven " in Daniel
[3282] All agree that " coming with the clouds of heaven " is
from Daniel vii. 13 "Behold, with the clouds of heaven [one] like a
son of man was coming, and even to the Ancient of days he arrived;
and in his presence they presented him (///. before him they brought
him near)." "They," according to Talmudic usage 1 , might mean
"the powers of heaven" without reference to any preceding
noun ; and that meaning seems to be suggested here. But
it may grammatically refer to "the clouds of heaven," which
may be regarded as representing persons. Similarly, when Isaiah
says, "Drop down, ye heavens 2 ," Ibn Ezra says, "This is a
command to angels." Also the Targum on Jeremiah "Behold, he
shall come up as clouds 3 " the only other passage in the Bible
where this particular plural is used has " with his army as a cloud,"
signifying multitudinousness and simultaneousness. When Isaiah
1 See From Letter 667 a, 738 a, quoting Dan. iv. 31, vii. 5, but in Dan. iv. 25,
32 "they" probably refers to previously mentioned "watchers" etc. In Aramaic,
"they brought him" might also mean little more than "he was brought." See
3041, 3213 a, and 3225.
2 Is. xlv. 8.
3 Jerem. iv. 13. Comp. i K. xviii. 44 5.
284
WITH CLOUDS [3284]
says "I will command the clouds 1 ," the Targum, Ibn Ezra, and
Origen all agree in taking "clouds" to mean prophets, or else
prophets and apostles.
[3283] Perhaps the frequent Pentateuchal use of " the cloud " or
" the cloud of glory " as a type of the divine presence in Israel,
facilitated Daniel's use of the plural here as a type of the saints, or
holy ones, of Israel. At all events Daniel's context indicates that he
regards the figure " like a son of man " and " the clouds of heaven "
when seen approaching " the throne " together as a vision of the
future reign of " the people of the holy ones of the Most High*."
He has previously described the conflicting empires of the "four
great beasts." Now he describes the approach of an empire of
humanity an approach noiseless, irresistible, and universal
But it is only an approach. It is not realisation. The figure is
not described as coming down to earth from heaven. It is being
brought near to the throne with a tram of clouds whence is not
specified with a view to exercising empire and dispensing righteous
judgment. That Jesus should have adopted a prophecy of this kind
can excite no surprise. It accords with the eighth Psalm and with
Christ's doctrine of " the authority of the son of man." What is, at
first sight, surprising is, that it should have been so variously reported
by the three Synoptists. Some of these variations we must now
attempt to explain.
3. Daniel variously interpreted
[3284] Matthew's version " on the clouds 3 ," is at once explained
from the LXX version of Daniel, " Behold, on the clouds of heaven
[one] like a son of man was coming, and [one] like [the] Ancient of
days was present; and those who stood by (or, attended) were
present with him 4 ." Theodotion agrees with the Hebrew (" with the
1 Is. v. 6.
~ [3283 a] Dan. vii. 27. Rashi on Dan. vii. 14 says "And to that same son
of man was given power," adding " Scripture compared the nations that served
idols to beasts, but likened Israelites to a son of man because they were humble
and whole-hearted (lit. "perfect," the word used in the precept to Abraham "Be
\ho\\perfect," on which see 3486 8 foil.).
3 Mt. xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64 iri.
4 [3284 a] Or, "He was present like an (or, the) Ancient of days.'' This
might explain some traditions in which Jesus was regarded as the Ancient of
Days. In Dan. vii. 21 "the Ancient of days" is described as "coming." The
285
[3285] "THE SON OF MAN"
clouds ") except that he renders " they brought him near " by " he
was brought near," thus : " Behold, with the clouds of heaven [one]
like a son of man coming, and as far as the Ancient of days he
advanced, and he was brought near to him."
[3285] Another version appears in the book of Enoch: "And
there [i.e. in heaven] I saw one who had a head of days, and His
head was white like wool, and with Him was another being whose
countenance had the appearance of a man, and his face was full of
graciousness, like one of the holy angels. And I asked the angel
who went with me... concerning that son of man, who he was and
whence he was, and why he went with the Head of Days 1 ." Here
we find no mention of "clouds." Perhaps the writer takes "the
clouds" as meaning "angels 2 ," and "with" as meaning "like 3 "; or
he may regard " with the clouds of heaven " as meaning simply " in
heaven," which he expresses by " there." He does not mention the
figure as coming toward a throne, but rather as going with the
sovereign Power : " he went with the Head of Days."
LXX seems to have taken "in his presence" as "those who stood by," and
" brought him near "as " were near " or " were present."
1 Enoch 46.
2 [3285 a] Prof. Charles's edition does not contain "clouds" in the Index,
and this may be taken as an indication that the plural is never used in any
passage of importance bearing directly on the "coming with the clouds" in Daniel.
But the following passages illustrate Enochian views of clouds : xviii. 5 " I saw the
winds on the earth which carry the clouds ; and I saw the paths of the angels " (where
there seems to be a parallelism, not between the four winds and the angels, but
between the clouds and the angels), xxxix. 3 " a cloud and a whirlwind carried me
off from the earth and set me down at the end of the heavens," xli. 3 4 " the
secrets of the clouds and dew... and the chamber of the mist, and the cloud thereof
hovers over the earth from before eternity" Ix. 19 20, "and the spirit of the
mist... has a special chamber... and its chamber is light, and it [i.e. the spirit]
is its own angel. And the spirit of the dew has its dwelling... and its clouds and
the clouds of the mist are connected and the one (lit. ) gives to the other."
[3286 b] On xli. 3 4 "the cloud... hovers," Prof. Charles says "Have we
here a reference to Gen. i. 2?" If so, "the Spirit of God" is here called "the
cloud." Philo i. 501 recognises in "the cloud" a dividing Power rewarding the
good and punishing the evil, but makes no mention of saints or angels as " clouds."
The speculations scattered through the component parts of Enoch have some
value as indicating the line of thought by which Jews might be led from their
conception of the divine Cloud of Glory, which represented the presence of the
Holy One, to the conception of inferior but still divine clouds of reflected glory,
representing "saints" or "holy ones." This as we have seen above, and shall
see again later on (3286^, 3293 5) was Origen's view.
3 Gesen. 767 8.
286
WITH CLOUDS [3287]
[3286] The second book of Esdras has the following if we
include a passage omitted in the Latin but necessary to the sense
" Lo, there arose a wind from the sea, that it moved all the waves
thereof [And, lo, that wind made to come up out of the heart of the
sea as it were the likeness of a man]. And I beheld, and, lo, that
man waxed strong with the thousands of heaven^ where the margin
has, " In the versions, did fly with the clouds of heaven 1 " This
resembles the rising (from the sea) of the cloud that was like "the
palm of a man's hand " (LXX "the footprint of a man") immediately
after which "the heaven was black with cloudsV The context in
many respects agrees neither with Daniel nor with Enoch, nor does
the extract indicate in what direction the man "flies," or how he
"waxes strong." But it favours the inference that the writer of
Esdras interpreted "clouds" as meaning "holy ones"; who, through
the impulse of one Spirit, suddenly fill, and take possession of, the
whole of the heavens just as, by one wind, there may be simul-
taneously moved all the waves of the sea and all the clouds of
the sky.
4. Inference as to the meaning of "coming" and "clouds"
in Christ's doctrine
[3287] In the heading of this section it has been necessary to
write "coming" and "clouds" separately, because the Synoptists
differ as to the preposition that should be placed before "clouds."
But there can be little doubt as to the right preposition. 9
First, Daniel had " with " ; 2nd, the LXX erroneously rendered
it "on"; 3rd, this error, by its authority, its clearness, and its
picturesqueness, would attract early Greek evangelists; 4th, such
1 [3286 a] i Esdr. xiii. i 3. Later on, comes (ib. 5) "there was gathered
together a multitude of men... from the four winds of the heaven, to subdue the
man that came out of the sea, r where "the four winds" correspond in some
respects to the "four beasts" in Daniel, implying mutual conflict, antithetical to
the unity and concord of the motion assigned to " the man " with " the thousands,
or clouds, of heaven."
8 [3286 ] i K. xviii. 44 5, quoted by Origen (on Jerem. x. 13) with many
other passages, to illustrate his view that "the saints" are "clouds." " Moses,"
he says, " was a cloud," so were Joshua, Isaiah, and others. He also quotes
Is. v. 6 "I will command the clouds." The Targum takes the same view,
"I will command the prophtts" This explains Jude 12 "waterless clouds,"
i-e. false prophets.
287
[3288] "THE SON OF MAN"
evangelists, without Origen's knowledge of Hebrew, might well be
ignorant of the Biblical precedent for quasi-personification of clouds 1 .
For all these reasons we are justified in inferring that our Lord, if
He mentioned "clouds "at all in connection with "coming," said,
''with the clouds."
It is also a just inference that by "clouds" He meant "holy ones."
Thus He might predict the divine fulfilment of God's purpose,
predicted in the eighth Psalm, to "set his glory above the heavens 2 "
by exalting not only "the son of man" but also the "babes and
sucklings" that followed in His train. All these, with the Son at
their head, are to be seen being " brought near " to the throne in
heaven. Those whom the world despised and oppressed as being
"little," are now to be revealed as great and as destined to be
co-assessors in the judgment to be pronounced by "the son of man."
[3288] Some doctrine of this kind, a joint ascension or resurrec-
tion, is suggested by the words of Hosea, " on the third day he will
raise us up and we shall live before him " ; and, though Jesus never
definitely predicts a corporate resurrection or ascension of this kind,
it is certainly included (according to the fourth evangelist, whose
spiritual interpretation of Christ's words is always to be valued)
in the statement that in three days He would raise up the temple,
namely, "the temple of his body 3 ." For this if we take "body"
as well as "temple" in the mystical sense implies that the
resurrection of the Church, "the holy ones," is involved in His
resurrection.
The first Epistle of Peter teaches that Christ " was put to death in
the flesh, but quickened in the spirit; in which also he went and
preached unto the spirits in prison." From this it might be inferred,
as a natural sequel, that He " led captivity captive " out of Hades,
when He rose from the dead 4 . Whether He also took the captives up
with Himself, in the Ascension, is not stated. A passage peculiar to
1 [3287 a] Comp. i Pet. ii. 17 "waterless wells" a palpable alteration of
Jude 12 " waterless clouds." By " wells" all the beauty of Jude's Jewish thought
is lost. Jude distinguishes between good clouds and bad clouds, good angels
(i.e. messengers) and bad angels, true prophets and false prophets. The false
prophets wander wildly for their own pleasure and are empty. The true prophets
go on divine errands, and are full of blessing for mankind.
2 [3287*] Comp. Origen (on Jerem. x. 13) "The expression (Ps. xxxvi. 5)
' Thy truth reacheth unto the clouds ' cannot be referred to the inanimate clouds."
It must mean, he says, the "clouds" mentioned in Is. v. 6, i.e. "prophets."
3 Jn ii. ii. 4 i Pet. iii. 18 19, Eph. iv. 8. See 3615 a/.
288
WITH CLOUDS [3289]
Matthew about the resurrection of saints at the moment of Christ's
death probably expresses one version (wrongly placed) out of many
versions of Christ's doctrine that "the son of man" would not go
alone to the throne but that the holy ones, " the clouds," would go
with Him 1 .
[3289] This preliminary "coming" to the throne must be
distinguished from " sitting at the right hand," and from any
subsequent " coming " down from heaven to judge or punish. The
former is not a descent, but rather an uplifting of "the son of man"
as a "sign," or "standard," causing a universal and simultaneous
conflux of the holy ones towards the " sign." It is not redemption
as yet, but only a pledge that redemption is at hand or " beginning."
And it is in part, perhaps, for the purpose of making this clear that,
in the first utterance, the parallel Matthew inserts a mention of
"the sign of the son of man" and the parallel Luke has "But when
these things begin to occur... your redemption draweth nigh 2 ."
1 [3288 a] Mt. xxvii. 52 3 "saints." Clem. Alex. 764 speaks of these
"saints" as having been "translated to a better state (or, rank)." For another
tradition about descending and ascending of "angels," see Mk xvi. 4 (k) "but
suddenly at the third hour there was darkness through the whole of the earth, and
angels descended from heaven, and, (?) rising (" surgent," error for " surgentes ")
in the brightness of the living Lord, ascended together with Him, and straightway
it became light." The Gospel of Peter describes two men, "with dazzling light,"
as descending to the tomb, and then ascending with Jesus. See 3616 f.
a [3289 a] The fact that Matthew (xxiv. 30) has also inserted (3279) the
prophecy about "the tribes of the earth lamenting" indicates that he is here,
as often, grouping prophetic traditions. Among these, a suitable one for this
passage would be the one in Isaiah (xi. 10) "the root of Jesse that standeth for
an ensign of the peoples," which might be the basis for Matthew's tradition about
"the sign of the son of man." See 3407 (ii) and (xi).
[3289 &] Philo (ii. 421 3) when describing the fulfilment of the prophecy of
Isaiah (xi. 6 9) passes over xi. 10 (an "ensign") with an apparent reference to
Numb. xxiv. 7 (LXX) " ^eXei/o-erai Hvdpuvos" ... , Kara.crTpa.Ta.pxuv, but later on
(*'* 435 6) he ascribes the future sudden liberation of the Israelites all over
the world to a divinely inspired feeling among the Gentiles that they ought
to be " ashamed of enslaving their betters," so that the captives return at an
instantaneous "signal or watchword (fftivthifjui)," led by "a supernatural appear-
ance visible only to the redeemed."
[3289 c] Both in Hebrew and in Aramaic, " come" and "sign" may be similar,
and we find the similarity actually played on (3407 (v) c) in a Talmudic exposition
of the Lord's " coming." Also Matthew's peculiar tradition about the sign of " the
star in the East " at the first Advent may have led to a tradition that there would
be some similar "sign in the heaven" at the second Advent. Josephus (Bell.
A. S. 289 19
[3290] "THE SON OF MAN"
5. Paul on "clouds"
[3290] The only Pauline mention of "clouds "in the plural is
connected with the resurrection thus, "Afterwards we those that are
[still] living, those that are surviving shall be snatched along with
them \_i.e. along with those saints that have already died] in clouds to
meet the Lord in the air. And so shall we ever be with the
Lord 1 ."
This should be read along with the only other Pauline passage
mentioning "cloud" thus, "Our fathers were all under the cloud...
they were baptized into Moses in the cloud" and with the saying to the
Galatians, "As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on
Christ" and with Pauline doctrine of the "clothing" of the saints in
the resurrection : " We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be
changed... we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on
incorruption 2 ."
[3291] Origen justly says that the Mosaic baptism in the Cloud
was, for Christians, a type of Christian baptism in the Holy Spirit 3 .
Paul appears to regard "clouds" as "spiritual bodies" prepared for
the saints corresponding to the divine Cloud, called by the Jews
the Shechinah, which is mentioned in the gospels as present at the
Transfiguration, and in the Acts as withdrawing Jesus from the eyes
of the disciples in the Ascension 4 .
One reason for the Pauline insistence on the necessity of some
kind of "incorruptible body," something that would "super-clothe"
(or, as our English Version says, " clothe-upon 8 ") a departed
vi. 5. 3) says that "a star like a sword stood over the city, and a comet, [too,] for
a whole year " before the capture of Jerusalem.
[3289 d] Thus there are many causes that might explain Matthew's insertion ;
but it would not be easy to explain its omission by Luke and Mark, except on
the ground of its being unknown to them, or, if known, unauthoritative.
1 [3290 a] i Thess. iv. 17 iv pe</>Acus is better translated "in clouds" (so
Lightfoot) than "in the clouds." Mark xiii. 26 tv ve<j>t\ais is rendered by R. V.
*' in clouds," and there is no sufficient reason for inserting the English article here.
2 i Cor. x. i 2, Gal. iii. 27, i Cor. xv. 50 3 " put on (evStiaaada.!., i.e. clothe
oneself in)." The advantage of the rendering "clothe oneself in" is, that it
keeps up the connection between this and 2 Cor. v. 2 4 mentioning the
*' clotJung-upon" of the Christian (4irevdiJofjMi).
3 Horn. Exod. v. i and 5 (Lomm. ix. 49, 56) and freq.
4 Mk ix. 7, Mt. xvii. 5, Lk. ix. 34, Acts i. 9. Possibly Paul regards the
precepts Eph. iv. 24, vi. n "put on the new man, the panoply of God" as
destined to be fulfilled on earth invisibly, but in heaven visibly.
5 2 Cor. v. 4.
290
WITH CLOUDS [3293]
saint, when the time came for the mortal body to be destroyed,
was probably this that very few in Paul's days, and fewer among
the Jews than among the Greeks, could conceive of a departed
human being as a pure and holy spirit without bodily form.
Perhaps it was as hard for them to believe that a "spirit" in
Hebrew, meaning also a "breath" or "wind" could have an
adequate personal existence, apart from a body, as it would be for us
to imagine personality for the air released from a bladder 1 .
[3292] Another reason, suggested above, was special to the Jews.
Among Jews there was a kind of precedent for a cloud-body in the
Cloud of God, which manifested the glory of God to Israel in the
wilderness. This took the place of the human forms assigned to
their gods by Greeks and Romans. To imagine such a cloud-body
for each saint was a natural extension of the Pentateuchal tradition.
We shall find Origen explaining the human spiritual "clouds of
heaven" by the analogy of human earthly bodies made from "clay of
earth 2 ." By means of such a "body," God could be regarded as
communicating through His Son with the Saints, who had severally
received a "body" like that of Christ; and thus the Saints could
converse with Him, and also with each other 3 .
6. Origen on "clouds"
[3293] Origen herein differing from Justin Martyr, Irenaeus,
Hippolytus, Tertullian and Jerome definitely recognises a distinction
between "on clouds" and "with clouds," and attempts to give to
both phrases a spiritual significance 4 . " Clouds," he says, may be
1 [3291 a] Comp. the description of Sin in Paradise Lost ii. 666 70 :
"The other shape,
If shape it might be called that shape had none
Distinguishable in member, joint, or limb ;
Or substance might be called that shadow seemed,
For each seemed either ."
- [3292 a] " Clay of earth," see 3293. Comp. Comus "these, my sky-robes,
spun out of Iris' woof"; Allegro "the clouds in thousand liveries dight" (where
the "liveries" are the coloured vestures "delivered" by the sun, their King, to
the clouds, his retainers) ; and Intimations of Immortality :
"But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From 'God, who is our home."
1 The more common thought of the inclusion of the Saints in Christ's " body"
is based on a different metaphor, the inclusion of "stones" in a "temple."
4 On Mt. xxiv. 30 (Lomm. iv. 310 foil.). Comp. Lomm. iv. 315 " intelligibiles
nubes in quibus veniet Filius hominis, sive sanctas et divinas virtutes sive
beatissimos prophetas."
291 IQ 2
[3294] "THE SON OF MAN"
taken as " corporeal (corporate*}" or " morally (moraliter) as well as
corporeally, or according to the moral meaning alone (solummodo
moralem.. .intellectum)"
According to the first of these views, which soon runs into the
second, "Some one will urge," he says, "that, as God took clay
(limum) from the earth and made man, so, in order that the glory of
Christ might be made visible, God took from heaven and from
heavenly body (or, substance, corpore), and embodied (corporavif)
[it] first indeed into a bright cloud, but, in the consummation, into
bright clouds on which account also ' clouds of heaven ' is the
expression used (dicuntur), corresponding to ' clay of the earth,' the
expression used [above, for man's body]... in order that also on such
clouds He might come perhaps [we may call them] soulful
(animatis) and rational clouds that the chariot of the Son of Man
[when] glorified (glorificati) might not be soulless and irrational."
Thus, whereas the chariot and horses that carried up Elijah were
" soulless and irrational," the clouds that bear the Son of Man will
be "soulful and rational." This attempt to explain "on the clouds"
by tacit reference to the Word, or Logos, of the Lord, as being on
prophets and saints, assumes a verbal appropriateness when we render
the Latin into Greek so that "rational" becomes "full of logos."
[3294] The words "embodied [it] first. ..into a bright cloud, but,
in the consummation, into bright clouds," probably contain an
allusion both to the Transfiguration and to the Ascension in the Acts,
where "a cloud" receives, or withdraws, Jesus out of the sight of the
disciples, and they are told that He " shall so come in like manner "
as they beheld Him "going 1 ." But in any case Origen implies that
the " bodies " of the saints, if they have any visible form, will be like
the " body " of Christ, and that the latter will be of the nature of
the Shechinah.
Later on, he says that, although one must pardon those who
(after the manner of children) take these expressions in a corporeal
sense (corporaliter), the real and spiritual fact is this : " The Second
Advent of the Word comes with much power day by day to the soul
of every believer, in prophet-clouds (in nubibus propheticis) that is, in
those scriptures of the prophets and apostles which manifest Him 2 ."
1 [3294 a] Comp. Lomm. iv. 311 "Afterwards He will come not on one
{loud but on many clouds " ; ib. p. 3 14 quotes Acts i. 9 1 1 .
2 Lomm. iv. 315, comp. v. n.
292
WITH CLOUDS [3296]
[3295] In other words, Origen takes the Second Advent not as
being a local descent of Christ from heaven but as a revelation of the
divine Presence through the cloud or Shechinah of the Son of Man
and the great attendant clouds of the prophets and apostles. It is
not credible that Origen would exclude the minor clouds of inferior
saints, who also, according to their several gifts, shew forth the glory
of God. The conclusion, therefore, seems to be that, in the con-
summation, the Lord is to be "glorified in his saints 1 ," apostles,
and prophets, because in various ways and degrees they will have
reflected the glory of God and fulfilled the precept " Let your light
so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify
your Father who is in heaven 2 ."
Elsewhere 3 Origen combines the two traditions "upon" and
" with " the one expressing God's word " on " man, and the other
expressing the thought of the word as being " with " man speaking
of the "clouds upon which and with which the Son of Man will come
in His appearing." This he repeats immediately afterwards : " For
there is always coming upon them and with them, manifesting His
advent to those worthy of Him, God the Word, [who is] both
Wisdom and Truth and Righteousness."
7. Luke's omission of "coming" after "sitting"
[3296] What has been said above as to the nature of " clouds "
applies to the meaning of "coming with the clouds," wherever it
may have been used. It appears to have meant "saints." And the
evidence indicates that "clouds" were actually mentioned in the
original from which the Synoptists derived their versions of the
Discourse on the Last Days, where all three have "coming" and
"clouds" (Lk. "cloud").
In the Trial, however, Luke 4 omits both "coming" and "clouds."
Also, there, the word " seated " is introduced. This, though not
incompatible with "coming," makes "coming" somewhat incongruous.
For the context seems to imply a stationary seat of authority and
judgment, rather than that of one riding in a chariot. This utterance
will therefore be discussed separately (3306 15).
1 i Thess. i. 10. * Mt. v. 16.
1 On Mt. xxvi. 64 (Lomm. v. n).
4 Lk. xxii. 69 " From 'now (diro TOV vvv) there shall be the son of man seated
at the right hand of the power of God."
293
CHAPTER XIV
"THE SON OF MAN" COMING UNEXPECTEDLY
i. " The lord of the house " in Mk xiii. 34 5 confused
with " the Lord [fesus] "
[3297] In describing the unexpectedness of the "season" of
trial, or " coming," Mark mentions " the lord of the house," whereas
in similar sayings Matthew and Luke have either (Mt.) "your Lord"
(Lk.) "the lord [of the house]," or (Mt-Lk. and Lk.) "the son of
man."
Mk xiii. 33 5
"Look [to it], keep
vigil 1 , for ye know
not when the season
is. [It is] as [if there
were] a man going on
a journey and leaving
his house and giving
to his servants the
authority [thereof]
and to the porter he
gave charge that he
should be watching.
Watch therefore, for
ye know not when
the lord of the house
cometh...."
Mt. xxv. 13
"Watch therefore,
because ye know not
the day nor the
hour."
Lk. xxi. 36
" But keep vigil in
every season making
supplication... and to
stand before the son
of man."
Mt. xxiv. 42
"Watch therefore,
because ye know not
on what day your
Lord cometh."
Lk. xii. 37
"Blessed are those
servants whom the
lord*, coming, shall
find watching."
1 [3297 a] R.V. txt. adds "and pray," but W.H. do not admit this even
in margin. " Keep vigil " = dypwiri>f'iTe, " watch " = ypiryop(iTt.
2 [32976] "The lord" is shewn to mean "their lord" by the preceding
Lk. xii. 36 "and ye like unto men awaiting their lord when he shall return from
the marriage feast."
294
"THE SON OF MAN" COMING UNEXPECTEDLY [3298]
Mt. xxiv. 44 Lk. xii. 40
"For this [cause] "And ye (emph.) r
be ye too ready, be- be [ye] ready, be-
cause, at what hour cause, at what hour
ye think not, the son ye think not, the son
of man cometh." of man cometh.''
The "coming "is here connected severally, by Mark with "the
lord of the house" ; by Matthew with "your Lord" ; by Luke with
"the lord"; and also, by Matthew and Luke, with "the son of
man." In Luke, "the lord" means, not "the Lord Jesus," but
"the [above-mentioned] lord" of the household, previously called
"their lord." If Matthew had previously mentioned such a "lord
of the house," we could suppose that he, like Luke, meant "As
servants of a household watch for their lord, so must ye watch for
your lord [of the house~\." But he has made no such mention. The
preceding words in Matthew are " Two women shall be grinding
in the mill, one shall be taken and the other left," and then follows
" Watch therefore, for ye know not on what day your Lord cometh."
The context in Matthew appears to necessitate the meaning
"Lord," in an absolute and Christian sense 1 . But the facts point
to the conclusion that Matthew has been led into an error, having
erroneously interpreted "the lord of the house" as "your Lord."
Or else, Matthew has deliberately substituted "your Lord," i.e.
Christ, for " the LORD," i.e. Jehovah, for clearness, because if God
comes through His Son, the "coming" is really that of the Son, the
Lord Jesus Christ.
[3298] That Jehovah, the Lord of the Universe, will come to
judge the world, is a commonplace in the Psalms and the Prophets.
In Jewish literature the Universe is often called " the House," and
Jehovah is "the Lord* of the House," where the Hebrew for "Lord"
1 [3297 c] Origen (ad loc.) asks, "How is it that the Lord, being present
with His disciples, speaks as though lie were not present and about to come to
them?" The reply that it "refers to the Second Advent" he regards as
inadequate ("simplicior "). He seems to prefer to take it as referring to the
coming of the Word into the soul.
[3297 d~\ If the words were part of a revelation (given by Jesus after the
Resurrection to Peter or others) such as Eusebius describes (3281), that would
meet Origen's objection. For the Lord would not be "present with His
disciples " at the time of the utterance, not at least in the flesh.
- [3298 a] "Lord," in this phrase, is baal, familiar to us as the Phoenician
"Baal." In Hebrew it means "owner," "landowner," "lord," "husband."
295
[3298] "THE SON OF MAN"
is a word (baal) meaning "owner," "master," "nobleman," or
"husband." This metaphor is taken for granted in an early
tradition, thus : "R. Tarphon said,- The day is short, and the task is
great, and the workmen are sluggish, and the reward is much, and
the Lord of the House is urgent... and faithful is the Lord of thy
work who will pay thee the reward of thy work... 1 ."
It is easy to see that, in Greek, confusion might arise from the
ambiguity of the word " lord." The three Synoptists elsewhere agree
in a parable of Christ's that calls God, the Father, " the lord of the vine-
yard," in accordance with the Prophets and Psalms. In that parable
we cannot possibly suppose that " the lord of the vineyard " is the
Son ; for the Son is expressly mentioned as being sent by " the lord
of the vineyard " to the cultivators of it who kill Him, after which
all the Synoptists represent " the lord of the vineyard" as "coming 2 ."
Matthew, in that parable, expressly calls God "a man [that is a]
house-master 8 ." So, in the passage under consideration, where Mark
speaks of "the lord of the house," it is much more probable that
God the Father was meant, and that this should have been mis-
interpreted by Christians as "the Lord [Jesus]," than that Mark
should have altered the regular Christian tradition about the
"coming" of "the son of man" as being the formula used by
Christ about Himself into one about " the lord of the house 4 ."
Onk. (Brederek) retains it in the sense of " husband," but in other senses renders
it otherwise.
1 [3298 ] Aboth ii. 19. Comp. ib. 18 "know before whom thou toilest and
who is the Lord of thy work." Levy (i. 248 b] gives only Sot. 35 a as a reference
for "Lord of the House" meaning God. But the language of Aboth assumes
that the title was familiar; and Levy (i. 224 ) refers to Beresh. r.s. 22. There,
too, God is described as (Wiinsche p. 103 4) like a " lord of a district (Statt-
halter)," or of a "garden," etc.
2 Mk xii. 9, Mt. xxi. 40 i, Lk. xx. 15 16.
3 [3298 c] Mt. xxi. 33 avQpuiros olKoSecriroTijs. Mk xii. i, Lk. xx. 9 have
simply avffpwiros. It can hardly be doubted that the original had the title
"lord of a house" with allusion to "'the Lord of the House," common in
Jewish parables of this kind, and that Mark and Luke omitted it because it
seemed superfluous or even inconsistent, since the context spoke of " land,"
not of a "house." In LXX, baal=avijp (30), Avdpuiros (i), Ktfpios (16).
[3298 d] " The House," in the thoughts of a pious Jew, would always mean
primarily the Temple on earth, but also, in the thoughts of some, the Temple
in Heaven, and also the Universe. In these three senses, God was "the Lord
of the House." The thought of Him as Lord of the House of Israel would be
involved in the thought of Him as Lord of the Temple.
4 [3298 e] It is of course antecedently probable that Jesus would repeat words
296
COMING UNEXPECTEDLY [3299]
2. Various interpretations of Mark
[3299] That Mark has been considered obscure, and has been
misunderstood, by Matthew and Luke, appears probable from a con-
sideration of his brief parable of one verse (xiii. 34) about the man
that gave " authority " to his servants and instructions to " the porter "
to watch. Matthew has apparently expanded this into a parable
about a "man" who gives his "property" subsequently called
" talents " to his servants to turn it to advantage, and Luke into a
similar parable about a " man [that was a] nobleman" who departed
to receive a "kingdom" and who distributed "pounds" to his
servants, for the same purpose 1 .
It seems probable that Mark's short parable lent itself to two
interpretations. The " house " might be a mere " house " and the
"keeper of the gate" might be a mere "porter." But if the "lord
of the house " was a " nobleman " or " king," then the " porter," or
keeper of the gate, might mean the king's deputy, like Daniel, who
" was in the gate of the king," governor over the whole of Babylon,
while his friends had subordinate offices 2 . In that case Mark was
right in using the word "authority," if the "porter" was really a high
official, like a "high steward," such as is denoted by the Biblical
like these on many different occasions and with many variations. And it may
be urged that the differences extant in our gospels might proceed from Jesus
Himself, not from His interpreters. So they might. And in some cases they
probably do. But in others there is evidence to shew that the Greek divergences
point to one Semitic original %'ariously interpreted.
1 [3299 a] Mt. xxv. 14 foil., Lk. xix. 12 foil. Lk. xix. u says that Jesus
uttered this parable because people "supposed that the kingdom of God would
immediately appear." This illustrates the object of his version of the story.
"King" not "man" with "servants" suits his purpose; and the parable, in
a Jewish form, was very probably current about both characters.
[32996] On the other hand Matthew has " king," and Luke "man," after-
wards (Lk. xiv. 21) called "house-master (o'/ro3e<nronjs), " in the following :
Mt. xxii. 2, 7 Lk. xiv. 16, 21
"The kingdom of the heavens is "A certain man made a great
likened unto a man [that is a] king feast... then the house-master, being
who made a wedding [feast] for his angry...."
son. ..but the king was angry...."
[3299 c] The mention of a "king" both in Mt. xxii. and in Lk. xix., is
followed by a mention of royal acts (and of a " city " or " cities") which are not
found in the parallels.
- [3299 </] Dan. ii. 48 9. In 2 Chr. xxvi. 21 "over the king's house"
is rendered by LXX " over his kingdom (/SewiXe/as)."
297
[3300] "THE SON OF MAN
phrase "he that is over the house 1 ." But Matthew, taking "house"
to mean " household," might point to two places in the LXX,
supporting his view, where the word is rendered "property" which,
accordingly, he uses here 2 .
[3300] Another possibility of confusion exists in the word
"steward" regularly translated in the Syriac version of the Bible
by "master (rab) of the house" and this, in some cases, where the
Hebrew has "he that is over the house 3 ." Hence in a passage
in Matthew and Luke, where the question is asked, " Who then is
the good steward ? " where " steward " means the servant placed in
control over the household we find him called in the Diatessaron
"the master of the house 4 ." And immediately before this, both in
Matthew and in Luke, our extant Greek text actually represents the
" house-master " as being apparently quite distinct from " the lord
of the house," and as having his house broken into by thieves
because he, the controller of the household, is not watchful 5 .
This appears to be an error. In the parables of the gospels,
"house-master," as well as "lord of the house," mostly represents
God, as the employer of labour, etc. 6
1 [3299 e\ Pharaoh says to Joseph (Gen. xli. 40) " Thou shall be over my
house and according to thy word shall all my people be ruled. " Jer. Targ. has
"superintendent over my house," and in i K. iv. 6, xvi. g, xviii. 3 and many
other passages, LXX renders "over the house" by "steward," olxovonos.
2 [3299/] Mt. xxv. 14 "delivered unto them his property (T<X virapxovTa.)."
Comp. Gen. xlv. 18, Esther viii. 7 (LXX) TO. vira.p-x.ovTa. To illustrate the official
meaning of "estate," "district," see Schiirer I. ii. 332 on "the House of
Lysanias" which seems sometimes to mean a tetrarchy (comp. ib. 332 3).
3 [3300 a] Thes. Syr. 3784. Comp. Mt. xxiv. 45 "Who then is the faithful
servant '.. .whom the lord [of the house] hath appointed over his household...?'*
Lk. xii. 42 "Who then is the faithful steward, whom...?" where SS of Lk. has
" Which is the one in authority, ...vf\\om....t" The Diatessaron has "Who is the
servant, the master of the house, trusted with control, whom...?"
4 Mt. xxiv. 44 5, Lk. xii. 40 2.
6 Mt. xxiv. 43, Lk. xii. 39.
6 [33003] OkoSeo-n-oTijs, "house-master." See Mt. xiii. 27, xx. i, n, xxi. 33,
Lk. xiii. 25, xiv. 21. In Mt. it occurs also in x. 25 "If they called the house-
master Beelzebul" (where it means God through whom Jesus cast out devils, for
the Pharisees do not say that Jesus is Beelzebul, but that He has Beelzebul) and
in xiii. 52 "like unto a man that is a house-master who bringeth forth... things
new and old." There are no other instances in the parables.
298
COMING UNEXPECTEDLY [3302]
3. Petrine influence
[3301] The end of Mark's version of the Discourse on the Last
Days is, " But what I say unto you I say unto all, ' Watch.' " But
codex D has " But / (emph.) say unto you, ' Watch.' " Also, in
the quasi-parallel Luke, "And Peter said, Lord, to us sayest thou
this parable, or also to a//?" codex D omits the italicised words.
In Mark, codex k has "But what I have said to one I say to all you,"
omitting " Watch 1 ."
A motive for these corruptions may be traced to a statement of
Mark's at the beginning of the Discourse. He says that it was
uttered in reply to questioning from Peter, James, John and Andrew.
But he also says, just before, that "one of his disciples" said
"Teacher, behold, what great stones... 2 !" Later on, a disciple
described by Mark (whom Matthew and Luke resemble) as " a certain
one of those that stood by" is called in the fourth gospel "Simon
Peter 3 ." Hence, and from general considerations about the custom
of grouping traditions about a celebrated name, we may infer here
that "one" was thought to refer to, or was thought to be, Peter;
that Peter was supposed to have headed the questioners ; and that
Peter was in the mind of the scribe of k when he wrote "what I have
said to one"
[3302] The early existence of a motive of this kind not in any
way a dishonest motive but a desire to make the part played by
Peter, and the allusion to Peter, quite clear renders it additionally
probable that the corruptions connected with the attempt to explain
the Marcan appellation of "porter" were very early and very
numerous. Even where there were not corruptions, this obscure
word might become the centre of a number of expositions, in the
form of parables, shewing that every Christian (and not merely an
apostle) is a "steward," with some sort of "household" under his
charge, some (Mk) "authority," or (Mt.) "property," entrusted to
him his (Lk.) "mina," or (Mt.) "talent" of which he must give
account. It happens also that the Hebrew and Aramaic words for
" gate," " porter " (and other words connected with stewardship) are
1 Mk xiii. 37, parall. to Lk. xii 41.
1 Mk xiii. i.
3 Mk xiv. 47, Jn xviii. 10.
299
[3303] "THE SON OF MAN"
capable of various significations 1 . These may have facilitated
variations.
[3303] If Mark's gospel is occasionally tinged by Peter's special
experiences, then we can understand that the passage in question
may contain traces of a bitter reminiscence of the night of
Gethsemane when, after being bidden to "watch," he had not
" watched," but had fallen away in the moment of trial. Peter may
have recorded it as a self-reproach. He, on whom the Lord had
bestowed the special honour of opening the door of the Church
to the masses in Jerusalem and afterwards to the Gentiles, he, the
trusted disciple to whom the Lord had given a special warning
("and to the porter that he might watch") had neglected the warning
and had denied his Master. Subsequent evangelists, explaining and
expanding the tradition, may have illustrated it by a parable about a
steward, or chief servant, first a good one, and then a bad one.
In favour of this hypothesis of Petrine reminiscence are two
facts. First, brief though Mark is, he lays more stress than the
longer Matthew-Luke parallels do, on "watching 2 ." In the next
place, he alone mentions " cock-crowing " as one of the times when
*' the lord of the house " might come. The impression left by that
word (unique here in the New Testament 3 ) is that the author of this
early tradition regards the Coming of the Lord of the House as
including any sudden spiritual trial. For Peter, it included the trial
to which he succumbed when he denied his Lord.
1 [3302 a] The Heb. "gate" means also "estimation" or ''measure" (Gesen.
1044 5) so that "He delivered to his servants the authority (Mt. his property),"
closely followed by "in the gate" might be taken to mean "He delivered... in
(or, according to) estimation," that is to say, ten talents to one, five to another
and so on. In Aramaic (Levy Ch. ii. 504 ) the word does not mean "gate"
but only "estimation."
[3302 b\ Matthew, in the parable of the talents, represents the servants as being
rewarded by being put "over many [things] (iroXXwc)," whereas Luke says " over...
fities (irbXeuv)." The two (Paradosis 1397) might easily be confused in Greek.
But it is fair to add that "gates" is repeatedly rendered "cities" in LXX, and
that in Job xxxi. 21 "in the gate" is said (Tromm.) to be represented by "many."
[3302 r] "Appointed" is frequently inserted by the Targums (Gen. xliv. i 4,
i K. iv. 6, xviii. 3, 2 K. xviii. 18) to define the Hebrew "steward" (lit. " over the
house"). One form of this word means also (Levy Ch. ii. 46 7), "mina" the
term used by Luke to represent "pound."
2 [3303a] Mk xiii. 33 7 contains "look to it," "keep vigil," "that he should
watch," "watch therefore," "watch."
3 Mk xiii. 35.
300
COMING UNEXPECTEDLY [3305]
The evidence points to the conclusion that the original of these
traditions about the unexpectedness of the Coming, mentioned, not
" the son of man" but the Lord of the House, and that this, being
taken to mean Jesus, was paraphrased, and explained by further
traditions, by Matthew and Luke 1 .
4. "About that day know eth... not even the Son"
[3304] In the Discourse on the Last Days, Mark represents
Jesus as saying "But about that day or that hour no one knoweth,
not even the angels in heaven nor even the Son but [only] the
Father." Matthew substantially agrees with this, adding an emphatic
"alone" at the end of the sentence 2 . The parallel Luke omits this
and has an entirely different tradition.
The imputation of ignorance to "the Son," a difficulty felt by
many early Christian commentators, has probably caused the omission
of " nor even the Son " in a few inferior MSS. of Matthew, and might
seem at first sight sufficient to explain Luke's omission of the
sentence. But there are the following reasons for thinking that
Luke may also have been influenced by doubt about the exact
meaning of the words.
[3305] We have seen above, that, in the Healing of the Paralytic,
Mark appears to have mistaken "son of man" for "son" (3165).
1 [3303 ] If it is true, as suggested above, that Mk xiii. 34 "porter" caused
difficulty to Matthew and Luke, then we should expect the fourth gospel to
intervene, especially in view of the question in Luke (xiL 41} "Sayest thou this
parable to us or also to all?" and of Mk xiii. 37 "What I say unto you I say
unto all." It might well seem needful to explain that neither Peter, nor any
apostle, must be taken by Christians as their "porter" to open their hearts to
Christ. Each man must have in himself the "porter" to his own heart when
Christ knocks at its door. The Johannine Apocalypse teaches this by implication
(Rev. iii. 20, comp. xxii. 12, 17, where Jesus says "I come," and "the Spirit
and the bride" reply "Come"). Also the gospel expressly says (Jn x. 3) "To
him" that is, to the Good Shepherd "the Porter openeth," clearly meaning
no apostle but the responsive Spirit in each Christian and in the Christian
Church.
[3303 c] "Porter," Ovpwpos, occurs nowhere hi N.T. besides Mk xiii. 34,
Jn x. 3, except Jn xviii. 1617. There it is connected with Peter, not perhaps
without a quaint play on the antithesis between the "portress" of the high priest
who, for the moment, overcomes Peter the "porter" of Christ. Compare the
two "coal-fires" (a word non-occurrent in N.T. except Jn xviii. 18, xxi. 9) at
the first of which Peter fell, and at the second of which he was forgiven. Such
antitheses are characteristic of Jewish literature (see 3062 (iv) d).
2 Mk xiii. 32. ML xxiv. 36 adds fwvot. Parall. Lk. xxi. 34 differs altogether.
301
[3305] "THE SON OF MAN" COMING UNEXPECTEDLY
Now codex e, in this passage of Matthew, has "son of man" for
"son," Also, in the Old Testament, in the only two passages (apart
from Ecclesiastes) having "no man knoweth" (lit. "not [a] man
knoweth"}, the Targum of Jonathan on Deuteronomy, and the
Targum on Job, have "son of man knoweth not 1 ." "Son of man"
seems likely to have been used by Jesus in a phrase combining
"men" and "angels"; for in the first Epistle to the Corinthians,
" both angels and men " is rendered in Delitzsch's Hebrew, and in
the Syriac, " both angels and sons of man 2 ." This is the positive
evidence for the hypothesis that in Mark the original had "son of
man." Negative evidence against Mark's present text is the fact
that neither "the Son" nor "the Father" is used elsewhere in Mark
absolutely, as both are here.
These facts indicate that the original was "But about that day
knoweth no one, neither angel nor son of man" i.e. nor any man.
Then " nor son of man " was taken as " nor the son of man." Those
who took it thus, might explain that it meant " the Son " as distinct
from " the Father," and such an explanation might be grafted on
the original. In these circumstances, Luke might feel justified in
omitting the tradition. John may have had it in view when he
represents Jesus as saying, "The Father is greater than I s " words
quoted by Jerome's comment on the difficult passage in Mark.
Our conclusion is that the words found in Mark and Matthew
were probably not uttered by Jesus in the exact form in which they
are extant.
1 [3305 a] Deut. xxxiv. 6, Job xxviii. 13. "The Targum of Jonathan" is
here mentioned to remind the reader that it is the name commonly given to what
is mostly called, in this book, Jer. I as distinguished from Jer. II (see References
and Abbreviations). In Eccles. ix. i, 12, Targ. paraphrases, or has " vir." The
English Concordance gives only these four passages in the O.T. as containing
"no man knoweth" or "man knoweth not."
2 i Cor. iv. 9.
3 [33053] Jn xiv. 28. And yet Jesus has said (x. 30) "I and the Father are
one (ft*)." The Son, in virtue of His unity with the Father, may be regarded
as taking pleasure, on earth, in His human limitations, and in not knowing
anything of the future until it pleases the Father to reveal it to Him.
302
CHAPTER XV
i. "At the right hand"
[3306] All the Synoptists agree that Jesus, at the Trial, spoke of
"the son of man" as "seated at the right hand," either "of the
power," or "of the power of God 1 ." They also agree that Jesus had
previously quoted in public the words of the Psalmist " The Lord
said unto my lord, ' Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine
enemies to be beneath thy feet,' 0r, 'the footstool of thy feet 2 .'"
Moreover He had based on this quotation a question about the
Messiah, or Christ, asking how to be David's "lord" was compatible
with being David's "son."
"Until" implies waiting. And the "waiting" is connected by
Paul with the "subjection" mentioned in the eighth Psalm: "For
he [i.e. Christ] must reign 'till he [i.e. the Father] hath put all his
enemies under his feet.' The last enemy that shall be abolished is
death. For ' He [i.e. the Father] put all things in subjection under
his feet ' [i.e. the feet of the son of man] . . . V Thus the Psalmist's
description of the waiting for the subjection of the " enemies " of the
Messiah, among whom is " death," is paralleled with the Psalmist's
description of the subjection of " the beasts of the field " to " the
son of man," which we believe to be typical of Christ's doctrine
concerning the dominion of "the son of man. :)
We infer that the phrase " seated at the right hand," having been
used by Jesus previously in connection with the Messiah and
" enemies," has probably a reference to " enemies " when applied to
1 Mk xiv. 61, Mt. xxvi. 64, Lk. xxii. 69. See 3279 foil., where the parallel
passages are quoted fully.
* Mk xii. 36, Mt. xxii. 44, Lk. xx. 42 3 quoting Ps. ex. i.
3 i Cor. xv. 24 7, quoting Ps. ex. i, viii. 6.
33
[3307] "THE SON OF MAN"
the " sitting " of " the son of man " in the passage under considera-
tion. That is to say, it implies the sitting of a king whose kingdom
exists de jure, and to some extent de facto, but the subjection of
whose "enemies," or rebels, is not yet complete.
2. " The power "
[3307] The same Greek word for " power " occurs both here and
in a previous mention of the coming of "the son of man" :
Mk xiv. 62, Mt. xxvi. 64 Lk. xxii. 69
"seated at the right hand of "seated at the right hand of
the power." the power of God."
Mk xiii. 26 Mt. xxiv. 30, Lk. xxi. 27
" along with (lit.) power much 1 "along with (lit.) power and
and glory." glory much 1 ."
In the LXX, " power " is frequently used for a military " force,"
or " host," sometimes meaning the host of heaven, but sometimes
the host, or armed force, of Israel. This results in variations, as
where LXX mentions " the strongest men of those in the power"
i.e. in the army, but Theodotion "men strong in strength*" Else-
where LXX has "unto his power in his strength? parallel to
Theodotion's correct rendering ''unto the power? i.e. "the army 8 ."
Theodotion's regular rendering of " with a great army," in Daniel, is
" in great power*?
[3308] In the earlier utterance about the "coming," Mark's
order suggests that he took "much power" as meaning "great host,"
but Matthew's and Luke's suggest that they took "power" in its
general sense. A difference of opinion was very natural. "Power"
is so often used for " army " in Daniel that it might well seem to
Mark to have that meaning here especially as being in proximity to
a quotation from Daniel namely, the army of the saints, called
" the clouds."
1 [3307 a] The Greek order of "much" is indicated in order to shew that
Mark limits it to "power (Swa/iis)," whereas Matthew and Luke allow it to be
connected with both "power" and "glory."
2 Dan. iii. 20, Theod. Ivxvpoiis laxvi.
9 Ib. xi. 7. Here LXX, as often, has combined two renderings of one original.
* Dan. xi. 13, 25 (bis), Theod. tv Swdjuet ^70X77, LXX "i' a great multitude
304
AND "THE POWER" [3310]
But in the later utterance, now under consideration, the circum-
stances are changed. " Seated at the right hand " is not in Daniel,
nor would " at the right hand of the host [of heaven] " make good
sense. We are therefore driven to suppose that "the Power" is here
used as a name of God, of which use several instances occur in
Jewish literature though none in the Bible 1 . Luke, by adding
" of God," rather alters the meaning, for it is not " the power of
God," but "the [Supreme] Power [that is to say, God]." The
meaning is that God is here regarded, not in the aspect of Holiness,
or Righteousness, or Wisdom, but in the aspect of Power.
Practically, it means "the Almighty," and, if Jesus uses "power"
thus, it is almost the only 2 instance in which He uses any such
periphrasis for God.
[3309] The reason for its use may be that He desires to warn
the Jews that in condemning " the son of man " on earth they are
turning God into a " Power," instead of a Father, in heaven, and are
preparing for themselves, in the Son, not a mediator revealing the
Father, but a judge seated at the right hand of the Power.
But if Jesus is not now referring to Daniel's description of the
Messiah as " brought near " to the throne, but to the Psalmist who
describes the Messiah as " sitting at the right hand " how can we
explain the words that follow in Mark and Matthew, namely, "coming
with (Mt on) the clouds of heaven " ? These appear to be from
Daniel. Are they here used to describe a subsequent descent from
the throne in heaven to judge the earth ? Their omission by Luke
counts against them, and, though they add a vague sense of solemnity
at the first reading, they will be found subsequently difficult to
reconcile with the context. This must now be considered.
3. The context
[3310] In reply to the question whether Jesus was the Christ
the answer varies. Mark and Matthew have "ye shall see," Luke
" there shall be." Also Matthew and Luke insert " henceforth," or
"from now." Most important of all is the omission by Matthew
and Luke of Mark's "I am " :
1 [3308 a] Levy i. 297 b. Dalman (Words p. 201) quotes a saying of Ishmael
(about 100 A.D.) " It was said by the mouth of the Power."
2 [33086] There is a periphrasis in Lk. xi. 49 "the Wisdom of God said,"
where the parallel Mt. xxiii. 34 has what is "said," but without the words "the
Wisdom of God said." See 3583 (i) foil.
A. S.
35 20
[3310] "THE SON OF MAN"
Mk xiv. 62 Mt. xxvi. 64 Lk. xxii. 679
" I am, XK& ye shall "Thou saidst \ii\- "If I say [it] unto
see the son of man...." However I say unto you, ye will surely
you, Henceforth ye not believe.... But
shall see the son of from now the son of
man...." man shall be...:'
In part, these variations may be explained by the hypothesis that
there were, or were supposed by the evangelists to be, several such
questions 1 .
In part, however, the variations may have arisen from a misunder-
standing of the Jewish "Thou saidst it," meaning, "You, not I,
take the responsibility of saying this 2 ." The phrase was mostly used
in conveying bad news, for example, in answer to such a question as
" Is our friend dead?" But Jesus may have used it in a brief reply
to a question that He could not answer affirmatively without giving
a false impression, and could not answer negatively without saying
what would be false. The conceptions of the Jews about "the
Messiah" and "the Son of God" were quite different from the true
ones. If He had said to them " / am" they would certainly neither
have believed in Him nor have understood Him 3 .
1 [3310 a] All the Synoptists agree that, later on, in answer to Pilate's question,
"Art thou the king of the Jews?" Jesus replied (Mk xv. 2, Mt. xxvii. n,
Lk. xxiii. 3) " Thou sayest [it]."
In the present passage, Luke has, or implies, two questions corresponding to
Mark's and Matthew's one (Mk xiv. 61, Mt. xxvi. 63) "Art thou the Christ, the
son of the blessed (Mt. the son of God) ? " In reply to the first, the implied
question, "If thou art the Christ..." Luke (xxii. 67) gives the long answer placed
above ("If I tell you etc."). But he adds another afterwards (xxii. 70) "Thou art
then the son of God? " to which Jesus replies, " Ye say that I am " thus repeating
Matthew's " Thou saidst\\i\" only in the plural, and defining "it" by "that I am."
This (if "that" were omitted, as it easily might be) might be a combination of two
versions of the reply " Ye say [it]," " I am." Of these, the latter would agree with
a tradition like Mark's, "Jesus said 'I am.'"
2 [3310(5] See foh. Gr. 2234 <$, 2246 a. The idiomatic Greek for "you must
take the responsibility," or "you must see to it," is "you (emph.) shall see"
without an object, as in Mt. xxvii. 4, 24 (comp. Acts xviii. 15). In Acta Pilati
(A) ii. 2 3, Jesus says to Pilate, concerning the Jews who slander Him, " They
(emph.) shall see \to it}," i.e. shall take the consequences. The Jews play on
the phrase, thus, " What shall we seel First, that thou wast born of fornication...."
3 [3310 c\ The italicised words, when turned into direct speech, become " If I had
said to you ' /am,' ye would certainly neither have believed in me nor have understood
me" This closely resembles the answer actually placed by Luke alone in our
Lord's mouth ("If I say it unto you ye will surely not believe"). The similarity
306
AND "THE POWER" [3312]
[3311] It is much more likely that the loose paraphrase adopted
here by Mark ("I am") wrongly or inadequately represented the
Jewish phrase " thou saidst it," and that Matthew and Luke correctly
retained the phrase (" thou saidst," "ye say " etc.), than that Matthew
and Luke inserted the phrase without any solid foundation. And if
Mark is wrong in this point, he may be also wrong in the context,
both in inserting '' ye shall see " and in omitting " henceforth " or
" from now."
As regards " ye shall see," various explanations are possible, one
being that it is an erroneous misplacing of the emphatic "ye shall
see 1 ." Another is, that it may be a paraphrase of what Luke has
("the son of "man shall be") with the addition of "for you," meaning,
" That is the aspect in which you will see the son of man, namely,
as a judge 2 ."
On the whole it is more probable that Mark has paraphrased
than that Luke has deviated from Mark without cause. And this
probability must fairly tell against Mark, and for Matthew and Luke,
in the more important question next to be discussed whether Jesus
added that the new condition of things should begin " henceforth."
4. "Henceforth"
[3312] The word " henceforth " here used by Matthew, parallel
to Luke's "from now" occurs again in Christ's Farewell to the
shews how easily a gloss explaining -why Christ did not say "/ am," might give
rise to an alleged additional saying of Christ's.
[3310 d] Prof. Dalman ( Words pp. 309 10) quotes from Tosephta, Kelim,
Bab. k. i. 6, some gross abuse heaped on Simeon the Modest by Rabbi Eliezer
(c. 100 A.D.) who said to Simeon, "Who is the more honourable, thou, or the
high priest?" and then when Simeon was silent "continued, 'Thou certainly
doest well to be ashamed to say that even the high priest's dog is more honourable
than thou?' Then Simeon spoke, saying, 'Rabbi, thou hast said it. 1 "
Prof. Dalman adds that Simeon's reply "means exactly, 'you are right.'''
But may it not be a tacit rebuke from Simeon "the Modest," meaning, "I will
not say you are wrong, for I made a mistake and deserve reproof; but you must
take the responsibility of saying that I acquiesce, or that any true Israelite would
acquiesce, in the statement that an Israelite is less honourable than a 'dog.'"
1 That is, QiVoi ofcffffe, "you must take the responsibility," see Acta Pilati
quoted above (3310 6).
' 2 [3311 a] Comp. Heb. x. 26 7 "If we sin wilfully... there remaineth no
more a sacri6ce for sins but a certain fearful expectation of judgment." This
might be paraphrased " We shall henceforth see Christ no sacrifice but a judge."
Somewhat similar is Jn xii. 48, on which see 3315.
307 20 2
[3313] "THE SON OF MAN"
Temple : (Mt. xxiii. 39) "I say unto you, ye shall surely not see me
henceforth till ye say...," where the parallel Luke (xiii. 35) omits
"henceforth 1 ." It occurs also as follows:
Mk xiv. 25 (lit.) Mt. xxvi. 29 Lk. xxii. 18
" Verily I say unto " But I say unto " For I say unto
you that no longer you, I will surely not you, I will surely not
will I assuredly drink henceforth....' 1 '' drink from now...."
drink...."
The reader will observe that in two passages of Matthew the
parallel Luke has "from now" where Matthew has "henceforth."
One reason for this is, that in classical and vernacular Greek,
outside the New Testament, Matthew's " henceforth " at all events
when spelt as one word, instead of two, a difference not recognisable
in ancient MSS. has nothing to do with time, but means "exactly,"
"just," and, in certain contexts, "just (the contrary) 2 ."
But these facts, while explaining Mark's and Luke's apparent
avoidance of Matthew's word, make it probable that it actually
occurred in the earliest Greek tradition of Christ's sayings.
[3313] In these circumstances it is noteworthy that John agrees
with Matthew, not only in using the word, but also in using it in
Christ's utterances, and in an utterance about " seeing " the Father,
" If ye had known me, ye would have known my Father also ;
henceforth ye know him and have seen him 3 ."
In John, the meaning seems to be " If ye had known me before,
ye would have known my Father also. Henceforth, [now that ye
are clean, and have been washed by me, and have received not into
your ears alone but into your hearts my commandment to love one
another with the love wherewith I have loved you] ye are recognising
1 Luke's (xiii. 35) omission of "henceforth" may arise from the fact that he
did not, like Matthew, regard the words as uttered when Jesus was bidding His
final farewell to the Temple (3243).
2 [3312 a] Matthew's word is, literally, "from just [now]," air' &pri, and the
Grammarian Phrynichus (Lobeck p. 18) says "Never say, 'I \\i\\just \nmn~\
(apri) come,' about the future " Matthew's "horn just [now] " is not so accurate
as Luke's "from now (TOV vvv)." When airdpri was spelt as one word it was
taken like airaprlfa "I adjust," and meant "just" in such phrases as "just ten
miles," "just the opposite" etc.
3 Jn xiv. 7. The only other Johannine instance is in Jn xiii. 19 "henceforth
I tell you [of the impending betrayal]...," i.e. "I will no longer keep silence
about it."
308
AND "THE POWER" [3314]
the Father and have seen Him 1 ." That is to say, the disciples were
beginning to recognise the Father as being the newly revealed
"love," and had received a vision of Him in that character.
[3314] This accords also with other passages in all the gospels
(though mostly in the fourth) where Jesus sees, and even calls on
His disciples to see, what we should rather describe as things in
their germs, as though they were things in their fulfilments. There
is a feeling that "all things are new," if not at this very moment, at
least " from this very moment." The hour "is coming," He says on
one occasion, and then adds " and now is 2 ."
Applying these Johannine illustrations to Christ's answer to the
high priest we may infer that Jesus used the word "henceforth"
because He regarded the moment as a critical one. The high
priest's question, asked as it was 3 , revealed a determination to
condemn "the son of man." This necessarily converted "the son
of man," for them, into a Being condemning them. " Henceforth "
He became a judge seated at the right hand of God, with the word
gone forth that His " enemies " were to be put under His feet. If
we read, with Matthew, " ye shall see," then the meaning is, " That is
the aspect in which you must 'henceforth' regard Him." If we read,
with Luke, " there shall be," then the meaning is, " That is what is
'from the present time' in store for you 4 ."
1 [3313 a] See Joh. Gram. 2763, but in that discussion weight ought to have
been attached to the regular N.T. use of the adverb " henceforth" with indicatives,
not with imperatives. In view of this, the connection with an imperative suggested
by a scholiast on Rev. xiv. 13 (Notes 2998 (xxix) a) should probably be rejected, and
"henceforth" should be taken at the end of the sentence, meaning "henceforth
and for ever" (comp. Is. ix. 7, lix. 11, Ps. cxxv. i, cxxxi. 3).
2 Jn iv. 23, comp. v. 25.
3 [3314 a] " As it was," i.e. in circumstances indicating an intention to extract
an answer that might be pronounced blasphemous. It is difficult to believe,
however, that the high priest drew Jesus into an answer by an adjuration, which
Matthew alone (xxvi. 63) mentions.
[33143] Some error probably lies in Mk xiv. 61 "Art thou the Christ, the
Son of the Blessed?" The usual Jewish periphrasis for "God" is "The Holy
[One] Blessed [be] He!" If that was the original, Luke (xxii. 70 "Son of
God") has condensed it correctly, but Mark incorrectly, taking it as "the Blessed
[Holy One]" and dropping "Holy."
Gesenius (139 a) gives seven instances of the Hebrew "bless" used as meaning
"curse." These have sometimes caused errors in LXX. The same word may
have caused an error in Matthew, if he took "Blessed [be] He!" for "he
blessed," i<e. the high priest adjured under a curse.
4 [3314 c] Something may be learned as to different ways of expressing God's
39
[3315] "THE SON OF MAN" AND "THE POWER"
[3315] Very similar in meaning, though very different in words,
is the utterance in the fourth gospel: "He that rejecteth me... hath
one that judgeth him. The word that I spake, the same shall judge
him in the last day 1 ." Jesus, just before, has disclaimed judging.
" I judge him not, for I came not to judge the world but to save
the world."
This passage mentions no "clouds," "right hand," or "power";
but it teaches that "judgment," invisible judgment, is going on
already. The guilty world "hath one that judgeth." And who is
the " one " ? It is the personal " son of man " converted by those
that rejected Him into a past impersonal Word ("the word that I
spake "). " Henceforth" says Jesus in effect, " the son of man is not
your Redeemer but your Judge." Thus the doctrine of John appears
to agree with that of Matthew and Luke as against Mark, that " the
son of man " is already, in some sense, judging.
"coming" to judge the earth, to deliver Israel etc., from Targumistic equivalents,
e.g. Is. xxvi. 21 "The Lord cometh out from his place," Targ. "God will be
revealed from the place of His majesty," Exod. xix. 9 "I come unto thee,"
Onk. "am revealed unto thee" (and so Onk. in Exod. xx. 20 "come," Deut. iv. 34
"go," xxxiii. 2 "the Lord came from Sinai" (see context)). This use of "re-
vealed" is rare in N.T., but occurs in Lk. xvii. 30 "in the day in which the
son of man is \to be~\ revealed." This follows Lk. xvii. 26 "in the days of the son
of man," which is parall. to Mt. xxiv. 37 " the parousia of the son of man."
1 Jn xii. 48.
3 IO
CHAPTER XVI
"THE SON OF MAN" IN CONNECTION WITH
THE PASSION
i. The origin of glosses exemplified
[3316] The following mention of " the son of man," peculiar to
Matthew, shews how a gloss containing this phrase might sometimes
be inserted in the text :
Mk xiv. i Mt. xxvi. 2 Lk. xxii. i
"Now there was "'Ye know that "Now there was
the Passover and the after two days the drawing near the
unleavened [bread] Passover takes place feast of the unlea-
after two days...." and the son of man is vened [bread] that
[to be\ delivered up to was called Passover."
be crucified: "
The italicised words, omitted by Mark and Luke, contain a
prediction of "crucifixion," which no evangelist but Matthew ever
assigns to Jesus. They appear to have been originally a marginal
addition, subsequently transferred to the text.
It has been shewn above (3067 8) that no evangelist making
a statement in his own person would be likely to speak of Jesus as
"the son of man." But an evangelist, or editor, might use the
phrase when placing in the margin a brief note repeating previous
words of Jesus about Himself. In the present instance, the words
point to a repetition of an earlier saying peculiar to Matthew, " The
son of man shall be delivered up... to crucify 1 ."
1 [3316a] Mt. xx. 18 19. Compare Lk. xxiv. 6 7 "When he was yet in
Galilee, saying that the son of man must be delivered up. ..and crucified " This
is not uttered by Jesus but by angels quoting what Jesus mas supposed to have
predicted. ( See 3253 . )
[3317] "THE SON OF MAN"
Some addition of this kind in the passage quoted above from
Matthew would become absolutely necessary if he erroneously took
Mark's own words (" the Passover after two days ") as an utterance
of Jesus. For that Jesus should say, " Ye know that the Passover
is two days hence," and then stop, was seen to be impossible. " Of
course they 'knew.' Why, then, did they need to be told that
they 'knew' it?" This was an obvious objection.
It could not be met except by supposing that something more
than what John calls (3420 a) " the Passover, the feast of the Jews,"
was contemplated in Christ's utterance. It might be argued by
Matthew that is to say, by the author of Matthew's extant text
that there was a mystical meaning in the words ; and that Jesus did
not mean merely the Passover of the Jews, but the Passover that was
hereafter to be observed by Christians, consisting in the crucifixion.
The author might explain this by writing in the margin a quotation
of Christ's previous words. That this quotation was embodied in
the text can excite little surprise.
[3317] Our first conclusion is, that whenever " son of man " is
applied to Christ in the New Testament, and not in His own words,
it is likely to be of the nature of a quotation, and that this explains the
use of the phrase by the martyr Stephen in the Acts and the martyr
James the Just in Eusebius and by the angels in Luke after the
Resurrection 1 . Our second conclusion is, that sometimes quotations
of previous sayings of Christ, placed in the margin of a gospel, might
find their way into the text, as though they were later and additional
sayings 2 .
1 [3317 a] In Acts vii. 55 6, the martyr Stephen testifies to the exaltation
of "the son of man," seen in a vision. Euseb. ii. 23, 13 "Why question ye me
about Jesus, the son of man, and He sitteth in the heaven at the right hand of the
great Power..." is also the utterance of a martyr and refers similarly to "the son
of man " as exalted in accordance with Christ's own words. On Lk. xxiv. 7 see
3253 a and 3316 a.
2 [3317 U\ This section does not discuss the question whether, at the bottom of
the Mk-Mt. tradition, there may not be latent some combination of such phrases
as those in Hosea and Habakkuk, bidding the disciples believe that " After two
days (lios. vi. 2) is the Appointed Time (Hab. ii. 3)," which (3414 (ii) d e) might
mean either (i) The Appointed Time of Deliverance, or (2) the Passover. On
this, see Paradosis 1289 foil. In that case, Matthew would seem to have regarded
Christ's obscure utterance as intended to be some kind of repetition of the
predictions of the death and resurrection of "the son of man," and he accordingly
adds words to make that intention clear. That would not affect the conclusion
312
IN CONNECTION WITH THE PASSION [3319]
2. " Goeth [home] " or " goeth \pn his way]" and
" is [to be] delivered up "
[3318] On the night of the Last Supper there are brought into
juxtaposition two opposite aspects of the arrest of Jesus, one, in
which it is a " going " that is " written " or " decreed," the other, in
which it is a " being delivered up." In the latter aspect, Jesus may
be regarded either as " delivered up " by God through the agency of
Judas, or, less exactly, as " delivered up " by Judas (" through "
being used for "by").
Mk xiv. 21 and Mt. xxvi. 24 (lit.) Lk. xxii. 22 (lit.)
" On the one hand the son of " The son of man on the one
man goeth [home] even as it is hand goeth [his way] according
written concerning him ; but, on to that [which is] decreed ; yet
the other, woe to that man woe to that man through whom
through whom the son of man he is [to be] delivered up."
is [to be] delivered up."
In Mark instead of " goeth [home] " D and some important
Latin MSS. have " is [to be] delivered up." Thus they produce an
antithetical parallelism ("delivered up" righteously by God... but
sinfully by Judas). Thus, too, they conform the words to previous
utterances of Jesus that predicted "delivering up 1 ."
But the text accords with the Johannine view, that the time had
come when Jesus thought it needful to say, and to reiterate, that He
must needs "go home," or "go his way," and leave the disciples for
a time 2 .
3. " Delivered up into the hands of sinners "
[3319] We have now come to a group of parallels in which the
similarities and the dissimilarities indicate that the original has been
imperfectly rendered, or has been misplaced. Concerning most of
these separately it is impossible to arrive at any confident conclusion.
But concerning the whole collectively we are able to say with
that the clause mentioning "the son of man" is a gloss resulting from a quotation
of Christ's words about Himself.
1 Mk ix. 31, x. 33 (where parall. Lk. xviii. 31 mentions "the prophets").
2 See Jn xiii. xvi. passim. For the difference between "go home (inrdyu) ''
and "go one's way (iropfijofjMi)," and Luke's avoidance of the former, seeyi?^.
Voc. 16528.
[3320]
"THE SON OF MAN"
confidence that, in the opinion of the fourth evangelist at all events,
Jesus laid more stress than we might have supposed from the
Synoptists on the act of the Father, and less stress on the act of
Judas. It will be necessary to touch rapidly on a number of details
in order to confirm this conclusion.
[3320] The first passage has been touched on above but must be
quoted again here in order to throw light on adjacent details :
Mk xiv. 41 3
'"The hour hath
come (///. came), be-
hold, the son of man
is [to be] delivered
up into the hands of
the sinners. Awake 1 ,
let us be going.
Behold, he that is
delivering me up
hath drawn near.'
And* straightway
while he was yet
Mt. xxvi. 45 7
'"Behold, the hour
hath drawn near and
the son of man is [to
be] delivered up into
[the] hands of sinners.
Awake 1 , let us be
going. Behold, there
hath drawn near he
that is delivering me
up.' And while he
was yet speaking...."
Lk. xxii. 47
"...while he was
yet speaking.... 2 "
speaking...."
It has been argued above (325361, and 3264 foil.) that "to the
hands of the sinners " is a misunderstanding of " for sinners," meaning
sinners in general, and that it contains a reference to Christ's previous
predictions, which, in their original form, meant that He would be
thus "delivered up as a hostage or sacrifice for sinners."
Luke omits all this, but has later on, as part of Christ's words, a
mention of "hour," which must be considered in the next section,
along with the mention of " hour " made here.
4. "The hour"
[3321] The following parallels indicate the twofold aspect of
"the hour" of "delivering up." It might be called, as by Luke,
"the hour" of the Jews, and connected with "the power of
1 [3320 a] "EyelpeffQe, rendered "awake" because of the mention of "sleep"
in the context. Comp. Eph. v. 14 "awake (fyetpe)" and Rom. xiii. n "to
awake (tyepdrivai) out of sleep." See also 3322 a.
2 The words preceding this are (Lk. xxii. 46) "Why sleep ye? Arise
(avacrTdvTes) and pray that ye enter not into temptation," parallel to Mk xiv.
38, Mt. xxvi. 41.
IN CONNECTION WITH THE PASSION [3321]
darkness," because darkness then won its external triumph. But it
might be called, as by Mark and Matthew, " the hour," as meaning
"the hour appointed by God."
Mk xiv. 41 Mt. xxvi. 45 Lk. xxii. 53
"The hour hath " The hour hath " This is your hour
come." drawn near." and the power of
darkness."
John has previously used " his [i.e. Christ's] hour," in his own
words and " my hour " and " the hour," in the words of Jesus in
such a way as to shew that it means "the hour appointed by the
Father, and accepted by the Son, for the Passion 1 ." Again, when
John describes the Last Supper, he uses it thus, " Now, before the
feast of the Passover, Jesus, knowing that his hour was come, in
order that he might pass* out of this world to the Father... knowing
that the Father had given all things into his hands and that he came
forth from God and went to God...." And the Last Prayer begins
thus, "Father, the hour* hath come. Glorify thy son 4 ...."
According to Mark, and Mark alone 5 , Jesus prayed that "the
1 Jn ii. 4 "My hour is not yet come," vii. 30 "Xo man laid his hand on him
because his hour had not yet come," viii. 20 "No man took him because his hour
had not yet come," xii. 23 " The hour hath come, in order that the son of man
may be glorified."
- [3321 a] Jn xiii. i 2 "Pass (uera&jj)," used of change of domicile in
Lk. x. 7 "pass not from house to house," Jn v. 24 "hath passed out of death
into life " fcomp. i Jn iii. 14).
3 [33213] This must be distinguished from passages where "hour" is used
without the article, iv. 21, 23, v. 25, 28, xvi. 2 (afterwards referred to in xvi. 4 as
"the hour of those things," i*. of persecutions) xvi. 32. These passages all refer
to "an hour" appointed for various objects by God, but not to "the hour,' 1 used
absolutely, which is always "the hour" of the Son's Passion or Glorifying.
In xii. 27 the Saviour refuses to ask that He may be saved from "this hour"
and declares that He "came for the purpose of this hour." (See From Letter
93740 and /<?/*. Gr. 2512 6.)
[3321 r] Luke's literal use of "hour" contrasts with the Johannine use in two
passages, Lk. xx. 19 "the scribes... sought to lay bands on him in that very hour "
Lk. xxii. 13 14 "and they prepared the Passover. And when the hour came
[i.e. the hour appointed for the meal of the Passover, which John places on the
following evening] he sat down to meat, and the apostles with him." This second
Lucan instance ("the hour") is parallel to the Johannine words (xiii. i) "his
hour was come in order that he might pass out of this world to the Father."
4 Jn xvii. i.
5 Mk xiv. 35, not in parall. Mt. xxvL 39, Lk. xxii. 42. All three mention
the "cup."
315
[3322] "THE SON OF MAN"
hour " might pass from Him as well as " the cup " (which is mentioned
by Matthew and Luke). According to John, the prayer to be saved
from "this hour" was only mentioned by Him to be rejected 1 , and
the same applied to " the cup 2 ."
5. Confusion of narrative at this point
[3322] It might reasonably be expected that (owing to the
excitement of the disciples) the utterances of Jesus, at the moment
when He was on the point of being arrested, and immediately after-
wards, would be variously reported, and variously arranged. If the
sayings were thus varied the contexts would naturally be varied for
the sake of adaptation. For example, Mark and Matthew represent
Jesus as saying to the sleeping disciples, when Judas is approaching,
" Awake, let us be going 3 ." An enemy of the Christians would naturally
base on this such a charge as Origen quotes from Celsus's Jew,
" After we had convicted and condemned him [i.e. Jesus] and
purposed in due course to have him punished, he was ignominiously
caught in the act of hiding himself and in the act of attempting to
make his escape* 1 "
[3323] Close attention must be given to the Marcan word for
"/<?/ us be going" for the Jew may have fastened on this word as
implying cowardly intention to flee; and, curiously enough, it
happens that this word is found Hebraized as agomen in a Jewish
fable, so that it is even possible that we have here the very word that
Jesus uttered. The fable represents the beasts as assenting to the
fox in his proposal to go and pacify the lion, "They said to him
agomen, i.e. let us go 5 ." Stephen's Thesaurus and Liddell and Scott
allege for this use no instance outside the New Testament 6 . I have
found one instance in Epictetus, who represents a Stoic as incon-
1 Jn xii. 27, on which sezjoh. Gr. Index.
2 Jn xviii. ir (R.V.) " The cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not
drink it?" (but see /<?/&. Gr. 2232 and From Letter 9336).
3 [3322 a] Mk xiv. 42 "Let us be going (dyu/j.ev)," and so Mt. xxvi. 46.
Luke omits all this. On "awake," as being perhaps better than "arise" here,
as a rendering of tydpeaOe, see 3320 a. In Jn xiv. 31 tyelpe<r6e "arise" is better,
as " sleeping " is not mentioned in the context.
4 Gels. ii. 9.
5 Gen. Rab. (on Gen. xxxiii. i, Wunsche p. 382, Levy i. 21 b).
6 [3323 a] Steph. Thes. &yu 5667, L. and S. (under Aye) merely mention
N.T. as authority for &yu/j.fi>. The word is fully discussed in Paradosis 1372 7.
316
[3325]
sistently resenting a cudgelling in these terms, " O Caesar, what a
monstrous outrage am I enduring to the breaking of the Emperor's
peace ! Let us go (agdmen) to the Proconsul 1 ."
[3324] How does Origen meet the charge of cowardice? He
does not meet it by saying that agdmen meant " Let us go forward "
and not "Let us go away." He meets it by appealing to John
("He went forth and said to them, Whom seek ye 2 ?") and to
Matthew ("Thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father*?").
Perhaps the Jew might say these sayings were fabrications. Origen
replies that the disciples, who attested their belief in Christ by
suffering persecution, were too sincere to fabricate sayings in His
behalf. But we have no extant remarks of his about agdmen ; and
Origen indirectly reveals to us, by appealing to John, that John's aid
was necessary. That is to say, Marks "agdmen " caused a difficulty to
Christians in the first century and gave John a motive for intervening
to remove the difficulty.
[3325] John accordingly intervenes in two ways (i) by narrating
new fact, (2) by interpreting and emphasizing the old word. In the
first place he represents Jesus as " going forth" to meet the soldiers*,
and the soldiers as falling back in fear from Him, not Jesus from
them. In the next place he represents Jesus as using the word
agdmen on other occasions of " going forth" so as to shew that it does
not mean " Let us flee 5 ." On one of these occasions, Jesus says,
"Arise (3322 a), let us be going hence," as in Matthew and Mark,
1 [3323^] Epict. iii. 22. 55 v.r. dyofj^v. In Paradosis, although the facts are
stated correctly in the text, yet the remark in the note (1376 b) on "Greek
usage" does not make sufficient allowance for the fact that the "usage" is
confined (so far as we know at present) to N.T. and Epictetus. Even if
Galilaeans used it to mean "let us go forward," an anti-Christian Jew might
not improbably have taken it (perhaps wilfully and uncharitably) as meaning
"let us go" in the sense "let us go away."
3 Jn xviii. 4. 3 Mt. xxvi. 53.
4 [3325 a] Jn xviii. 4, comp. Acts of John n "Before my being delivered
up to them, let us hymn the Father ; and thus let us go forth to the end appointed
(f\6u/jifi> fTrl TO irpoKfifjLfvov) and ib. 12 "so then. ..the Lord went forth... and.
we flee," with Mk xiv. 26, Mt. xxvi. 30 (lit.) "having hymned they went forth"
and see Notes 2938 9 on "go forth" meaning "die" and "go forth to martyr-
dom," as in Heb. xiii. 13. John mentions two acts of "going forth" xviii. i, 4.
When evangelists in the first century said that Jesus uttered a certain saying
"when He -went forth" the question would arise, "Yes, but at which 'going
forth ? ' " Christ's utterances might be variously placed according to the various
answers.
5 Jnxi. 7, 15, xiv. 31.
317
[3326] "THE SON OF MAN"
only adding "hence." John means apparently, by "hence," from the
City to Gethsemane ; and the context indicates that the enemy whose
coming is anticipated is not Judas, the agent of Satan, but Satan
himself. Jesus utters the word agomen, meaning " let us go forth "
to do the will of the Father : "for the prince of the world cometh...
as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us be
going hence 1 ."
[3326] This crucial word agomen occurs once more (and in
connection with "going forth") in a passage of Mark addressed to
" Simon " and his friends : " Let us be going elsewhere to the
neighbouring villages... for to this end did I go (or, come) forth"
where Luke omits Mark's special mention of " Simon," but has
"to this end was I sent 2 ." The context shews that agomen meant
" let us go forth to do God's will."
In the Raising of Lazarus, John takes up and emphasizes the
rare word thrice, shewing, in the third instance, that it implies going
to face death. "Let us be going into Judaea again... let us be going
unto him (Lazarus). Thomas... said unto his fellow-disciples, Let us
be going, too, that we may die with him*."
1 Jn xiv. 30 r.
2 Mk i. 38, "did I go (or, come) forth (erjK6ov)" Lk. iv. 43 "was I sent
(aireffT<i\i)v) ."
3 [3326 a] Jn xi. 7, 15, 16. It may be asked why John deviates from Mark,
as regards the occasion t on which Jesus uttered agomen. It seems to make good
sense that, in the moment when Judas and his companions were seen advancing,
Jesus should say "Let us go forward to meet the enemy." Why is not John
content to follow Mark ?
Probably because John has failed to interpret correctly the tradition giving
the actual fact, i.e. that, though Jesus said "Let us go forward" the disciples
fell back-ward and abandoned their Master. John does not describe though Jesus
predicts (Jn xvi. 32) abandonment. The original "went, or fell, backward"
(Gesen. 690 i) probably referred to disciples (comp. Jn vi. 66). But John takes
it as referring to the soldiers, whom he describes as (Jn xviii. 6) " going back and
falling on the ground.' 1 ' 1 The Mark-Matthew tradition of abandonment (Mk xiv.
50, Mt. xxvi. 56) is omitted by Luke (xxii. 53 foil.) and John seems to have inter-
vened (erroneously) to shew that Luke had omitted something of importance,
which had been recorded, but (so John thinks) misapplied, by Mark.
[3326/5] Also John has perhaps in view a tradition (somewhat resembling
Luke's (xxii. 51) (lit.) "Give permission as far as this") which represented Jesus
as asking "permission" for His disciples to "go away," (Jn xviii. 8) "Give
permission for these to go away." That, in itself, prevented John from accepting
Mark's arrangement of agomen. How could Jesus say to the disciples, in effect
" Come on" and yet ask "permission" that they might "go away"!
[3326 c] Another error of John is perhaps a confusion of the "kiss," or "sign,"
318
IN CONNECTION WITH THE PASSION [3328]
It is not contended that John's details are correct, or that he is free
from bias toward idealisation. Even as regards the use of this very
key-word agomtn, it may be admitted that he has probably erred in
placing it too early where it would mean " Let us be going from the
City to Gethsemane," instead of placing it as Mark places it, where
it may mean " Let us be going forward to do God's will, or to
meet the enemy/' But this does not destroy the indirect value of
John's testimony to the fact that Jesus did actually use the word
agomen, at the time of His arrest, and that it implied, not "going
backward " but "going forward."
6. The tendency of the evidence
[3327] It has not been assumed above, nor would it be safe to
assume, that Mark himself (who appears sometimes to interpret
incorrectly words that he has reported correctly) regarded agomen as
meaning "let us go forward"; for, in the only other passage where
he uses it (3326), the meaning might be "&/ us go away from this
place" (although the context says that the "going" will be to fulfil the
will of God). So here, Mark, who seems habitually to misunderstand
" delivering up " as the act of Judas, and not as the act of God, may
have taken agomen as meaning " let us go away," thinking that the
same motive that led Jesus to go secretly to Gethsemane, may also
have led Him to attempt flight when in Gethsemane.
If we asked Mark why he did not use some other unambiguous
expression, such as "let us flee," he might perhaps have replied
" Agomen was the actual word used by the Lord Jesus. The Apostle
Peter handed it down in tradition. It was one of the first words he
heard the Lord say in Galilee, and it was one of the last words that
he heard on the night on which the Lord was betrayed. It is not
my business to interpret it. It is my business to record it."
[3328] We appear, however, to be proceeding step by step on
solid ground in inferring that even though Mark himself did not take
agomen as meaning " Let us go forward," yet that was what it really
meant. The next step is to infer that if agomen means this, the con-
text requires something that mentions or implies God's will, or Christ's
given by Judas, with "heavy arms," orXa, not mentioned in the gospels except in
Jn xviii. 3, and identical (Gesen. 676) in Hebrew letters with "kiss." Comp.
Gen. xli. 40 "kiss," but R.V. txt. "be ruled," Jer. Targ. " armabuntur." But
see also 3260 b for another explanation.
319
[3329] "THE SON OF MAN"
mission : " Let us go forward to the work, or the sacrifice, or to do
the Lord's will." We might add " or to meet the enemy " ; but, if
so, we can hardly think that "the enemy" would be Judas. It
would rather be, as John expresses it, " the prince of the world," the
evil principle rather than the evil instrument 1 .
[3329] Mark, no doubt, supposes that Judas is referred to in the
words " He that delivereth me up hath drawn near." But the
expression "hath drawn near" is never applied in the New Testament
to the approach of a person, but always to the Kingdom of God, the
Day of the Lord, the Presence of the Lord, etc. The same rule
applies to the expression in the LXX ; and the rule is invariable
so far as concerns the negative part, the exclusion of a person
(Paradosis 1379 foil.). According to these precedents, it might
refer to the visitation of God, or the hour appointed by God or to
the nearness of God who was delivering up His Son in accordance
with the Law and the Prophets but not to Judas.
We find it hard to realise this because Mark has misunderstood
" deliver up " all through his gospel, as referring to Judas, so that he
has not prepared us for its referring to God. But we must try to
make allowance for the fact or at least for the possibility that
Jesus has been all along thinking of God, and not of Judas, as the
Author of the "delivering up." Then it becomes easier to suppose
that His meaning in this last utterance about "delivering up" was to
this effect : " Let us go forward, behold, He that delivereth me up
hath drawn near to fulfil His purpose."
[3330] According to this interpretation Jesus was making a last
effort to encourage His disciples to go forward with Him to confront
the emissaries of the chief priests and to meet whatever might be the
will of God. On a previous occasion (so the fourth gospel says)
those emissaries had returned without arresting Him. " Never man
so spake 2 " had been their excuse for their failure. On another
occasion, John says, He had not been arrested simply because His
hour had not yet come 3 . Now He believed that the hour had come.
Yet, in spite of His prediction that the disciples would forsake Him,
He did not desist from doing His best to strengthen them, as He
had also done His best to divert Judas from his purpose.
The following three suppositions are quite compatible with
1 Jn xiv. 30 I "the prince of the rawA/cometh... arise, let us be going hence."
2 Jn vii. 46. 3 Jn viii. 20.
320
IN CONNECTION WITH THE PASSION [3332]
each other. When Jesus said, " Let us go forward," He knew that
He was going forth to be " smitten." He also knew that God had
" drawn near," delivering Him up to be a sacrifice, yet, as He said,
not leaving Him "alone 1 ." But He did not see the details of all
the immediate future, drawn out before Him as in a map, with the
same clearness with which He saw the general outline of a speedy
deliverance, which was to fulfil the prophecy of the " rising again on
the third day," and to be the beginning of " greater works."
[3331] Humanly speaking, we may say that what had happened
before might have happened again. The servants of the chief priests
might have again returned without arresting Jesus. They might
even have turned against their masters to serve this new Master, like
the populace that had welcomed Him when He rode into Jerusalem.
In that case "the hour" would have been again deferred. John
implies that there was a supernatural recoil at first, on the part of
Judas and his companions. But probably he writes here under
a misunderstanding.
[3332] According to the view taken above, the meaning of trust
and resignation latent beneath the reported words of Christ may be
best illustrated from the prophets. Isaiah says, "The Lord God
hath opened mine ear... and I know that I shall not be ashamed. He
is near that justifieth me'"; and again, Hosea says, " On the third day
he will raise us up, and we shall live before him. And let us know,
let us follow on to know the Lord*" Similarly Abraham might be
said to have "followed on to know. the Lord" when he said to his
servants "Let us go [forward] I and the lad, yonder 4 ; and we will
worship and come again to you." The form of word used there in
Genesis (occurring there for the first time in the Bible) 5 is the same
as that by which Delitzsch renders agomen in the passage of Mark
under consideration. It is a casual coincidence of word, but one
that suggests a coincidence, more than casual, between the faith
attributed to Abraham and the faith that no student of history,
Christian or non-Christian, can deny to have been an essential
element in the character of Christ.
1 Jn xvi. 32. - Is. 1. 58.
3 Hos. vi. i 3. * Gen. xxii. 5.
5 [3332 a] See Mandelkem p. 329. It generally means "Let us go" for some
religious purpose, e.g. Exod. iii. 18, v. 3, 8, 17, Zech. viii. 21, 23, Is. ii. 3 5,
Mic. iv. 2 (but in Deut. xiii. 2, 6, 13, to serve false gods).
A. S. 321 21
BOOK III
"SON OF MAN"
IN MATTHEW AND LUKE
21 2
CHAPTER I
"THE SON OF MAN" IN THE DOUBLE TRADITION
i. Some characteristics of the Double Tradition 1
[3333] Having discussed the passages in Mark and in Synoptic
parallels to Mark bearing on " the son of man," we pass to others
1 [3333 a] On the Double Tradition of Matthew and Luke and the reasons
for the name, see Corrections 318 (i) <ii). It is printed in Mr Rushbrooke's
Synopticon pp. 134 70, so as to include all passages not in Mark but more
or less similarly treated by Matthew and Luke. Some of these passages are
in very close agreement and of one style, elevated and rhythmical. These might
be printed as a separate document. Others, like the parables of the Talents and
the Pounds, read like two Targumistic expositions of one saying of the Lord.
These agree in little more than a few central and essential words.
[3333 ] The verbal agreement of Luke with Matthew testifies to the very
early existence of a Greek collection of Christ's longer sayings. But it does not
prove that this Greek book was earlier than Mark. It is unsafe to draw any
such general inferences of antiquity about the whole of any gospel or the whole
of any collection of sayings in any gospel. The gospels are composite works.
Sometimes one gospel, sometimes another, contains the most ancient tradition.
Each tradition must be studied by itself (together with its parallels), besides being
studied as part of the gospel in which it occurs.
[3333 c\ Parts of the Double Tradition are sometimes called Q from the
German Quelle, "fountain-head" or "source." This is what may be called a
hypothesis-name. It may lead those who use it to take as proved the hypothesis
that Q in all its parts, and as compared with all Synoptic traditions outside it
is " the [earliest] source " of gospel tradition. This is certainly not proved, and
probably not true. Some abbreviation for " verbatim" such as " Verb." (or " V ")
would be a. fact-name, recognising the fact that "Verb." contains the only gospel
passages in which there is lengthy verbatim agreement (say, exceeding a dozen
consecutive words) between one evangelist and another. There is no such
passage in Mark.
[3333 d~\ Such a saying as that in Mt. vi. 29, Lk. arii. 37 about the superiority
of the glory of the flowers to that of Solomon, may be safely taken as proceeding,
in thought, from Jesus because of (3565 b d) its extraordinary originality. But in
Tixrrd it may have proceeded from one of the many apostles or evangelists who
preached His Gospel. For the exact words of Jesus we must look, in all
325
[3333] "THE SON OF MAN"
where Mark is wanting. In these, Matthew and Luke, where they
disagree, will have to be considered singly; but where they are
parallel, they must be considered jointly.
These joint, or double, traditions of Matthew and Luke, since
probability, to what Bacon calls "aculeate sayings," that is, short and sharp
metaphors.
These, on account of their shortness, were likely to become obscure. In the
circumstances in which they were uttered, they might be clear as well as brief;
but, after these circumstances had passed away, they would often require expansion,
qualification, and explanation. Then the original saying supplanted by the
clearer and ampler version would pass into the background. Thus Mk ix. 50
" Have salt in yourselves " is omitted by Matthew and Luke. But it is probably
Christ's own saying, and therefore the thought is abundantly illustrated by John in
the fourth gospel. The same is true of other short traditions in Mark. And
therein lies the value of his gospel. It contains, scattered here and there, some of
our oldest records of Christ's words and deeds, left unaltered because they were
found only in that one of the four gospels which was least read in public worship,
and which was therefore allowed to remain (comparatively) uncorrected in its
original form.
THE HYPOTHESIS OF A HEBREW GOSPEL
[3333 e] As a possible indication of the composite nature of some passages
belonging to the Triple Tradition, take Lk. iii. 21 eyfrero 5e Iv nf j3aiTTiff6r)i>ai
airavTa rbv \a6v....
On this " temporal use" of ev rf Blass (p. 237) remarks that " Attic writers do
not use fv r< in this way." The statistics quoted to the contrary in Dr J. H.
Moulton's Grammar of N. T. Greek I. 215, Prolegomena, are not supported in the
context by references to the authors there mentioned. Dr Moulton, who at my
request kindly attempted to procure them from the writer from whom he derived
the statistics, was not able to do so. Until they are procured, I think the statistics
should be withdrawn. In some of the instances apparently implied, e> T$ is
not temporal. Dr Dalman points out ( Words pp. 33 4) that the idiom belongs to
Hebrew, not to Aramaic. In Greek translations from Biblical Hebrew, and from
Biblical Aramaic, iv T< distinguishes the former from the latter. For example, in
Test. XII Pair., which was written in Hebrew, eV rif occurs in Lev. ii. 10, ix. n,
fud. iii. 5 etc. ; but Prof. Charles informs me that it does not occur in the first
thirty-two chapters of Enoch, which were written in Aramaic. A good illustration
may be derived from Theodotion's renderings of Dan. iii. 7, v. 20, vi. 10, 14, in
all of which he expresses " when" by a Greek conjunction (6Ve etc.), as compared
with viii. 8, 15, 17, in which he expresses " when " by eV T. The reason is that
the former passages are in Aramaic and have an Aramaic conjunction, "when" ;
the latter are in Hebrew and have a Hebrew preposition, "in." See 3333^.
Now iv rif in N.T. is almost entirely confined to Luke's gospel, and is not
found in his Acts. When therefore we find Luke, in parallels to Mark and
Matthew, using eV rtf , we may assume, as a working hypothesis for the explanation
of any contextual difference from Mark and Matthew, that Luke t's resorting to
some Hebrew gospel.
[3333 /] Returning to the context of Lk. iii. 21, we find (From Letter 792 3)
in iii. 22 (as given by D, a, b etc. and quoted by Justin, Clem. Alex., and perhaps
326
IN THE DOUBLE TRADITION [3334]
they are stamped by a twofold attestation, must be discussed before
the single traditions. Matthew is believed on good grounds to have
been published before Luke, and therefore might a priori be
supposed to be nearer to the truth in order of events, and in detail
of record. But this supposition is not warranted. As regards order,
Matthew groups his matter according to subject, while Luke in his
preface avows an intention to "write in [chronological] order."
Luke's order will therefore be followed in preference to Matthew's.
As regards detail, now Matthew, now Luke, seems to be superior,
but more often Luke.
[3334] The Double Tradition is often so nearly identical in
Matthew and Luke as to necessitate the conclusion that both
evangelists are using the same Greek original, or else that Luke is
using the Greek Matthew. Probably Luke used the Greek Matthew
or Matthew's Greek original, but corrected it, or attempted to correct
it, so as to make it a more literal rendering of the Hebrew or
Aramaic document, or documents, from which it was derived.
Thus, when Matthew says "Blessed are ye when men... shall say
all evil against you, speaking falsely," it is probable that the parallel
Luke is more correct, both in omitting "speaking falsely" and in
rendering the context 1 . Matthew has probably inserted "speaking
falsely," to guard against misconception and ridicule ; but if it had
been part of Christ's utterance Luke would hardly have omitted it.
So, where Matthew mentions the Parousia, or "Coming," of
"the son of man," and the Palingenesia, or Regeneration of the
world, the parallel Luke avoids these terms ; and the probable
explanation is, that though these were convenient and brief para-
Origen) the Voice from Heaven recorded as a quotation from Ps. ii. 7 " Thou art
my Son, this day have I begotten thee," parallel to Mk L n, Mt. iii. 17 "Thou
art (.Iff. this is) my beloved Son, in thee (Mt. in whom) I am well pleased." The
Targum on Ps. ii. 7 has " Beloved, even as son to father, thou art pure unto me
even as on the day on which I had created thee." The facts suggest that the
Voice from Heaven was given in Christian gospels, before Luke, from paraphrases
of Ps. ii. 7, and that Luke desiring to be more exact as to such solemn words,
resorted to a Hebrew gospel, which gave the words as in the Hebrew Bible and the
context in accordance with Hebrew idiom. Elsewhere (Mk xv. 34) Codex D gives
Christ's quotation of Ps. xxii. i not in Aramaic but in Hebrew.
[3333^] Dr Dalman (Words p. 33) says that, though Aramaic Targums some-
times "copy" the Heb. idiom, "spoken Aramaic" does not use it. The Rev.
Moses H. Segal (Jewish Quart. July, 1908, p. 684) quoting none but Targumistic
instances, indirectly confirms this view.
1 Mt. v. n, Lk. vi. 21. On the context see 3177/foll. and 3218.
3 2 7
[3334] "THE SON OF MAN"
phrases of the original, they were not literal, and perhaps not quite
faithful, renderings of it 1 .
1 [3334 a] Mt. xxiv. 379 (twice) "so shall be the parousia of the son of
man" is parallel to Lk. xvii. 26 "so shall it be in the days of the son of man,"
followed by ib. 30 "in the same [way] shall it be in the day in which the son of
man is revealed (airoKaXtTrreTai)."
[3334(5] Comp. i Pet. i. 5 "to a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time
(/ccupy)." On this, Hort remarks, "Revelation is always (prob. even in Gal. iii. 23)
in the strictest sense an unveiling of what already exists, not the coming into
existence of that which is said to be revealed." This is quite true ; but it might
have been added that, for this very reason, the Targums sometimes render the
Heb. "come" (applied to God) by "reveal Himself or "be revealed" to shew
that the "coming" is "an unveiling of what already exists." Comp. Exod. xix. 9
"/ come unto thee in a thick cloud," Onk. and Jer. I "/ will be revealed, or,
will reveal myself" Jer. II " my Word -will be revealed." See 3314 c on "reveal,"
and 3186 foil, on the "revealing" of "the arm of the Lord."
[3334 c\ If the original of Mt. xxiv. 37 9 was in Hebrew, it may have
contained "coming"; if in Aramaic, it may have contained "revealing" ; but in
neither case did the original probably contain a word corresponding to parousia.
[3334aT| Luke's parallel to Matthew's (xix. 28) "ye that have followed me,
in the palingenesia, when the son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory"
contains a different metaphor (Lk. xxii. 28 30) "at my table in my kingdom."
Possibly there is some confusion of the context in Matthew. ' ' Ye that have followed
me in the palingenesia'''' may be a confusion of (Lk. ib.) "ye are they that have faith-
fully remained with me in my trials," the original of "trials " perhaps being (i Pet.
iv. 12) "fiery [trial]," comp. 2 Pet. iii. 12 13 "heavens on fire... new heavens and
a new earth." Also Matthew, missing the meaning of Christ's "table," may have
paraphrased it with a phrase that he uses elsewhere in a passage peculiar to himself
(xxv. 31) "When the son of man shall come in his glory. ..then shall he sit on the
throne of his glory." Luke may have combined " table" and "kingdom." 1 Comp.
Ps. xxiii. 5 " a table before me " (Rashi, "table, which is kingdom ").
[3334^] An interesting instance of diversity apparently arising from para-
phrastic explanation of what may be called Jewish technical phraseology bearing
on the " coming of the Messiah " is supplied by the four evangelistic accounts of
the cry of the multitude welcoming Jesus when He came riding on an ass into
Jerusalem. The original appears to have been simply "Blessed be he that cometh
in the name of the Lord." The four evangelists all have this. But, furthermore,
Jewish tradition (3241) connected these words with the choice of David to be king
over Israel. Consequently the cry meant, though it did not say, "Blessed be the
king" or " the king of Israel" or " the successor and son of David," or " he that
will revive the kingdom of his father David" etc. It is instructive to observe that
Mark appears to have confused "his father" with "our father"; and, whereas
Matthew deems "David" sufficient to denote royalty, Mark alone mentions both
"David" and "kingdom." Luke and John are content with " king " and do not
mention "David."
Mk xi. 10 Mt. xxi. 9 Lk. xix. 38 Jn xii. 13
" Blessed be the com- "the son of "the king." "the king of
ing kingdom of our David." Israel."
father David."
328
IN THE DOUBLE TRADITION [3335]
From these and other textual phenomena it is inferred that, as a
rule, in closely agreeing portions of the Double Tradition, Luke, if
he diverges from Matthew, diverges deliberately. But it by no
means follows that he always diverges rightly. For example, it has
been shewn above (3242 (iv)) that the Lucan tradition " Blessed are
ye the poor," though it may be more close to Christ's words, is
probably less close to Christ's thought, than the parallel in Matthew,
" Blessed are the poor in spirit."
2. "The son of man... eating and drinking"
[3335] Reference has been made above to the single saying
in the group of sayings called the Sermon on the Mount, where Luke
has "the son of man" ("for the sake of the son of man") and
where the context implies that "the son of man" is a term of
reproach, like "Christian" in the first Epistle of Peter 1 . That is the
first instance in the Double Tradition, but " son of man " is not in
Matthew (who has " for my sake ").
The next 1 is more important because both Matthew and Luke
have the phrase. The parallels are almost in verbatim agreement,
but the difference between " works " and " children " can be shewn
to indicate that Luke has corrected Matthew from a Hebrew
original :
Mt. xi. 1 8 19 Lk. vii. 33 5
" For John came neither eating "For John the Baptist hath
nor drinking, and they say, ' He come neither eating bread nor
hath a devil.' The son of man drinking wine, and ye say, ' He
came, eating and drinking, and hath a devil.' The son of man
they say, ' Behold, a man [that is hath come, eating and drinking,
a] glutton and a winebibber, a and ye say, 'Behold, a man [that
friend of publicans and sinners.' is a] glutton and a winebibber, a
And [yet] wisdom was justified friend of publicans and sinners.'
by her works*." And [yet] wisdom was justified
by all her children*"
1 [3335 a] Lk. vi. 22 (parall. to Mt. v. it, see 3177/, 3218) "when they shall
reproach .. .for the sake of the son of man," comp. i Pet. iv. 14 "If ye are
reproached in the natne of Christ, blessed are ye... but if [a man suffer] as a
Christian, let him not be ashamed...."
3 " The next," i*. in Luke's order, see 3333. Matthew reverses the order of
this saying and the next, see 3337.
3 [3335 ] Mt. "works" = Lk. "all... children." The preceding context
329
[3336] "THE SON OF MAN
[3336] This passage shews Jesus applying to Himself the title
"the son of man," as familiarly as if it were "Jesus," corresponding
to "John," and in such a way as to suggest that the antithesis
between " John who fasts " and " the son of man who does not fast,"
was not infrequent in His doctrine.
"Son of man," in this particular context, implies not only that
Jesus did not regard Himself as superior to the human pleasure of
eating and drinking, but also that He took a more human line than
John did in His treatment of sinners. No one is said to have
accused John, though he baptized publicans, of being their "friend."
" The son of man " was thus accused. Why ? Because He acted
like a "son of man." A "son of man" is bound to feel for "man"
(as a " son of Rome " might feel for Rome) something of a filial
spirit, something that is too much mixed with affection and pity to
have the taint of condescension.
Of course no ordinary Jew would be likely to discern all that we
believe Jesus to have discerned in the title " son of Adam " or
(though less probably) in the title " son of man " when chosen by
a teacher of Israel as a self-appellation. But no serious student of
history will regard Jesus as an " ordinary Jew." He appears to have
been a Jew whose mind went out to all the sons of man on earth,
and to every mystery latent in human word and thought, especially
mentions "young-children" and a Hebrew word, suitable for this meaning,
is confused by the LXX with a very similar one meaning "practices" in
Mic. ii. 9 "from their young-children" Targ. "their sons" LXX "practices
(eTrir^SeiVoTa)," the rendering of a very similar Hebrew word. (See Gesen. 760.)
[3335 c\ A better explanation (comp. Nestle Critical Notes p. 751) is based
on the hypothesis of a Hebrew "serve," "Wisdom was justified from her
servants" which might mean either John and Jesus, or those who welcomed
John and Jesus. The Hebrew "serve" means also (Gesen. 712 3) ''labour"
Matthew, taking it thus, has "from her labours, or, works." Luke had before
him a rendering of "servants" as iralSwv, a very frequent rendering in LXX,
but capable of meaning (i) "boys" in the sense of "servants," or (i) ''boys"
in the sense of "children." To remove the ambiguity, and at the same time
to make it clear that he did not refer it to John and Jesus (the "servants" of the
Lord), but to those who welcomed these two teachers, Luke not only substituted
"children" T^KVUV, for "boys" iralduv, but also added "all."
For iratj, erroneously rendered "son," see Notes 2998 (liv)/, and add that in
Polyc. Mart. 14, where it is twice applied to Jesus, there is once a v.r. vJ6$.
Also Nestle loc. cit. quotes 4 Esdr. vii. 64, where the versions vary between
"works" "sons" and "servants." See also Joh. Gram. 2584 , on the inter-
change of "servant," "boy," and "son," in connection with the healing of the
son of the centurion.
IN THE DOUBLE TRADITION [3337]
in the words and thoughts of the Prophets, among whom He found
Ezekiel repeatedly called, both in the Hebrew text and in the
Aramaic Targum, " son of Adam " that is to say, " son of man,"
but with a suggestion (for speakers of Aramaic) of something more,
some kind of sonship to Adam of a peculiar nature, or with peculiar
responsibilities.
It is a more serious objection that, among Christ's own disciples,
many would fail to realise the meaning of His title. But the failure
would only be temporary. If we may believe the fourth evangelist,
Jesus habitually aimed at succeeding through failures of this kind.
His words were all, at first, "proverbs" or "parables," which what-
ever may be the precise meaning of the word were not such clear
and direct expressions as those which He was preparing them to
believe. Instead of " talking down " to them He aimed at raising
them up to the level of His thought and of what we might call His
native language, in which " Adam " would always be associated with
the thought of the image, or humanity, of God.
3. " The son of man hath not where to lay his head 1 "
[3337] Matthew and Luke differ greatly in their chronological
arrangement of this utterance. Matthew has previously told us that
Jesus " left Nazareth and came and dwelt in Capernaum " ; " from
that time," he adds, "began Jesus to preach," and "he went about
in all Galilee 2 ." Then, after the Sermon on the Mount 3 , Jesus came
"down from the mountain" and "entered into Capernaum 4 ." There
"he entered into Peter's house 5 ," and healed Peter's wife's mother,
and also, in the evening, many others, while multitudes gathered "at
the door 6 ." These statements, and others in the parallel Mark, imply
that Jesus slept in Peter's house and left it next morning ; to which
morning Matthew refers the following tradition : " There came a
scribe and said unto him, Teacher, I will follow thee whithersoever
thou goest. And Jesus saith unto him, Foxes have holes and birds
of the heaven have nests : but the son of man hath not where to lay
his head 7 ."
1 Mt. viii. 20, Lk. ix. 58.
2 Mt. iv. 13 (lit.) "dwelt permanently (Kar(f>icr}fffv)," "in all Galilee" M. -23.
3 Mt. v. i vii. 28. 4 Mt. viii. 1,5.
5 Mt. viii. 14. Mk i. 33.
7 Mt. viii. 19 10. In the parall. Lk. ix. 57 8, the words of Jesus are
absolutely identical with those in Matthew.
331
[3338] "THE SON OF MAN"
Perhaps Matthew tacitly assumed that the reason why Jesus did
not return to His home in Capernaum was that He had now
separated Himself from it. It was to " Peter's house " that He now
resorted. But even then, fresh from Peter's hospitable reception,
how could Jesus say that He "had not where to lay his head"?
Did He mean that henceforth " the son of man " was to be as Paul
describes himself and as most of the earliest Christian missionaries
were bound to be "with no certain dwelling-place^ "t Matthew's
context does not supply, or suggest, an answer to this question.
[3338] Luke gives a later date to the utterance. He places it
after the sinister statement that Herod Antipas, who had beheaded
John, was "much perplexed 2 " about Jesus, and began to ask
questions about Him. It also follows, in Luke, Christ's prediction
that He was destined to be killed 3 and to rise from the dead. From
that time forward, if Jesus was, for the time, avoiding the fate of
John the Baptist, He might say, literally, " The son of man hath not
where to lay his head 4 ."
The only other passage in the New Testament mentioning a
"fox" is in Luke, later on, "Go ye, and tell that fox 5 ." The "fox"
is Herod Antipas, most appropriately so called. Foxes devour the
dead on the field of battle, but have none of the power of the lion.
Herod Antipas could murder John in prison and excuse it on the
plea of an oath, but he was disgracefully beaten in battle by the
Arabians 6 .
1 I Cor. iv. n (Joh. Voc. 1842).
2 Lk. ix. 7 Sir)Tr6pfi.
3 Lk. ix. 22.
4 [3338 a] This later date also agrees with a precept of Jesus in Luke's
context added by Luke after the Matthew-Luke tradition (Mt. viii. 22, Lk. ix.
60) "Let the dead bury their own dead," but omitted by Matthew namely,
"But go away thou and spread the tidings of the kingdom of God." These last
words point to a time when Jesus had already sent disciples forth to preach, which
He had not begun to do at the period to which Matthew assigns the words under
consideration.
5 Lk. xiii. 32.
6 [3338^] Josephus, describing the murder of John (Ant. xviii. 5. 2) says that
Antipas killed him because he was too influential with the people, and makes no
mention of the king's "oath" to the daughter of Herodias though he is fond of
personal and picturesque stories about the Herods. Very likely there was an
"oath," but a prearranged "oath." The defeat of Antipas by the Arabians
happened after Christ's death and was regarded by (Ant. ib.) "the Jews" as
a heaven-sent punishment for the murder of John the Baptist.
332
IN THE DOUBLE TRADITION [3340]
[3339] This suggests an explanation of the meaning. The
" fox " of Galilee had killed the greatest of the prophets in order to
avoid impending danger from the eagle of Rome. Between the two,
the fox and the eagle 1 , the kingdom of " the son of man " seemed
likely to be driven out of the world. As in the days of Ezekiel and
Daniel, the Beasts seemed to have the upper hand. The Man was
being cast out, and "had not where to lay his head 2 ." Thus used,
" the son of man " is in implied antithesis to " beasts."
We are so accustomed to regard the lion and the eagle as the
honourable symbols of great Christian nations that to us this anti-
thesis must necessarily seem far-fetched. But it would not seem far-
fetched to Jews. The title also implies, as in the case of Ezekiel,
a likeness between humanity on earth and humanity in heaven, and
a future fulfilment of the human aspiration after rest and peace in
unity with God, typified by the rainbow above the Throne in
Ezekiel's vision 3 .
4. " 77/(? son of man " in connection with "Jonah "
[3340] The disagreement between Matthew's and Luke's
traditions concerning Jonah is very great and throws doubt upon
their accuracy. It should be premised that Matthew mentions
"Jonah" in connection with a demand for "a sign" twice. One
of the passages has a parallel in Mark, where however Jonah is
not mentioned :
1 [3339 a] "Birds of the air (lit. heaven)" would naturally mean, here,
carnivorous birds, as often in O.T., especially when occurring with "beasts of the
earth." Mt. vi. 76 "birds of the heaven" is paralL to Lk. xii. 24 "ravens." As
for "foxes," comp. Ps. Ixiii. to "they shall be a portion for foxes." The
parallelism with "foxes" here (in Mt.-Lk.) defines "birds of the air." For
"foxes," as the rulers of Israel, under God's curse, see Chag. 140 playing on
Is. iii. 4.
- [3339*] KXiWw rijv Ke<j>a\Tiv "rest the head" occurs also in Jn xix. 30 (of
Christ's death) and nowhere else in X.T. On this see Joh. Gr. 2644 (i) and
Joh. Voc. 1466, where the words are interpreted as meaning that Christ rested His
head in the bosom of the Father.
3 Ezek. i. 26 8 "...the likeness of a throne. ..a likeness as the appearance of
a man upon it above... as the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day
of rain."
333
[3340]
THE SON OF MAN
Mk viii. 12
Mt. xvi. 4 1
Mt.xii. 39 40 2
Lk. xi. 29 30
"(Ht.) if a
"a sign shall
"a sign shall
"a sign shall
sign shall be
not be given to
not be given to
not be given to
given [i.e. a
it except (lit, if
it except (lit, if
it except (lit, if
sign shall not
not) the sign of
not) the sign of
not) the sign of
be given] to
Jonah."
Jonah the pro-
Jonah. For
this genera-
phet. For as
even as Jonah
tion ? "
Jonah was in
was a sign to
the belly of the
the Ninevites,
whale three
so shall be also
days and three
the son of man
nights, so shall
to this genera-
the son of man
tion."
be in the heart
of the earth
three days and
three nights."
It has been
shewn elsewhere 3
that Mark's Hebraic use of "if"
1 [3340 a] The preceding context, Mt. xvi. 2 3, contains a passage, doubly
bracketed by W.H., about the aspects of the heaven and inability to discern "the
signs of the times (lit. of the seasons)," where the parall. Lk. xii. 54 6 contains a
passage about a "cloud rising in the west," and inability to discern ll this season."
2 [3340<] The preceding context, Mt. xii. 38 foil., describes a request for
"a sign," answered with the rebuke "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh
a sign," and this is somewhat similar to the preceding context of Mk viii. 12 and
Lk. xi. 29.
"THE SIGN OF JONAH"
3 [3340 c] To the remarks in Corrections 408 foil, add the following from
Tustin Martyr Tryph. 107: "And because (Sri) on the third day He was
destined to arise (/j.e\\ei> avaaT-fiffeffBai) after being crucified, it is written in the
Memoirs that your countrymen, questioning with Him, said (t\fyov 8n) ' Shew us
a sign.' And He answered them, ' A generation evil and adulterous seeketh after
a sign, and (Mt. xvi. 4, Lk. xi. 29) a sign shall not be given to them except (e/
/?) the sign of Jonah.' And whereas (or, though) He said these things as it were
under a veil (KOI ravra \tyovros avrov TrapaKeKaXvfj./^va) it -was [possible'} to be under-
stood by those who were [really and intelligently] hearkening (rfv voe'tffdai virb r(av
aKovbvTtav) that, after He had been crucified, He would arise on the third day."
[3340 d~\ Why does Justin, when attempting to prove that the Memoirs
indicated " the third day" as the date of the resurrection and this, in connection
with a mention of Jonah quote from "the Memoirs" a passage that mentions no
date at all (so that he is obliged to add that the words were "as it were under
a veil") when he might have quoted Mt. xii. 39 40, which definitely connects
a prediction of Christ's resurrection, not only with Jonah, but also with a definite
334
IN THE DOUBLE TRADITION [3340]
has given rise to variations with "if not" and that these obscure
results have been explained by additions, which, though perhaps
mention of date! The following answers suggest themselves, (i) Justin did not
know Matthew's longer tradition. (2) Justin knew it, but preferred Luke's
parallel tradition which finds a similarity between Christ and Jonah, not in the
" three days and three nights in the whale," but in the " preaching to the men of
Nineveh."
[3340 e] The latter conclusion is favoured by Justin's following words :
"Jonah having preached to them, after having been vomited out on the third
airy... that after (lit.) (in others forty) three days (on /xrri (& dXAots Teo-tra/xurorra)
rpfu i]p4pas) they should universally perish." Here we see that Justin does not
scruple to use "ffn the third day" about Jonah; but he avoids mentioning as
Matthew (xii. 40) mentions (and as Jonah (L 17) mentions) "three days and
three nights," as the period of entombment. The Heb. has (Jon. iii. 4) " Yet
forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown," but LXX has "three" concerning
which Jerome says, " Trinus numerus, qui ponitur a LXX, non convenit
penitentiae, et satis miror cur ita translatum sit." Justin adopts the LXX
"three" for "forty" ("after three days ; '). Justin's "in others, forty" seems to
be a gloss, representing the Hebrew text and inserted out of place, meaning that
"in 'the others,' i.e. Aq. Sym. and Theod., 'forty' is the reading." This is the
fact. Field gives Oi Xotxoi rfffffapajcorra. (rjnepcu).
The LXX reading, " three" might spring from a tradition of this kind:
"Jonah preached to the men of Nineveh and said having been vomited forth
from the whale after three days Nineveh shall perish." This might be punctuated
so as to give "After three days Nineveh shall perish." It is curious that Justin
should thus retain the phrase " three days " while quoting the Memoirs about
Jonah and the resurrection but give it an entirely different application from that
which the phrase receives in Matthew. The context in Jonah has another mention
of "three days" (iii. 3) "Nineveh was (R.V. marg.) a city great unto God of
three days' journey." It is said that " Nineveh " (Ency. 3420, and Hastings, ii. 747
more strongly) is not improbably derived from "fish" (comp. Jer. li. 34
"Nebuchadrezzar hath swallowed me up like a sea-monster"). If so, "three
days' journey '' may have some connection with the story of Jonah's being in the
fish's belly "three days." It should be borne in mind that, as regards the
meaning of " Nineveh," it is more important (at least for the study of the gospels)
to know what was thought to be the meaning by the writer of the book of Jonah,
and by Jews of the first century, than what was the meaning.
[3340 /] The "swallowing up" of Jonah in what the narrator of the prophet's
adventures calls " the belly of the fish " was certainly regarded by Matthew
as a type of Christ's descent into Hades or Sheol (comp. Jonah ii. 2 "out of the
belly of Sheol I cried "). But there is no equally clear evidence to shew that these
two events were both regarded by early Christians as typical of an apparent
temporary triumph of the Beast over the Son of Man and of a great tribulation of
the Church. We have seen however (3048 b) that Hermas regarded the Beast in
his vision as a type of " the great tribulation," and there is some reason to think
that he associated the thought of that Beast with the thought of the " fish " of
Jonah, as well as with the four Beasts of Daniel.
[3340 ] The " fish," in Jonah, is called by LXX ^ro$, " sea-monster." Now
335
[3340] "THE SON OF MAN"
uttered by Jesus on other occasions 1 , could hardly have been known
to Mark in connection with the words he here reports.
During a period of retirement from the tetrarchy of Antipas into
Syro-Phoenicia, Jesus may very well have likened " the son of man "
to Jonah, with allusion to his mission to Nineveh (as Luke suggests)
and also with allusion to the temporary "swallowing up" and
ultimate rescue of the prophet (as Matthew suggests) 2 . These
the Beast in Hermas is described as ( Vis. iv. i. 6) "very large, like a sort of
sea-monster (ucrel Kijrbs rt)." KTJTOS sing, occurs, in LXX, only in Job iii. 8
lt leviathan (TO fj.tya /CT/TOS)," Theod. dpaKovra, xxvi. 12 " Rahab" rb KTJTOS, Sym.
a.\aovda.v, Jonah i. 17 (bis), ii. i, 10, of Jonah's "fish." This suggests that
Hermas is referring to the "great fish" that "the Lord prepared to swallow up
(K.a.T<nrielv) Jonah." Using this same metaphor of "swallowing," Jeremiah,
speaking in the name of his people, says (li. 34) " Nebuchadrezzar... hath swallowed
me up (Kart-mev) like a dragon" a word that also means "water-monster," as in
Ps. Ixxiv. 13 "the dragons in the waters," and represents (Gesen. 1072 b} Egypt.
So "Hades" (Prov. i. 12) is said to "swallow a man alive" ; and "the devil"
(i Pet. v. 8) seeks to "swallow" sinners; and "Satan" (2 Cor. ii. 7) may
"swallow" a man excluded from the congregation. Clem. Alex. 596 7 alludes
to Hermas thus: "The Shepherd [i.e. the Shepherd of Hermas] says, Ye shall
escape the [Satanic] influence (evtpyeiai') of the savage (dypiov) Beast, if your heart
become pure and spotless nay, and the Lord Himself says (Lk. xxii. 31) 'Satan
hath begged you, to sift you as wheat...'."
[3340 K\ The thought at the bottom of the story of Jonah appears to be some-
what like that of Jeremiah (li. 44) " I will do judgment upon Bel in Babylon, and
I will bring forth out of his mouth that which he hath swallowed up." The
temporary " swallowing up " of the prophet would result in a kind of resurrection,
and in a more active life of service to God. Perhaps it is also intended to suggest
that the temporary " swallowing up " of Israel by enemies would result in a purified
life for Israelites and in a diffusion of the knowledge of Jehovah among the
Gentiles. The resurrection of Christ did not destroy this conception, but carried
it to its highest, only under new names, and with an increased sense of retribution
on the agent, or agents, of evil. In O.T. it was Rahab, or Leviathan, or the
Dragon, or Sheol, or the Fish. In N.T. these names are discarded or rare.
But, called by whatever name, the "swallower" is to be "swallowed up " so that
(2 Cor. v. 4) "what is mortal may be swailoived up by life," and (i Cor. xv. 54)
" death " may be " swallowed up in victory."
1 [3340 i~\ The story of Jonah is perhaps alluded to in 2 Esdr. xiii. 2 (the
bracketed words are om. in Latin) " [That wind made to come up, out of the
heart of the sea, as it were the likeness of a man], ...and, lo, that man waxed strong
with the thousands (or, did fly with the clouds) of heaven."
2 [3340/j There is no connection, apparent on the surface to English readers,
between Jonah and the Temple, which could supply a link between Matthew's
(xii. 39, xvi. 4) "sign" (the raising up of Jonah) and John's (ii. 1 8 foil.) "sign"
(the raising up of the Temple). But Jerome's mystical comment on Jonah ii. 4
"I will look again toward thy holy temple" (probably following Origen who has
336
IN THE DOUBLE TRADITION [3342]
allusions, which Jesus may have merely implied, Matthew and Luke
have expressed. It is difficult to believe that Mark on the ground
that he did not profess to give Christ's longer sayings would have
omitted so short a phrase as " except the sign of Jonah," if he had
known that the words occurred in the original, after " sign."
5. " The son of man " before " the angels of God "
[3341] Matthew differs remarkably from Luke's version of the
tradition about " the son of man " confessing, or acknowledging, in
heaven, those who have confessed Him on earth :
Mt. x. 32 Lk. xii. 8
"Everyone therefore that shall "But I say unto you, everyone
confess me before men, / also that shall confess me before men,
will confess him before my Father the son of man also shall confess
that is in heaven." him before the angels of God."
As regards "I" in Matthew, parallel to "the son of man" in
Luke, the latter probably represents the original, altered by Matthew
to produce a correspondence between " I " and " me," and also,
perhaps, because of " men " (that is, " sons of man ") in the context
(3177).
But how are we to explain the divergence between " my Father
which is in heaven" and "the angels of God"? The facts point to
some original that has been either (i) misunderstood, or (2) variously
paraphrased.
[3342] If it was misunderstood, we might suppose that "the
Holy One (32223)," (that is, "God"), has been taken by Luke to
mean "the holy ones" (that is, "the angels of God"), whereas
Matthew took it correctly to mean " God," but expressed it in the
phrase customary in his gospel. But against this supposition, is the
fact that we know of no instance where Jesus calls God " the Holy
One."
If the original was paraphrased, we might suppose it to have
been "the Family that is above," as in the Rabbinical prayer,
" That thou mightest make peace in the family that is above and in
left no extant comment) speaks of the Son as the Temple of the Father in
language that suggests that Jerome recognised such a link.
A. S. 337 22
[3342J "THE SON OF MAN"
the family that is below.. - 1 ," comparing also the tradition that
" whoever studies Torah for its own sake, makes peace in the family
that is above and in the family that is below*." Differences of
opinion existed as to the nature of those to whom God was speaking
when He said, "Let us make man 3 ," and also as to the question
whether " the family above" included or excluded " the angels 4 ." A
Targum on the Song of Solomon says, " When the sons of Israel did
the good pleasure of their King, He, in His Word, began to praise
them in the Family, in the Holy Angels, and said... 5 ." Here and in
many other passages the exact meaning of " the family " is doubtful,
and it might be variously rendered in Greek. But against this
supposition, too, is the fact that we know of no instance in which
Jesus spoke of "the Family that is above."
It will be shewn, later on (3492 a foil.) that a form of the
expression " Most High," which occurs in Luke, as a parallel to
Matthew's "Father in heaven," is used in the plural in Daniel to
mean "God Most High," but is capable of being taken to mean
" saints, or angels, on high." It is more likely that Matthew and
Luke have severally paraphrased this as " Father in heaven," and
" angels of God," than that Matthew contains the original altered by
Luke, or that Luke contains the original altered by Matthew.
This passage of the Double Tradition appears to be akin to the
1 [3342 a~\ Berach. 17 a, see Levy iv. 58. Sanhedr. 99 b takes the repetition in
Is. xxvii. 5 (lit.) " let him make peace with me ; peace let him make with me" as
referring to peace in "the family above" and peace in "the family below."
2 [3342^] Comp. Eph. iii. 15 "I bow my knees to the Father from whom
all fatherhood (irarpLd) " (which we might render familyhood, if there could be
such a word) "z' the heavens and on earth is named," i.e. "the family above, and
the family below, all move round Him as their illuminating centre." This would
explain how Matthew might think it best to use his paraphrase, above mentioned,
his thought being "The family, after all, is the Father."
[3342 c\ Wetstein, on Eph. iii. 15, quotes Sanhedr. 98 b on Jerem. xxx. 6
"all faces," as indicating the meaning to be " the family above and the fatnily
below," and another interpretation as "the angels and Israel." For Rashi's
comment on Berach. 17 a see Schottgen i. 1237. On "Torah," commonly
rendered Law, but meaning rather Instruction, see 3493 b.
* [3342 d~\ See Gen. Rab. on Gen. i. 26 "let us make man," where, among
other views, one is, that "us" means Love, Truth, Righteousness, and Peace,
who argue for, and against, the creation of man.
4 [3342 e] Schottg. i. 1237 "Per familiam Dei (R. Meir ben Gabbai) intelligit
Sepphiroth, et quicquid spectat ad Deitatem, exclusis angelis."
5 [3342/J Cant. i. 15. The united Family seems regarded almost as one
Person, sitting on one "throne," in Rev. iii. 21, "I will give to him to sit down
with me in my throne, as I also... sat down with my Father in his throne."
338
IN THE DOUBLE TRADITION [3343]
passage in the Triple Tradition, discussed above ', about " the son of
man " being " ashamed."
6. "As tfu lightning... so shall be the son of man"
[3343] Other sayings of the Double Tradition about the un-
expectedness of the "coming" of "the son of man" having been
discussed above (3297 foil.), it remains to mention the following:
Mt. xxiv. 27 8 Lk. xvii. 24 5
"For as the lightning cometh "For as the lightning lightening
out from the east and appeareth from the [one region] under the
as far as the west 2 , so shall be heaven to the [other region]
the parousia* of the son of man. under heaven 2 shineth, so shall
Wheresoever may be the carcase, be the son of man in his day ;
there the eagles will be gathered but first he must suffer many
together." things... 4 ."
[After this follow words parallel [After this follow accounts of
to the Marcan Discourse on the the days of Noah and of Lot etc.,
Last Days, and then an account and then : ]
of the days of Noah, and then : ]
1 Mk vih. 38, see 3211 foil.
2 [3343 a] The phrase "under heaven" is Hebraic and not Western Greek
(see Wetstein on Lk. xvii. 24). "From under heaven" is rarely used except with
phrases of extermination (see Gesen. 1066 a which gives Gen. i. 7 as unique).
Probably the original was "from end [to end] under heaven." Delitzsch has
"from the end of the heaven... to the end of the heaven." The condensed phrase
"from end [to end]," in the Bible, sometimes means (Gesen. 8920) "everywhere
at once." In Jerem. 1. 26, LXX has translated it "seasons," Sym. "all,"
Aq. "from the boundary"- Jerem. li. 3i = (LXX) "from the last [party'; in
Is. Ivi. n, LXX omits, Sym. has "from the extremity to the last [part}." This
appears to have been paraphrased by Matthew as "from east to west" and to
have been rendered by Luke "from the [one region] under heaven to the [other
region] under heaven," which is neither classical nor vernacular Greek, but quite
clear and like the (supposed) Hebraic original.
[3343 b] Corrections 522 (ii) b, (iv) suggests that Matthew may have confused
"lightning" with "dawn" (on which add J. Yoma iii. (Schwab v. 185) and
Levy i. 2700). But in that case Matthew would probably have substituted
"dawn" for "lightning." More probably Matthew has paraphrased in good
Greek, and defined, what was non-Greek and indefinite. Perhaps, too, Matthew
may have wished to suggest the Messiah as setting out from the East, according
to the popular belief (Schurer ii. 2. 149) mentioned by Josephus, Tacitus, and
Suetonius.
3 On parousia, see 3334, 3347 and 3353 h.
4 W.H. omit "in his day" in txt., but insert it in marg., SS has "so shall be
the day of the son of man."
339 22 2
[3344] "THE SON OF MAN"
Mt. xxiv. 40 i Lk. xvii. 34 7
"Then there shall be two... " ...in this night there shall be
one [woman] is to be taken and two... the one [woman] shall be
one is to be left." taken but the other shall be left."
And they, answering, say to him,
" Where, Lord ? " but he said to
them, " Where the body [is] there
also the eagles will be gathered
together to [the prey] 1 ."
In Luke, the saying about " the eagles " comes, more effectively
than in Matthew, as a spiritual answer to a chronological and
unspiritual question. The questioners merely want to know where
will be the particular visitation about which they are anxious. The
answer is " wherever the freshly slain body lies, there will be the
eagles gathering for the feast 2 ." This resembles, in tone, a tradition
peculiar to Luke and placed by him a little before these descriptions :
"The kingdom of God cometh not with observation. Neither shall
[men be able to] say, 'Lo, here,' or 'There'; for lo, the kingdom of
God is within you, or, in the midst of you 3 ."
[3344] As regards the nature of "the eagles," Deuteronomy 4
predicts an eagle-nation as a judgment of the Lord; Hosea and
1 [3343 c] Luke, by substituting "body" for "carcase," adapts the text to
the Western conception of "eagles," which would not prey on any "body" that
was not freshly killed. In LXX, "eagles" often mean "vultures," and perhaps
Matthew uses the word thus.
2 [3343 d] Comp. Job xxxix. 28 foil. "She [i.e. the eagle] dwelleth on the
rock. ..from thence she spieth out the prey ; her eyes behold it afar off.. .and where
the slain (lit. the pierced, LXX those that have died, Sym. the flesh of the -wounded}
are, there is she." This conditional answer resembles the conditional answer
(Sanhedr. 98 a) to the question "When will the Messiah come?" (Ps. xcv. 7)
"To-day if ye will hear his voice,' 1 '' that is, if the conditions for receiving
righteousness are present. And so, the words of Jesus mean "in any place and at
any time if the conditions for receiving condemnation are present."
3 [3343 e] Lk. xvii. 2021. Comp. Exod. xvii. 7 (R.V.) "Is the Lord
among us. ..?," where Aquila has Luke's prep, as above (ei^is), but LXX "in"
Theod. "' the midst of" Exod. xxxiv. 9 (same Heb.) (R.V.) "Let the Lord...
go in the midst of us," Aquila as before (^ris), LXX '''along with (perd)," Theod.
and Sym. "in the midst of." Christ's doctrine is that the Kingdom of God
consists in filial and fraternal love. It is therefore both "in" men and "among"
men, both in their hearts and in their mutual intercourse. See 3362 (i) foil, for
a full discussion of ^r6s.
4 Deut. xxviii. 49 "The Lord shall bring a nation against thee...as the
eagle flieth."
340
IN THE DOUBLE TRADITION [3345]
Habakkuk mention an eagle in terms implying a connection with
judgment 1 ; Ezekiel, in "a riddle," calls it Babylon 2 ; the words
assigned to Jesus perhaps have in view the eagle of Rome in
particular, but manifestly include all God's chastising agents. The
" eagles " fulfil the will of " the son of man," as the " cherubim," or
"living creatures," in Ezekiel's Chariot, fulfil the will of the
Charioteer. Perhaps some thought of this led Matthew to connect
the parousia of the Son with the " gathering " of the eagles.
Part of the Lucan tradition ("'Lo, here' or 'There'") is
repeated shortly afterwards ("and they shall say to you, 'Lo, there'
or 'Lo, here'") where it is parallel to a Marcan tradition 3 . But all
that relates to Lot is peculiar to Luke. The other evangelists never
mention Lot's name. Now Luke's tradition about Lot mentions
" the son of man " thus, " According to the same things shall it be
in the day in which the son of man is [to be] revealed." Are we to
suppose that Luke, or the authority followed by him, has found an
utterance of Christ's about Lot, of which the earlier evangelists knew
nothing? Or must we suppose that he inserted an illustrative
tradition (not really uttered by Christ) in which he ventured to use
the term "son of man," not indeed in his own character of evangelist,
but in the character of Christ?
This question should, properly, be discussed later on, along with
other single traditions of Luke ; but as the consideration affects
Luke's relation to Matthew in the Double Tradition, it can be more
conveniently dealt with at once.
7. "Remember Lofs wife"
[3345] In the context containing the Lucan description of the
days of Lot, and the Lucan precept, "Remember Lot's wife,"
Luke inserts (i) traditions parallel to Mark and Matthew about
" not turning back " and afterwards one about " saving " one's " life,
or soul," and also (2) a tradition parallel to Matthew alone about
" one " being " taken " and " the other left," thus :
1 Hos. viii. i "As an eagle [he cometh] against the house of the Lord." It
might mean, grammatically, "the Lord cometh." The Targum says "a king
with an army like an eagle," comp. Hab. i. 8 "they fly as an eagle."
2 Ezek. xvii. 2 it.
3 Lk. xvii. 23 parall. to Mk xiii. 21 (Mt. xxiv. 23) "If any one say unto you,
'Lo, here [is] the Christ,' 'Lo, there'...."
341
[3345]
"THE SON OF MAN"
Mk xiii. 15 16
"He that is on the
housetop, let him not
go down nor enter
in to take anything
from his house, and
he that [has gone]
into the field LET
HIM NOT TURN BACK
to take his cloak 2 ."
[Mk viii. 35]
" For whosoever
willeth to save his
soul shall lose it, but
whosoever shall lose
Mt. xxiv. 17 1 8
"He that is on the
housetop, let him not
go down to take the
[things that are] from
his house, and he
that is in the field
LET HIM NOT TURN
BACK to take his
cloak 2 ."
[Mt. xvi. 25]
" For whosoever
willeth to save his
soul shall lose it, but
whosoever shall lose
his soul on account of his soul on account
Lk. xvii. 28 36
"Like as it came
to pass in the days
of Lot... according to
the same things shall
it be in the day in
which the son of man
is [to be] revealed 1 .
In that day he that
shall be on the house-
top and his things in
the house, let him
not go down to take
them, and he that is
in the field likewise
LET HIM NOT TURN
BACK.
"Remember Lot's
wife.
"Whosoever shall
seek to gain his soul
shall lose it, but
whosoever shall lose
it shall save [it] alive 3 .
1 [3345 a] The Aramaic (Onk.) "am revealed," or "reveal myself," represents
the Hebrew "come," "go" etc. concerning the "coming of God," in Exod. xix. 9,
10, xx. 20, Deut. iv. 34, xxxiii. 2. See 3314 c, 3334$.
a [3345$] This is followed by Mk xiii. 17, Mt. xxiv. 19 "But woe unto those
with child...." Luke has this, but later on (xxi. 23) in the Discourse on the
Last Days. Luke has, in effect, two Discourses on the Last Days, one (ch. xvii)
uttered on the -way to Jerusalem, the other (ch. xxi) uttered in Jerusalem. In the
former he places some things that Mark and Matthew place in the latter.
Similarly Luke mentions two discourses of Jesus, one to the Twelve and another
to the Seventy ; whereas Matthew and Mark mention only one to the Twelve
(Clue 233). On " to take his cloak," probably a gloss omitted by Luke, see 3368 a.
3 [3345 c] Luke has this again in ix. 24 only with "save" instead of "gain
(irepuroiovfj.ai)" and instead of " save-alive (faoyovtw) " parall. to Mk viii. 35 and
Mt. xvi. 25, which are quoted above. ZwoycWw, here rendered "save-alive,"
occurs nowhere else in N.T., exc. Acts vii. 19, i Tim. vi. 13. In LXX it means
"bring forth alive," "spare from death," etc. In ordinary Greek it means
"bring forth living things," as a tree breeds worms etc.
342
IN THE DOUBLE TRADITION [3345]
[me and] the gospel of me shall find it." I say unto you, in
shall save it." this night shall be
ML xxiv. 40 two on [Pone] bed,
" Then shall two the one (masc.) shall
be in the field, one be taken and the
(masc.) is [to be] other (masc.) shall be
taken and one (masc.) left; there shall be
is [to be] left, two two (fern.) grinding
(fern.) grinding in the m the same [place],
mill, one (fern.) is the one (fern.) shall
[to be] taken and be taken but the
one (fern.) is [to be] other (fern.) shall be
left." left"
Here, in Luke, Westcott and Hort print LET HIM... TURN BACK,
as a quotation from, or allusion to, the story of Lot "His wife looked
b<uk 1 :' Neither the Hebrew nor the LXX has "turn" But Origen,
in his comment on the story, paraphrases "look" as "turn-."
Moreover the Hebrew here used for "look" is thrice rendered in
LXX by the Greek "turn 3 " Above all, the precept occurs in the
story of Lot so prominently (and perhaps uniquely in the Bible) that
it cannot be doubted that Luke, having just mentioned Lot by name,
and being about to mention Lot's wife, is alluding to the precept
disobeyed by her.
1 Gen. xix. 26, LXX irtp\eif'a'...fb TO. oriffu. Mk and Lk. have 's rd
orlffta but Mt. drorw.
- [3345 d] See Origen on Gen. xix. 26, and Cels. iv. 45 (Lomm. xix. 71),
but especially Hom. Jer. xiii. on Jer. xv. 6 (Lomm. xv. 255), where he says
"turn (ffrptifxiv) thou not to Sodom," "turn not again (trurrpatfrgs) to it {i.e.
vice]" and he also twice quotes "save thyself to the mountain," Gen. xix. 17,
comp. Mk xiii. 14, Mt. xxiv. 16, Lk. xxi. 21 "let them flee to the mountains."
[3345 t] In Gen. xix. 26, " him " (in " his wife looked [back] from behind
him ") is not expressed by LXX et'j TO. dvUru, and is variously interpreted. Jer. I
"from behind the angel" Jer. II "from behind her" and so Vulg. "post se"
Rashi "from behind Lot." "From behind (or, after)," i.e. "from following
after," is (Gesen. 30 a) often used with "God" as obj. to describe "ceasing from
following after God" ; but that is with special verbs. "Lookedy/wn behind the
angel ?I might mean " looked away from the angel, who was before them as their
guide" ; but, if " from " is dropped, it might mean " looked after the angel, who
was behind them destroying Sodom." And accordingly Etheridge renders Jer. I
"looked after the angel" perhaps influenced by the following words, " to know
what would be the end of her father's house," and supposing that the angel was
engaged in destroying Sodom.
3 'ETwrpe'^w in i S. xvi. 7 (A), Is. Ixiii. 15,. Lam. i. 12.
343
[3346] "THE SON OF MAN"
[3346] Several facts point to the conclusion that the original
contained this allusion to the story of Sodom, that Mark and
Matthew have missed it, and that Luke, even though he may have
added to the original in order to illustrate what was obscure, has at
all events partially elicited the latent truth 1 .
1 [3346 a] First, we find Josephus and Revelation agreeing in classing
Jerusalem with Sodom. The latter, it is true, in one passage says (Rev. xi. 8)
"which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt," and Is. i. 10 and Test. XII Patr.
Levi xiv. 6 (ed. Charles) do not, in themselves, necessarily demand literal inter-
pretation. But in another passage, Revelation suggests agreement with Josephus,
whose condemnation is untnistakeably literal. Comp. Rev. ix. 3 u (Notes
2942* (vi) a) with Josephus, Bell. iv. 9. 10, on the murderers, who "dressed their
hair like women," and who, besides "imitating the adornment of women,"
practised unnatural passion. Elsewhere Josephus declares his belief (Bell. v. 13.
6) that if the Romans had delayed their assault, the city would have been
"destroyed by deluge or by the thunderbolts that fell on Sodom," for "the
generation was much more impious than the men that endured those visitations."
[3346 ] The sin of Sodom is clearly implied in Test, xn Patr. Levi xvii. u,
which accuses certain priests of being Traidocj>06poi KTt]vocp06pot. In the face of that
accusation, it seems probable that the previous prediction (ib. xiv. 6) "Your
union shall be like unto Sodom and Gomorrah," may be literally meant, as an
additional sin, beside the other sins mentioned in the context.
Christ's language (Mt. x. 15, xi. 23 4, Lk. x. 12) about Sodom, in connection
with the judgment that was to fall on cities that rejected the Gospel, indicates that
He might use the name as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and especially Ezekiel used it, but in
a non-literal sense, to express His condemnation of anything that He considered
a specially unnatural violation of the marriage-bond that united Israel to Jehovah.
Subsequently His language might be interpreted literally, and especially by Luke,
writing after the siege. If Josephus can be relied on as to the moral condition of
many of the besieged, the literal interpretation would be stimulated by the desire
of some Christians to magnify the correspondence of Christ's predictions to
actual facts.
[3346 f] A second point is the precept to (Mk xiii. 14, Mt. xxiv. 16, Lk.
xxi. 21) "flee to the mountains." This cannot well be harmonized literally with
the actual flight to Pella. For the natural way to Pella for anyone in the
neighbourhood of Jerusalem would be to go down toward Jericho, and then
to take the northward road up the Jordan valley, in which Pella itself was
situated. Wetstein makes no attempt to shew that "hills" would be actually
passed in such a flight, but simply refers to a number of passages indicating the
habit of "fleeing to the mountains" from enemies. Among these, he gives the
first place to the saying in the story of Lot, ''Escape to the mountain.''' On
the hypothesis that the Discourse warned the disciples to take example from
the flight of Lot, and was not intended to be understood literally, this geographical
difficulty is removed.
[3346 d~\ The phrase (Lk.) "on [? one] bed," seems more likely than (Mt.) "in
the field" to represent the original that is to say, the Semitic original from
which Matthew and Luke derived their several traditions. There may have been
344
IN THE DOUBLE TRADITION [3347]
Luke's "in this night" probably alludes to the night of the flight
from Sodom and also to the night of the Exodus ', besides conveying
the spiritual suggestion that the "coming" will be subjectively
"in the night" for those who are "of the night 2 ." Matthew, not
seeing how it could be reconciled with men's being "in the field,"
has altered "in this night" into "then," besides misunderstanding
the context.
[3347] As regards the use of "son of man" in the tradition
about the days of Lot, we may assume here, as elsewhere, that where
an evangelist was reproducing an exposition of what the Lord
"meant," or "said" the Greek for "meant" being the same as the
Greek for "said" (see 3165 and 3204) on the special subject of the
"coming" of "the son of man" the title might be used as being
the habitual self-appellation in some cases.
Moreover it was probably felt that " So shall the coming of the
son of man be" was not quite the same thing as "So shall /come 3 ."
in the original a parallelism between "0 one bed" and "grinding" (Job xxxi. 10
"grind" is paraphrased by Targum "sleep" comp. Rashi (Breithaupt) on Job,
and Levy ii. 15 1 a on Judg. xvi. 21, and see Jer. Targ. on Deut. xxiv. 6).
1 [3346 "] Exod. xii. 42 "it is a night to be much observed." In order to be
ready to start in that night, the Israelites were to eat the Passover (ib. n) with
loins girded, shoes on feet, and staff in hand.
- [3346 /] i Thess. v. 2 5 "the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in
the night. ..we are not of the night, nor of darkness."
3 [3347 a] It may almost be said that the Synoptists never represent Jesus
as saying to the disciples "/will come again." It is always "the son of man will
come." Mark's and Matthew's tradition (Mk xiv. 28, Mt. xxvi. 32) "I will go
before you to Galilee " is the only Synoptic record of a promise of a personal
coming. Luke omits even this. He omits it also when it is referred to by angels
(Mk xvi. 7, Mt. xxviii. 7 "he goeth before you to Galilee") where Lk. xxiv. 6 7
makes the angels merely refer to what Jesus said in Galilee about the Passion
and the Resurrection of "the son of man."
[3347 b~\ This therefore is a case for Johannine intervention, and John ac-
cordingly intervenes to represent Jesus as putting before the disciples the thought
of "going before them," when He speaks about preparing a place for them
(Joh. Gr. 2086) (xiv. i) "I should have said that I am going to prepare a place
for you." He apparently says that this is needless. But He promises in any case
to return (xiv. 18) "I will not leave you orphans, I will come unto you ."
[3347 c] John also indirectly answers the question noted above (3343 e) as
arising out of Luke's ambiguous statement "the kingdom of God is within you
(pi.)" namely, "Does 'within' mean in the midst of a society or in the heart
of an individual?" He represents "Judas (not Iscariot) " as actually asking
a question about the way in which Christ's presence will be manifested to the
disciples and not to the world, and as receiving the answer (xiv. 23) "If a man
345
[3347 (i)] "THE SON OF MAN"
The former was to be a parousia that would fill the skies from one
end to the other in an instant. It indicated something, not indeed
impersonal, but collective, the Spiritual Israel, the Church, the saints
incorporate in Christ. It suggested the triumph of New Jerusalem
over Sodom or Egypt, of the Principle of Salvation over the
Abomination of Desolation, or of Man over the Beast.
8. " The abomination of desolation "
[3347 (i)] The hypothesis of a reference to Sodom, in Christ's
Discourse on the Last Days, does not seem, at first sight, to accord
with the phrase " abomination of desolation." For that phrase is
connected, expressly by Matthew, and (perhaps) tacitly by Mark,
with Daniel 1 ; and Daniel never mentions Sodom. But it is not
likely that Jesus used that exact phrase, or that, if He used it, He
had Daniel in view. Luke substitutes a paraphrase. And the
thought of the connection between "abominations" and "desolation"
is much more frequently and spiritually expressed in Ezekiel than in
Daniel*. Ezekiel also mentions Sodom more frequently than any
love me he will keep my word, and my Father will love him. ..and we will come
unto him and make our abode with him." This makes it clear that in its primary
and redeeming aspect, the presence is in the heart of the individual.
1 Mt. xxiv. 15 "...spoken of by Daniel the prophet .. .let him that readeth under-
stand " ; Mark has simply (xiii. 14) "let him that readeth understand "; Luke has
(xxi. 20) "Jerusalem surrounded by armies." Comp. Dan. xi. 31 "they shall set
up the abomination that maketh desolate," xii. n "and the abomination that
maketh desolate [shall be] set up," also ix. 27 " and upon the wing of abominations
one that maketh desolate."
2 [3347 (i) a] "Abomination" (sing, and pi.) occurs in Ezekiel, according to
the English Concordance of A.V., about 46 times, in Daniel 3 times, in the rest of
the prophets about 21 times (including (A.V.) "abominable thing"). The noun
''desolation'"' is rare in Ezekiel, but "'desolate'" is very frequent, and it often occurs
as expressing the consequence of Israel's "abominations" or "idols" (vi. 6 9,
ii 14, xii. 16 19, etc.). The thought is first expressed in v. n 14 "Because
thou hast defiled my sanctuary... with all thy detestable things, and with all thine
abominations,... I will make thee a desolation and reproach...." Comp. xxxiii. 29
" when I have made the land a desolation and an astonishment because of all their
abominations "
[3347 (i) b] In Ezek. v. n, above quoted, "detestable things" (V\)V or ppE',
LXX /SSAvyyua, 27 times) represents the same word that is rendered "abomina'
tions" in Daniel, and also in Jer. vii. 30 " The children of Judah...have set their
abominations in the house which is called by my name to pollute it " (rep. ib. xxxii.
34). This word (A.V. "detestable things'" 5 times in Ezekiel) is almost inter-
changeable with n3Uin, the ordinary word for ''abominations" (LXX
346
IN THE DOUBLE TRADITION [3347 (ii)]
prophet, and this in a chapter beginning with the precept " Cause
Jerusalem to know her abominations 1 ."
[3347 (ii)] The truth is, that there is no parallelism of thought, but
only an accidental parallelism of word, between Christ's view and
Daniel's, whereas there is an absolute parallelism between His view
and that of Ezekiel. In Daniel, the period of the " abominations "
of Israel, now repentant, has passed away, and the future " abomi-
nations" are to come from foreign "desolation," from idolatrous
desecrators of the Temple, such as Antiochus Epiphanes 2 . But
Ezekiel sees Israel actually perpetrating abominations, and this in
the Temple itself, so that Jehovah is disowning it, and withdrawing
His Shechinah from it, and preparing to destroy His own House,
with an utter "desolation," because of the "abominations" of His
own people.
This also was the view of Jesus, as we can gather from many
passages in the gospels. He may not have actually said to the
Jews, "Destroy ye this temple 3 ," but He certainly thought that they
were the destroyers. He may not have actually spoken though He
probably did speak of "the blood of Zechariah...whom ye slew
between the sanctuary and the altar 4 ," but certainly such desecration
68 times). Hence Jer. vii. 30 "have set their abominations (or, detestable things)
in the house..." refers to the same offences as those previously mentioned in
ib. 9 1 1, " Will ye steal, murder. ..burn incense unto Baal,. ..and come and stand
before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered
that ye may do all these abominations? Is this house, which is called by my
name, become a den of robbers in your eyes ? "
[3347 (i) c] It will be remembered that Jesus (Mk xi. 17, Mt. xxi. 13, Lk. xix.
46) quotes the phrase about "a den of robbers" against the rulers of the Jews,
with reference to their desecration of the Temple. Assuredly He did not accuse
them of "burning incense unto Baal." But He did accuse them of " setting their
abominations " in God's House, and He taught that these would be the cause of its
destruction.
[3347 (i) d] The Heb. for " abomination " in LXX = aroida. 25 times. Hence
the name of Antichrist, in i Thess. ii. 3 (text) 6 arOpiirros rrfs di-o/uaj, " the man
of lawlessness," might be, in Hebrew, "the man of abomination," who claimed
worship as an idol. Comp. Ezek. viii. 10 (lit.) "beasts of detcstableness, and all
the idols of the house of Israel."
1 Ezek. xvi. 2. In Ezek. xvi. Sodom is 6 times mentioned, as compared with
10 times in all the other prophets.
* Comp. Dan. ix. 5 19 " We have sinned.... O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive...
because thy city and thy people are called by thy name."
3 Jn ii. 19.
4 Mt. xxiii. 35 "ye slew (itjnvevffaTe)," Lk. xi. 51 (more prosaically) "who
perished (dToXo^ror)."
347
[3347 (iii)] "THE SON OF MAN"
as this, rather than that from Roman standards or Roman statues,
was in Christ's mind if He ever used the exact phrase " abomination
of desolation." Not even the fulfilment of Daniel's prediction that
"the continual [burnt offering] shall be taken away 1 " by a foreign
conqueror could seem to Jesus so terrible as the shedding of innocent
blood 2 by God's own people. If He did not say, in fact, He was
continually saying, in effect, to the rulers of the Jews : " If ye had
known what that meant, ' I will have mercy and not sacrifice,' ye
would not have condemned the guiltless 3 ." Luke mentions "abomi-
nation " but once, and that in a tradition peculiar to himself; but we
may certainly learn from it the spirit of Christ's doctrine ; and there
Luke represents Jesus as saying to the Pharisees, "Ye are they that
justify yourselves before men, but God knoweth your hearts ; for that
which is highly exalted among men is an abomination before God 4 ."
[3347 (iii)] If we bear in mind Ezekiel's frequent and character-
istic use of "idols 5 ," often in connection with "abomination" and
"defilement," we shall find a connection between this Lucan
tradition and the warning in Ezekiel about those who have " set up
their idols over their heart, and put the stumbling-block of their
iniquity before their face," who consequently receive the warning,
"Turn yourselves from your idols, and turn away your faces from
your abominations 6 ." This, it may be taken as certain, was also
Christ's doctrine. Evidence from word, evidence from thought, and
evidence from fact, point alike to the conclusion that if Jesus
either before death, or after death in a vision to the apostles
" reputed to be pillars " used the phrase " abomination of desola-
tion," He used it in a spiritual sense, and not of a visible idol to be
set up in a visible place. .
[3347 (iv)] It belongs to The Fourfold Gospel, and not to this
work, to shew the doubtful character of much of the eschatological
detail attributed to Christ in the Synoptic gospels, as compared with
1 Dan. xii. 11.
2 Comp. Is. i. 10 15 " Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom... To
what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices?... Your hands are full of blood."
3 Mt. xii. 7. 4 Lk. xvi. 15.
5 Far more frequently in Ezekiel than in all the rest of the prophets taken
together.
6 Ezek. xiv. 3 7. Instead of "set up their idols," R.V. has in text "taken"
but marg. Heb. "caused to come up" Targ. "ascendere fecit cultum idolorum
suorum in cor suum." In Dan. xi. 31, xii. u, the lit. rendering is "give," that is,
"appoint," with "abomination of desolation."
348
IN THE DOUBLE TRADITION [3347 (v)]
the more trustworthy general and spiritual doctrine in the fourth
gospel. But a few remarks may be added here to support the view
that " the abomination of desolation " was connected with the
thought of idolatry, but spiritual idolatry.
One form of idolatry is self-idolatry. It is certain that Jesus
imputed this to the Pharisees as He would doubtless impute it to
many Christian rulers of church and state, from the first century to
the twentieth. Paul says that "greediness " is idolatry 1 . Greediness
in priests and teachers, where it is necessarily cloaked in hypocrisy,
appears to have been regarded by Jesus as an "unclean" spirit,
worse than the old "unclean spirit" which Zechariah 2 connects with
the "prophets" of false gods. He implied clearly according to
Matthew and probably, though less clearly, according to Luke that
"this generation" was possessed by "seven spirits more evil" than
the former one 3 .
By " this generation " He meant, mainly, the Pharisees. When
He uttered the words, " Ye cannot serve God and mammon," Luke
says that the Pharisees, being " avaricious," scoffed, and that Jesus
replied " God knoweth your hearts ; for that which is highly exalted
among men is an abomination in the sight of God 4 ." He meant
" abomination " as Ezekiel would have meant it; it was "idolatry."
So again, in Matthew, Jesus says "Woe unto you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites 1 For ye compass sea and land to make one
proselyte ; and when he is become so, ye make him twofold more
a child of Gehenna than yourselves 5 ."
[3347 (v)] To Jesus, then, the typical Pharisee of His day there
were of course good and bad Pharisees, but we speak of such
Pharisees as were in successful league with the chief priests against
Jesus seemed "a son of Gehenna." The Greek phrase for this
1 Col. iii. 5. 2 Zech. xiii. 2.
3 Mt. xii. 42 5, Lk. xi. 24 6, 29 30.
4 Lk. xvi. 13 15. Mt. vi. 24 "Ye cannot... mammon" is followed by no
reference to the Pharisees but by the precept "Be not anxious...."
5 [3347 (iv) a} Mt. xxiii. 15. The following words, with bitter irony, represent
the Pharisees as thinking more of "the gold" than "the temple" and more of
"the gift" than "the altar." The context in the parallel Mark and Luke
describes the objects of Christ's invective as " devouring widows' houses and for
a pretence making long prayers"; these (Mk xii. 40, Lk. xx. 47) "shall receive
more abundant condemnation." This is strong language. But Mt. iii. 7 represents
John the Baptist also as including Pharisees in condemnation as "offspring of
vipers," and see 3690 b. On "twofold... Gehenna," see note i on 3499 (viii).
349
[3347 (vi)] "THE SON OF MAN"
would naturally be "son of destruction'*-." "Son of destruction"
occurs in the Bible only twice, ist concerning Judas "the son of
destruction" who was a follower of Christ, and a pleader for the poor,
yet a thief, and in league- with those who made the Temple a den of
robbers 3 ; 2nd, concerning "the man of sin (or, lawlessness) the son
of destruction, he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that
is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple
of God, setting himself forth as God 4 ."
[3347 (vi)] This may seem, at first sight, the very contrary of the
hypocritical Pharisees, who exalted God above everything. But the
exaltation was only in name. Their "heart," said Jesus, was "far
from God' ! ; they taught as divine doctrine their own traditions 5 .
They allowed themselves to be called "father" in such a spirit as
goaded our Lord to say to His disciples "Call no man 'father' on
earth 6 ." This kind of Pharisee, while nominally revering the law,
was in fact a "man of lawlessness 7 ." He sat, in effect, not only "in
Moses' seat 8 ," but even "in the temple of God." For he "exalted
himself" against the divine dictates of natural affection, against
divine humanity against all that is truly " called God " or rightly
"worshipped" by mankind.
[3347 (vii)] In the fourth gospel, the temporary triumph of these
"sons of Gehenna," in conjunction with their tool Judas, who
became a "son of destruction," after "Satan entered into him 9 ," is
regarded as causing His separation from the disciples : " I will no
more speak much with you, for the prince of the world cometh."
He adds that the Power of Darkness has no foothold in Him ("hath
nothing in me ") ; but still, in order that there might be manifested
to the world the love of the Son for the Father, this Power must work
its will " that the world may know that I love the Father, and as
the Father gave commandment, even so I do." Then He goes forth
1 [3347 (v) a] Comp. Rev. ix. n " They have over them, as king, the angel of
the abyss ; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he hath the name
Apollyon (R.V. marg. ' that is, Destroyer'}" " Destruction," cbrwXeia, corresponds
to ''Destroyer" diro\\uut>. The rendering in Jn xvii. 12 and 2 Thess. ii. 3 (R.V.)
"perdition" loses the connection between "destruction" and "destroy."
" Abaddon " meant sometimes the lowest region in hell.
2 Jn xvii. 12, xii. 6, xviii. 3.
3 Mk xi. 17, Mt. xxi. 13, Lk. xix. 46. 4 2 Thess. ii. 34.
5 Mk vii. 6 8, Mt. xv. 7 g, Lk. om. the whole.
6 Mt. xxiii. (). 7 2 Thess. ii. 3.
8 Mt. xxiii. 2. 9 Jn xiii. 27, comp. id. i.
35
IN THE DOUBLE TRADITION [3347 (viii)]
from the desecrated city with the words " Arise, let us go hence 1 ."
Similarly Luke describes Jesus, in the moment of His arrest, as
saying to the emissaries of the Pharisees " This is your hour and the
power of darkness 2 ."
According to this view, what Jesus said about the future shortly
before His death, was mainly intended to prepare His disciples for
His departure, and for a temporary triumph of " the prince of this
world " or " the man of sin " or " antichrist," which was necessarily to
be attended by an "abomination of desolation." Wherever they
saw such a triumph they were to flee from the place as being defiled,
like Sodom, and beyond their power to help 3 .
[3347 (viii)] Some notion of an "abomination of desolation,"
arising out of persecution, seems to be implied in the tradition of
Revelation about the " two witnesses," who were killed by " the
beast that cometh up out of the abyss " ; and whose dead bodies
were " in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom
and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified 4 ."
1 Jn xiv. 3031. - Lk. xxii. 53.
3 [3347 (vii) a] Such a triumph appears to be predicted in the words ( Jn xvi. i)
" The hour cometh that whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth [divine]
service to God." Aarpeta rendered "divine service" in Heb. ix. i (R.V. and
A. V.) means " a religious offering, or sacrifice " (comp. Rom. xii. i), and it might
be argued that John places these persecutors on a level with the persecutors of
Christ (Jn xv. 20 li if they persecuted me they will also persecute you ") and on
a level with those who substituted for Jehovah a false god, like their forefathers,
who (Ps. cvi. 36 8) "served their idols... yea, they sacrificed their sons and their
daughters unto demons, and shed innocent blood." With the example of Paul
before us Paul the persecutor, who (i Tim. i. 13) "obtained mercy" because he
persecuted "ignorantly in unbelief we have to distinguish the persecutors of
early Christianity according to their motives. But still the fourth gospel appears
to suggest that, although such persecution might be repented of and forgiven, yet it
was, while it lasted, a kind of idolatry, an offering of sacrifice to a god of
inhumanity. John xvi. i (see Wetstein) may be alluding to a Jewish tradition
(based on Numb. xxv. 13, on which see Wiinsche, p. 508) that "Whoso sheds
the blood of the transgressor " as Phinehas did is to be regarded as " making
propitiation," because he virtually " offers an offering (Heb. Corbah) to God."
4 [3347 (viii) a] Rev. xi. 78. The Beast is called in Hennas Vis. IV. i
"a type of the great tribulation that is coming," comp. Rev. viL 14 " These are
they that come out of the great tribulation, and they washed their robes and made
them white in the blood of the Lamb," and Mt. xxiv. 21 "great (Mk xiii. 19 om.
great} tribulation such as hath not been...," Lk. xxi. 23 "great distress (dwyio?
^70X17)."
The thought in Revelation (of ''the dead bodies in the street") seems to be
that of an outrage on God committed not only by allowing the bodies to remain
351
[3347 (ix)] "THE SON OF MAN"
The Beast seems to correspond to what the Johannine Epistle
calls " Antichrist 1 ," quoting, as a common saying, " Antichrist is
coming," and adding " And even now there are many antichrists."
Nero and Domitian and perhaps other persecutors, or personified
persecutions unknown to us were not improbably thus called.
Each such definite persecutor or persecution would lead Christians
to merge Christ's thought of an invisible principle of antichrist (that
is, inhumanity or the Beast) in some visible incarnation of it, with
visible and historical circumstances 2 . Hence, in part, we may
explain the variations in the Synoptic gospels. And hence, in part,
we may explain the attitude of the fourth evangelist, who desires to
divert attention from visible details to invisible and spiritual
principles.
[3347 (ix)] "Then," it may be asked, "what precept of the
slightest use did Jesus give to the disciples at this stage, in the belief
of the writer of the fourth gospel, corresponding to the Synoptic
precept to ' flee unto the mountains ' ? " The answer is, " None,
except that which He gave in action, when He said to the disciples
as He passed out of the City to Gethsemane, ' Arise, let us go-onward
hence 3 .'" There were different kinds of "going-onward" or "going
on 4 ." When Jesus used the term at the outset of His career, He
meant " Let us go on to preach the gospel elsewhere 5 ." When Paul
withdrew from Ephesus, where he had been " fighting wild beasts,"
he passed on to preach the gospel elsewhere. But when Polycarp,
at the request of his friends, withdrew from Smyrna, he retired,
somewhat as Jesus did to Gethsemane, to give himself up speedily
to those who were to bring about his martyrdom. No rule is laid
down. When "the prince of this world cometh," each follower of
unburied, but also by the temporary domination of the Beast over the Man (who is
in God's image) like the thought in the Targum quoted elsewhere (3518 (i) b) on
Deut. xxi. 23 "...thou shalt bury him the same day. ..that thou defile not thy
land" where the Targum adds " lest wild beasts abuse him." On the Two
Witnesses see Notes 2942* (ii) a d, (xix) foil.
1 i Jn ii. 18.
2 See Prof. Swete on Mk xiii. 14, as to various explanations of this kind.
Mark's text ("the abomination... [a man] standing (ecrrriK&Ta) ") indicates that the
writer regarded "the abomination" as a person perhaps an Emperor, perhaps
(i Thess. ii. 3) "the man of sin (of, lawlessness), the son of destruction." See
3347 (i) d, (v) a.
3 Jn xiv. 31. 4 On &yufj.ev, " let us go on," see 3323 foil.
8 Mk i. 38 (3326).
35 2
LV THE DOUBLE TRADITION [3347 (x)]
Jesus whether he "go onward" in this direction or in that, to
prolonged action, or to almost immediate death is to act in the
spirit of the words of Jesus (xiv. 31) "that the world may know that
I love the Father."
[3347 (x)] The conclusion is that Jesus or some revelation from
Jesus probably did, in the language of Scripture, bid the disciples
" flee to the mountains,'' after His departure, and that a trace of this
is contained in Matthew's tradition that " the eleven disciples
went into Galilee unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed
for them 1 ," and in the Mark-Matthew tradition that Jesus had
promised to "go before them to Galilee 2 ." But Luke has omitted
all these specifications of place. John seems to say, " You need not
literally go up to the mountains, for ' the mountain of the Lord, the
Rock of Israel' ',' will come down to you." This is expressed in the
words very mystical, and yet very practical " In my Father's
house are many stay ing-places.... If a man love me, he will keep my
word; and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him,
and make our staying-place with him 4 ."
1 Mt. xxviii. 16.
- [3347 (x) a] Mk xiv. 28, xvi. 7, Mt. xxvi. 32, xxviii. 7. On the differences
of view concerning the first manifestations of the risen Saviour, see 3197 (iv),
referring to Notes 2999 (xvii) e -/, and quoting the Gospel According to Peter,
which indicates that the first manifestation was not at Jerusalem, as also does Lk.
xxiv. 34 (D). Origen (Cornm. Joann. i. 7 and Cels. ii. 68) assumes that Christ's
manifestation to Peter took place at Emmaus.
3 Is. xxx. 29 " Ye shall have a song as in the night when a holy feast is kept;...
to come into the mountain of the Lord, to the Rock of Israel." " The mountain of
the Lord" is the Temple. And "the Temple," according to Christian inter-
pretation, was Christ.
4 [3347 (x) 6] Jn xiv. 2, 23. The Johannine novai, "staying-places" can be
connected, by the following links, with the Synoptic phrase "flee to the
mountains."
First, a very early Christian tradition (Paradosis 1394) probably from Papias
(Iren. v. 36. 2) quoting Jn xiv. 2, connects the very rare Johannine (Mvai,
"staying-places," with the belief that all advance, through "steps (gradus)," to
the heavenly City; 2nd, on Ps. cxxi. i, Rashi (Breithaupt) says " Canticum pro
gradibus. Indicantur in hoc Psalmo...ro</j...quae tempore futuro justis sunt
olrventurae sub arbore vitae throni gloriae" ; 3rd, the Mishna (Taanith ii. 2,
Schwab vi. 156) quotes Ps. cxxi. i as a prayer appointed for time of tribulation,
and the following Gemara quotes Gen. xxii. 13 "he (i.e. Abraham) lifted up his
eyes" that is, on Mount Moriah; 4th, Origen, on Gen. xix. 17 "escape to the
mountain" says (Horn. Gen. ad loc.), " He [i.e. Lot] was not so perfect that
immediately on going forth from Sodom he could 'go up to the mountain.' 1 For it
A - s - 353 23
[3347 (x)] THE DOUBLE TRADITION
is the mark of the perfect to say ' 1 have lifted up mine eyes to the mountains,
whence help will come to me.' But he. ..was not so great as to be able to abide
with Abraham in the higher regions.' 1 ' 1
These facts make it more easy to understand that Jesus, using the language of
the Psalms, familiar to all Jews and especially familiar to pilgrims that went up to
Jerusalem, may have spoken of resorting to "the mountain" in a metaphorical
and spiritual sense. When, as a fact, the Christians did actually flee from
Jerusalem before its capture, it was natural that the precept should be taken as
having referred to "the mountainous district" or "the mountains" in a literal sense.
[3347 (x) 6~] This metaphorical use of "mountains" must be distinguished from
the use in an opposite sense to mean false doctrine, or obstacles to faith. On this,
see From Letter 764 as to the title of Uprooter of Mountains bestowed on great
Rabbis. See also 3364 d, I. The Mishna gives the name of "mountains" to
traditions about the Sabbath and vows (Chag. loa) "The Halachoth concerning
Sabbath, Chagigoth, and trespasses [i.e. appropriations of holy things to secular
uses] behold, they are as mountains suspended on a hair ; for lo ! the Bible
teaching is little and the Halachoth much."
ADDENDUM ON LUKE'S DIVERGENCES FROM MATTHEW
[3347 (x) d~\ The following may illustrate the way in which Matthew and Luke
appear to have divergently interpreted an obscure original :
Mt. vii. 24 5 Lk. vi. 48
"...a wise man, who built his house "...like a man building a house, who
upon the rock ; and the rain descended dug and deepened and laid a foundation
and the rivers (ol irora/j-ol, R.V. floods) on the rock; and when a flood arose
came, and the winds blew, and fell upon (Tr\t)fj./j.ijp-r)s 8 yevo/jLtv-qs) the river burst
that house, and it fell not, for it was upon that house and had no power to
founded on the rock." shake it because it had been well built."
The Aramaic "rock" (whence came "Cephas") often meant (he rocky bank
(3695 a) of a river liable to inundations. The only instance of Luke's irXi^uupa in
LXX is Job xl. 23 " behold, if a river overflow (p?y) (marg. be violent}" ta.v
ytvr]Ta.i irX-fifj-fj-vpa. [Both in Heb. and in Aram., pK'V doubtful in Job (Gesen.
798^) mostly means "oppress," as in Prov. xxviii. 3 "...oppresseth the poor...
[like] a sweeping rain."] Matthew, not perceiving that "the rock[y bank]" here
implied ''''the river" which was the sole cause of the fall of the house adds
"winds" and "rain," and substitutes "rivers" for "river." Luke rightly perceives
that "the river" is the sole cause of the disaster, but does not see that "the rock"
is the rocky bank, on which there need be very little "digging" and "deepening,"
as the builders get down to the rock almost at once. Matthew appears to be
right in the cause of safety (" for it was founded on the rock "), Luke to be wrong
in suggesting a second cause (" because it had been well built ").
Jerome (on Mt. vii. 24 5) has some comments which read as if borrowed
from Origen, whose comment is lost on the Psalmist's mention of "rock," where
the context speaks of deliverance from "the miry clay" etc. The thought of the
contrast between (Ps. xviii. 2 4) the "strong rock" and "the floods of (R. V.
marg.) Belial " is frequent in the songs and psalms of the Bible.
354.
CHAPTER II
"THE SON OF MAN" IN THE SINGLE TRADITION
OF MATTHEW 1
i. Matthew's use of "son of man" in parables
[3348] When Matthew records a parable concerning the final
judgment, he might without irreverence represent Jesus as using the
term " son of man " about Himself, as being the appropriate title for
the Messiah exalted from earth to the seat of judgment in heaven
even though he knew that he was merely giving the substance of
Christ's doctrine and not His very words. This Matthew does in the
parable of the Sheep and the Goats to which he prefixes " When
the son of man shall come in his glory," afterwards calling Him
"the King 2 ."
In this parable, the Sheep are those who have been spontaneously
humane. They have treated human beings with kindness without
knowing that every human creature needing help represented some-
thing more than his single self. Proverbs says, "He that giveth
graciously to the needy honoureth his Maker" and " lendeth unto
the Lord 3 ." This parable bridges over the gulf between a single
human sufferer and the " Maker " by regarding " the son of man " as
1 [3348 a] By " Matthew" is meant the whole of the extant gospel called by
that name. It is impossible to say how many authors or editors are responsible
for those passages, peculiar to "Matthew," which are here called "the single
tradition of Matthew." In his exposition of Christ's doctrine, Matthew should be
regarded, like Luke, as a compiler. Only whereas Luke arranges his compilation
in chronological order, Matthew often prefers to arrange his in accordance with
the nature of the subject.
2 Mt. xxv. 31, 34 "Then shall the King say. ..Come, ye blessed of my
Father...."
3 Prov. xiv. 31, xix. 17, see Gesen. 3360.
355 232
[3349] "THE SON OF MAN"
the representative on earth of the Maker in heaven. " The son of
man," therefore, means not simply "Jesus of Nazareth," but the
divine humanity represented by man made in God's image, and by
Jesus, suffering on earth and exalted to heaven.
There is a similar use in the parable of the Wheat and the Tares,
" So shall it be in the consummation of the world. The son of man
shall send his angels and they shall gather... 1 ." Other instances
peculiar to Matthew have been explained above. But there remain
two of considerable difficulty.
2. " Ye shall surely not make-an-end-of the cities of Israel
until the son of man come "
[3349] "Ye shall surely not make-an-end..." (3244) stands in
Matthew just after the combination of the warning "ye shall be
hated by all men," with the promise "he that hath endured... shall be
saved." This warning and this promise occur in Mark and Luke
once, namely, in the Discourse on the Last Days. But in Matthew
they occur twice, once in the Discourse on the Last Days, and once,
previously, in the Discourse to the Twelve Apostles. It will be
convenient to compare these two passages with one another and also
with the parallels in Mark and in Luke. All but Luke mention
" end," which, for the purpose of subsequent reference, is printed
in capitals :
Mt x. 22 4 (To the Twelve) Mt. xxiv. 9 15 (The Last Days)
"And ye shall be hated by "And ye shall be hated by
all on account of my name, but all the nations on account of my
he that hath endured to the name. And then many shall be
END, this [man] shall be saved, caused to stumble 2 But he that
But when they persecute you in hath endured to the END, this
this city, flee to the other, for [man] shall be saved. And this
verily I say unto you, ye shall gospel of the kingdom shall be
surely not make-an-end-of 3 the cities proclaimed in the whole of the
of Israel till the son of man come. inhabited [world] for a testi-
1 Mt. xiii. 40 i.
2 Mt. xxiv. ii mentions the rise of "false prophets" to which there is no
parallel. But it is repeated in Mt. xxiv. 24 where it is parallel to Mk xiii. 22.
8 "Make-an-end-of," i.e. "complete the number of (rtX^w)," not the noun
"end."
356,
IN THE SINGLE TRADITION OF MATTHEW [3351]
A disciple is not above his mony to all the nations, and
master... 1 ." then shall come the END.
When therefore ye see the
abomination... 2 ."
[3350] With these compare Mark's and Luke's version of the
warning and the promise :
Mk xiii. 13 14 Lk. xxi. 17 20
"And ye shall be hated by "And ye shall be hated by
all on account of my name, all on account of my name.
But he that hath endured to the And a hair of your head shall
END, this [man] shall be saved, surely not perish. In your en-
But when ye see the abomination durance ye shall gain your souls
of desolation...." (or, lives). But when ye see
Jerusalem surrounded by armies
(or, camps) then know that her
desolation is nigh."
Before asking what is meant by "not... until the son of man
come," we shall do well to ask why Luke alone omits " to the end "
after "endurance."
A sufficient reason is, that he may have taken " to the end," in
the sense usual in the LXX, as meaning "to the utmost" "completely"
connecting it with "shall be saved," so as to mean "but he that hath
endured this [man] shall be saved to the uttermost*." "To the
uttermost" implies that nothing of them shall perish, "not even a
hair" and Luke prefixes a sentence to that effect Much earlier
Luke has a somewhat similar saying addressed to the disciples, which
finds a parallel in Matthew's Discourse to the Twelve 4 .
[3351] Another probable reason for Luke's omission is that he
was aware that THE END might be applied to the end of the
Jewish Law when it was superseded by the New Law, as well as to
1 Mt. x. 14 "A disciple...," is parall. to Lk. vi. 40; Mt. x. 15 is almost entirely
peculiar to Mt. ; Mt. x. 26 is paralL to Lk. xii. 2, but comp. also Mk iv. , Lk.
viii. 17.
2 This is parall. to Mk xiii. 14 where Mk has "the abomination," but the
parall. Lk. xxi. 20 has "Jerusalem surrounded by armies."
3 [3350 a] See/i?^. Gram. 2322, quoting Heb. vii. 25 els TO TajreAes.
4 [33503] Mt. x. 30, Lk. xii. 7 "But even the hairs of your head are
numbered" A corresponding Biblical phrase is "not a hair of your head shall
fall to the ground" In the previous verse, Matthew applies " shall fall to the
ground" to a sparrow, Lk. has " is forgotten"
35?
[3352J "THE SON OF MAN"
the end of the world. He might therefore avoid positive traditions
that committed him to one of these two views against the other. In
his eschatology he follows Mark and Matthew negatively in saying
" Not immediately cometh the end 1 ," but he nowhere says, with Mark
and Matthew, "he that endureth to the end 3 " nor with Matthew,
"Then shall come the end 3 ."
Luke does, however, imply some sort of " end " in a possibly
corrupt passage where he says that Jerusalem " shall be trampled
down by the nations until they be fulfilled, or, until the appointed-
times of the nations be fulfilled 4 ."
[3352] Matthew himself, in the two traditions quoted above,
seems to contemplate two distinct "ends," one in which the Twelve,
after preaching the Gospel to "the house of Israel" will be "hated
by all" that is, by all their countrymen*; the other, in which the
Apostles will incur the hatred of " all the nations" and the " end "
there mentioned is not to come till the Gospel has been proclaimed
to " all the nations*."
The Acts 7 says that, after the martyrdom of Stephen, the disciples
travelled from Jerusalem " speaking the word to none save only to
Jews"; but some "spake unto the Greeks also,... and the hand of
the Lord was with them," and their course was approved by the
Apostles in accordance with the vision and voice of the Lord to
Peter. Matthew's peculiar tradition about " the cities of Israel " is
perhaps based on some similar revelation given after the Resurrection.
It is to be read with the words, also peculiar to Matthew, " Go not
into [any] way of the Gentiles 8 ."
[3353] The Epistle to the Galatians supplies us with evidence for
believing that such a revelation was given after the Resurrection if
1 Mk xiii. 7, Mt. xxiv. 6 "not yet," Lk. xxi. 9 "not immediately."
2 Mk xiii. 13, Mt. xxiv. 13, Mt. x. 11. 3 Mt. xxiv. 14.
4 [3351 a] Lk. xxi. 24 ...ira.Tovfj.tiir) virit tOvCov &XP L 1 ' wX^pwtffltf'O' [*coi
Kaipol edvC)v. Comp. Rom. xi. 25 "a hardening in part hath befallen Israel until
the fulness (ir\^pwfJLa) of the nations be come in." If the bracketed words are
inserted, the meaning will be "until they, i.e. the nations, have their full number
[of the elect] completed, and then shall be the appointed times of the nations."
Is. Ix. i foil, predicts the Epiphany of the Lord when all the nations that
despoiled Israel will make themselves servants to Israel, voluntarily, being
"ashamed," as Philo says (3289 /<), to keep their spiritual superiors any longer in
slavery.
5 Mt. x. 22 foil., comp. x. 6. 6 Mt. xxiv. 9 foil.
7 Acts xi. 19 21. 8 Mt. x. 5.
358'
IN THE SINGLE TRADITION OF MATTHEW [3353]
at least we believe that the momentous decision to set apart the
chief among the Twelve for the Gospel to the Jews, and Paul
and Barnabas for the Gospel to the Greeks, was not taken without
prayer that was answered by revelation. " James and Cephas and
John," says the epistle, "gave right hands of fellowship to me and
Barnabas that we should go to the nations, but they to the circumcision^"
This division of labour was doubtless not intended to be
permanent, and we can well understand that Peter and his com-
panions asked the Lord to reveal His will, although they recognised
their inferiority to Paul and Barnabas in acquaintance with the
Greek mind and thought and language. At such a time the
word of the Lord may have come to them, saying in effect, " Go not
into [any] way of the Gentiles. There is enough for you to do
among your own people. Before you have completed the number of
the cities of Israel the son of man 2 will have come to the cities of
the whole world 3 ."
1 [3353 a] Gal. ii. 8 Q. Origen, in his comments on this, assumes the
division of labour. He does not call attention, in the context, to any tradition
that, later on, Peter became Bishop of Rome. Nor does Chrysostom.
- [3353(5] In such an "oracle," regarded as proceeding from Jesus, "son of
man" would naturally be used as being a part of the regular formula, "the
Coming of the Son of Man," used by Jesus. See 3316 7. 3347.
3 [3353 c] Connected with the discussion of Matthew's authority for his
tradition about the "coming" of "the son of man" is the question of his
authority for saying (Mt. xxiv. 11) "If those days had not been shortened
(Mk xiii. 10 'If the Lord had not shortened the days') no flesh would have been
saved." Why does Luke omit this? Probably because he believed it to be
erroneous.
[3353 d~\ Mark and Matthew seem to have been led into error by the LXX,
which, when describing God's "consumption and strict-decision^ as predicted by
Isaiah and Daniel, renders the Hebrew " strictly-decidt" (lit. "cut" "sharpen")
by the Greek "cut-short." See Is. x. 23, xxviii. 22 and Gesen. 358 . In
Dan. ix. 26, where Theod. has "cut-short (ffwrfftrw)," Aq. and Sym. have "f/
(rtfjuHij)," il>. ix. 27 Theod. has "consummation (ffwrfXeia)" but Aq. and Sym.
seemingly ''cutting (TOU-/I)," Al. "haste (<nrou<5i))," id. xi. 36 Theod. and LXX
have "consummation," but in Theod. some copies add "haste."
[3353d-] Even if we could suppose that the Greek translators used "cut-short"
in a technical sense like "cut (rffjuxa)" applied to a treaty, oath etc. meaning
"ratify" that would not justify Mark, whose word coAoj36&j means "curtail,"
"maim," "mutilate," so that it suggests unnatural or unexpected curtailing. Isaiah
(x. 22 3) says, in effect, "Because of the strictness of the decree of consumption
(i.e. destruction) only a remnant will be saved"; Mark says, "Because of the
shortening of the consumption (i.e. destruction) a remnant will be saved [which
would otherwise have been destroyed]." Comp. Rom. ix. 27 (quoting Isaiah)
259
[3353 (i)] "THE SON OF MAN"
According to this view, these two traditions peculiar to Matthew,
about completing "the cities of Israel," and not going into any "way
of the Gentiles," resemble his tradition about the precept to
"baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"
(and probably other traditions) in referring to post-resurrectional
sayings 1 . The interpretation, however, of the first of these, is
extremely doubtful 2 .
3. The inclusiveness of the Gospel
[3353 (i)] In considering Christ's doctrine as to the inclusion of
the Gentiles, we have to ask why the words "for all the nations"
are omitted by Matthew and Luke in His quotation from Isaiah,
" My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations*."
(A.V.) "a remnant shall be saved," (R.V.) "it is the remnant that shall be
saved." By "it is the" is meant "it is only the." In Isaiah A.V. has "[yet]
a remnant," R.V. "[only] a remnant."
[3353/~] It should be added that, in Mk xiii. 20, the use of "Lord " (/ctf/xos nom.
without article) in Christ's words, to mean "Jehovah," outside quotations, is
unique in the gospels. See 3492, 3503 b.
1 [3353 g~\ The importance attached (in the hypothesis given above) to the
coming of the Gospel to the Gentiles, as though it were the "coming" of the
Lord Himself, may be justified by various prophecies from Isaiah, and also by
the mysterious emphasis laid in the fourth gospel on the coming of certain
Greeks to Jesus which leads Jesus to say (Jn xii. 23) "The hour is come that
the son of man should be glorified." We must attempt to keep in mind the view
(32434, 3314, 3360) that God's "coming" is a "revelation" (which might be
called Epiphany) of spiritual (not material) light.
2 [3353 A] Origen, if correctly reported, has (Cramer on Mt. x. 23) the
following comment on "until the coming of the son of man" : "He means
[the] Parousia, not the bright and glorious one, the universal consummation, but
the visitation-to-and-fro (<hri$otn)fir) at different seasons by means of which
(5t' 175) appearing-in- vision (6irrav6fji.evos, Acts i. 3, see Joh. Gr. 2331 f, Notes
2892 a, also 3244 a) He would afford them the help that was to come from Him,
making them of good cheer by reason of their being persecuted, and again
[coming] into union [with them] (ird\iv eij rb avro) as He promised (Jn xiv. 23)
'I and my Father will come unto him and make our abode with him.'"
3 Mk xi. 17 (parall. Mt. xxi. 13, Lk. xix. 46) quoting from Is. Ivi. 6 8 "Also
the strangers that join themselves to the Lord, to minister unto him. ..even them
will I bring to my holy mountain and make them joyful in my house of prayer ;
their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar ; for
my house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations (LXX Hdvefftv). The
Lord God who gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather [others]
to him, beside his own that are gathered." Heb. has "peoples" not "nations"
comp. 3468^ for the interchange of the two words in Isaiah and Micah.
360
IN THE SINGLE TRADITION OF MATTHEW [3353 (ii)]
At first sight the reply seems obvious and quite satisfactory,
" Jesus did not include the words in His quotation ; or, at all events,
they were not included in the original narrative. If they had been,
Matthew and Luke who in the threefold tradition habitually
borrow from Mark, but borrow independently of each other would
not have agreed in omitting them. Why should they ? There were
probably many editions of Mark. It was natural for an editor of
Mark's gospel to supply 'for all the nations,' as the words are in
Isaiah. It was natural for Matthew and Luke to omit them as they
were not in their edition of Mark 1 ."
[3353 (ii)] But on examination this reply seems less satisfactory.
For Mark's context seems to have been condensed and " improved "
by the later evangelists so that they have departed from the original,
which Mark gives thus, "And he used not to suffer that anyone
should carry a vessel through the temple, and he used to teach and
used to say to them, // is not [equiv. to Is it not T\ written - that my
house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations ? " Such
a use of the negative ("it is not written") in literary Greek is
confined to instances where there is not the slightest ambiguity.
Here it is conceivable that an illiterate or hasty reader might at first
sight take Mark's meaning to be "// is not written that my house
shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations, or Gentiles \but
only for the Chosen People\" Matthew and Luke omit the negative.
It can hardly be doubted that they have omitted it for clearness
as Symmachus omits it sometimes and that Mark's text, in this
point at all events, represents the original 3 .
But further, Luke alters "shall be called" into "shall bc."~ This,
again, is natural, since there may be a great difference between the
two ; and Jesus Himself would have said that the Temple was
"called" by the Jews "a house of prayer," although it "was" not 4 ,
being a pretence, like the barren fig-tree. But it indicates that we
1 [3353 (i) a] See Corrections 321 (vi) : "Mark, as was natural in a very
early gospel, may have contained conflations, mistranslations, paraphrases, and
paraphrastic additions. Some of these Matthew and Luke might reject as non-
authoritative. Others they do not insert but can hardly be said to reject if
they were not in their edition of Mark."
2 [3353 (ii) a] Mk xi. 16 17, ov y^ypairrcu ; a vehement interrogative, "It is
not written, you say ! " i.e. " Do you venture to say it is not written ? " The
parall. Mt. and Lk. have ytypa-rrat.
3 See Gen. iv. 7, xliv. 15, Judg. iv. 14 where Symm. drops the negative.
4 Comp. i Jn iii. i "that we should be called children of God ; and we are"
3 6l
[3353 (iii)] "THE SON OF MAN"
cannot, in this passage, trust Luke's text as an exact representation
of the original.
Moreover the curious passage in Mark about not "carrying a
vessel through the temple" appears to be by no means a later
interpolation or addition but an original tradition of Mark, harmoniz-
ing with Jewish tradition. It has some points of resemblance with
the Johannine tradition that Jesus said, "Make not my Father's
house a house of traffic 1 ." Matthew and Luke probably omitted it,
not because they deemed it an interpolation, but because it seemed
diffuse and likely to blunt the point of the sharp accusation, " The
scriptures say, My house shall be a house of prayer, but you, the
chief priests of the Jews, are making it a den of thieves 2 ."
[3353 (iii)] In favour of the retention of the clause " for all the
nations, or Gentiles," there is the fact that the words were uttered by
Jesus or at all events were regarded as having been uttered by
Jesus in the Court of the Gentiles. In this Court "innumerable"
beasts were sold for sacrifice, and Gentiles themselves were at least
during our Lord's life and for some years afterwards permitted to
offer sacrifice 3 . There was therefore a special force in Isaiah's
words "for all the nations," as though Jesus said to the chief priests,
" How can the Lord make strangers joyful in His holy mountain,
and how can His house be called a house of prayer for all the
nations, Gentiles as well as Jews, when you, His priests, fill the
Mountain of His house, the Court of the Gentiles, with the noise,
and traffic, and extortion, which make prayer impossible ? "
Even if the words " for all the nations " were not actually uttered
by our Lord in this short quotation, they can hardly fail to have been
1 Jn ii. 16 "traffic (f/juropiov)," and see Hor. Heb. (on Mk xi. 16) as to the
Talmudic warnings against making any part of a sacred building a "thoroughfare."
2 Comp. Justin Martyr Tryph. 17 "For He appeared (Is. iii. 10 LXX)
'distasteful' to you when He cried among you, My house is the house of prayer,
but ye have made it a den of thieves. "
3 [3353 (iii) a] See Hor. Heb. on Mt. xxi. J2 quoting Hieros. Jorn Tobk,
fol. 6 1. 3 about Bava Ben Buta who, finding the court empty of beasts, invoked
a curse on the houses of those who had laid waste the house of God, and
straightway "brought three thousand of the sheep of Kedar" into "the Mountain
of the House," that is, the Court of the Gentiles.
[3353 (iii) b] On the lawfulness of Gentile sacrifices see Hor. Heb. (on
Jn xii. 20 "Now there were certain Greeks among those that went up to worship
at the feast") quoting (i) the Jewish regulations for the acceptance of such
sacrifices, and (2) Josephus' account (Bell. ii. 17. 2) of Eleazar's success in
persuading the multitude to break the custom and to discontinue such acceptance.
362
IN THE SINGLE TRADITION OF MATTHEW [3353 (iv)]
in His mind (so we must needs think) inasmuch as the whole of the
prophetic context implies them. Moreover the following parable
about the Lord of the Vineyard, and the words, " He shall give the
vineyard to others 1 " indicate that at this crisis the Gentiles were in
Christ's thoughts.
[3353 (iv)] It would be strange indeed if such a teacher as Jesus
fell back in His doctrine from the level of those prophecies in " the
Book of Isaiah" which assume that eventually "the nations" are
to be brought to the knowledge of the true God. Jesus doubtless
assumed (as it is assumed in many of those prophecies) that Israel
must first be led to the truth, and then the Gentiles through Israel.
But the doctrine that the Gentiles were ultimately to be saved, and
that He Himself was to be in due season and by the appointed
means the instrument of their salvation, He manifestly taught.
The Double Tradition of Matthew and Luke, and their Single
Traditions, give prominence to this doctrine. In Mark it is com-
paratively latent. Mark can hardly be said to profess to record
Christ's doctrine, except so far as it may be inferred from His acts
and epigrammatic utterances, apart from His longer discourses.
Yet even in Mark this phrase about "all nations," coming shortly
before the parable of the "Vineyard" given "to others," affords
an indication that Jesus associated Himself with the universalism
proclaimed in "the later Isaiah*."
1 [3353 (iii)f] Mk xii. 9, Mt. xxi. 41 "...to other husbandmen who shall give
him the fruits in their seasons," Lk. xx. 16 adds "But hearing it they said,
God forbid." All have "to other(s)," but Matthew puts the words into the
mouths of the Jews answering Christ's question, "What will he do?"
2 [3353 (iv) a] If that is so, we have to explain Christ's apparent attitude to
the Gentiles in the story of :
THE SYROPHOENICIAN WOMAN
Mk vii. 11 "It is not fit (icaXoi') to take the children's bread and cast it unto
the dogs." These words occur identically in the parallel Mt. xv. 26 after (id.
24) "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" which Mark
omits. Mark also omits the statement of Matthew {ib. 23) that the disciples said
"Send her away for she crieth after us." According to Mark (vii. 245) Jesus
and the disciples were in "a house," and the woman "entered in and fell at his
feet." These divergences, together with the omission of the whole narrative by
Luke, throw doubt on its historical accuracy.
Matthew's tradition about being "not sent except to the lost sheep of the house
of Israel," may have been placed here by him in accordance with his principle of
"grouping" that is, grouping together sayings that bore on one subject, irre-
spective of their chronological order in the life of Christ because he thought that
363
[3353 (iv)] "THE SON OF MAN"
it illustrated Christ's attitude to "Gentiles." If so, we can infer nothing from its
position in Matthew, but must ask ourselves, independently of that position,
"When could such a saying have been uttered?" "How was it possible that so
important a saying could have been omitted by all the other evangelists ?" " Can
it be explained as having been uttered indeed by Christ but not in the sense in
which we understand it ? "
[3353 (iv) b~\ If it refers to Gentiles, it would appear to have been uttered after
Christ's resurrection, when He permitted or commanded the disciples to go
beyond the limits of His work, saying to them, in effect, " I, for my part, was sent
to Israel, but do you go forth to the Gentiles also."
But it may not have referred to Gentiles. It may have referred to the
"sinners" the class so called by the Pharisees among the Jews themselves.
All the Synoptists agree that Jesus said (Mk ii. 17, Mt. ix. 13, Lk. v. 32) " I came
not to call righteous [men] but sinful [men]." Celsus, not unnaturally, attacks
this (Orig. Cels. iii. 59) "Let us hear what kind of persons these [Christians] invite.
' Whoever,' they say, is 'a sinner'.... " Luke, not unnaturally, qualifies it (v. 32)
" I have not come to call righteous [men] but sinful [men] to repentance.' 1 '' Thus
the words were attacked and explained from the Gentile point of view.
But there was also the Jewish point of view. To the Jews, "sinners" often
meant Gentiles (Gal. ii. 15 "we being Jews by nature and not sinners of the
Gentiles"}. The words might mean, therefore, "I have come to call not
Israelites, but Gentiles.'''' Against such a misunderstanding it was possible to
guard by paraphrasing "sinners" as" the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'' 1 This
would also indicate that the "sinners" were ignorant, not wilful, in their errors,
and that they were desirous of returning to the flock, or, in other words (as Luke
suggests) ready for " repentance." Thus the words would be defended and
explained from the Jewish point of view.
This view, namely, that the expression "lost sheep of the house of Israel " was
originally used without any antithetical reference to Gentiles, seems preferable
to the view that there was such an antithesis and that the saying was post-
resurrectional. Even if it was uttered by Jesus, and not written by Matthew
as a paraphrase for " sinners," the emphasis may have been on ''lost" (not on
" Israel") so that there would be no antithesis except between "the lost" sheep,
and the safe or comfortable and self-satisfied sheep (both classes belonging to
Israel).
[3353 (iv) <-] The appellation of "dog," in Jewish literature, is connected with
the notion of uncleanness. Did Jesus intend to suggest that the Syrophoenician
woman belonged to the class of "the unclean"? Against this view there may
seem to be the fact that Mark places just before the story of the Syro-
phoenician woman a statement that Jesus used certain language (Mk vii. 19)
" purifying (Ka.6a.plfw) all kinds of food." But this doctrine if it cancelled the
Levitical regulations about "clean" and "unclean" food was not known to
Peter (according to Acts x. 10 foil.) till just before the baptism of Cornelius the
Gentile, when it was revealed to the Apostle by an express vision. Either there-
fore Mk vii. 18 19 was a post-resurrectional utterance (as Lk. x. 8 "eat those
things which are set before you " almost certainly was, see Silanus, p. 240) or else
Mark literalised a protest of Jesus against traditional additions to the Law (not
against the Law itself) so worded that, if it was taken without modification, it
overrode the Levitical regulations themselves. Or else both these explanations are
true : (i) Jesus, while living, used strong brief language that might seem to override
3 6 4
IN THE SINGLE TRADITION OF MATTHEW [3353 (iv)J
the Levitical Law, (i) Jesus, after His resurrection, in His " house," that is
(3460 f) among His disciples, explained His words so as to (Jn xvi. 13) "guide"
them "unto all the truth " ; and then He actually did "purify all foods."
[3353 (iv) d] Returning to the question of Christ's attitude toward the Syro-
phoenician woman, we find it hard to believe that He who had just uttered in
whatever sense, narrower or broader, anti-traditional or anti-legal the words
"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man," could have said, or
implied, that Syrophoenicians were to Israelites as "dogs" to "children." No
doubt, such an antithesis may be found in Jewish literature. Wetstein (on Mt. xv.
26) among many Jewish traditions that " the impious" and "the Epicureans" and
"the Gentiles" are "dogs," quotes (Pirke liezer, 29) "He that eats with an
idolater is like unto one eating with a dog for as a dog is uncircumcised so also an
idolater (ut canis est incircumcisus ita et idololatra)," rendered by Schottgen I.
1 145, " Quis enim est canis ? Qui non circumcisus est ; sic etiam idololatra qui non
circumcisus est." These and other passages point back to Deut. xxiii. 18 (R.V.)
" Thou shall not bring the hire of a whore, or the wages of a dog, into the house
of the Lord," and they indicate " dog " as the most opprobrious of all the
opprobrious terms used by the Jews to mark the gulf that divided them from the
profligacies of heathen worship.
[3353 (iv) e] The more these passages are studied, the more difficult it becomes
to believe that Jesus used the term "dog" here, about a woman in pitiable distress
imploring His help. According to Luke (iv. 26) Jesus, early in His career,
likened Himself to Elijah, who was sent to the widow of "Zarephath in the land
of Sidon " and not to any widow in Israel. According to Matthew and Luke, He
consented at once to heal the son or servant of a rich centurion. V.'hen Jesus was
actually placed in somewhat the same position as Elijah, how could He behave so
much more sternly than that prophet, and treat the Gentile woman so much more
austerely than He Himself treated the Gentile man? There is no hint that the
woman was of dissolute character. Even if she had been, it was not our Lord's
custom to deal hardly with women that were "sinners." To the Samaritan
woman He said "Thou hast had five husbands, and he whom thou now hast is
not thy husband" ; and yet she was not accosted as if she were a ''dog." It is
usual to say that Jesus used this language to test, or to call forth and strengthen,
the woman's faith. If He used it, that appears the best explanation ; and
Christians will feel sure that if all the circumstances were known He would be
found to have done what was best. But He may not have used it. Besides the
antecedent improbability of the utterance, and the facts alleged above against it,
there are the following considerations.
[3353 (iv)/] Ephrem Syrus says (p. 131) "He [i.e. Jesus] honoured the
centurion as Naaman, and the Syrophoenician woman as the widow of Sarepta."
This thought would occur to Christian evangelists in the first century. Whatever
may have been the origin of the story of the Syrophoenician, evangelists, when
recording it, would naturally recur to the kindred stories about Elijah and Elisha
especially as (according to Luke) Jesus Himself referred to the former prophet's
course as parallel to His own.
Now both of these prophets, at the prayer of a mother, restored a child to life.
And the story of Elisha's miracle contains a detail peculiar to Mark's version of
Christ's miracle, namely, that the sorrowful mother forced herself into the presence
of the future healer and (2 K. iv. 27) " caught hold of his feet," or, as Mark says
(vii. 25) "fell at his feet." Mark makes no mention of any intervention from the
365
[3353 (iv)] "THE SON OF MAN"
disciples. But, in the O.T. story, "Gehazi came near to thrust her away," and
"the man of God said, Let her alone (d</>es avrrjv)."
[3353 (iv) g] Jesus Himself, concerning the woman that anointed Him, is
recorded by John to have used this very expression (Jn xii. 7) "Let her alone
(a0e$ a,vT-f)v) " in the singular, but Mark has (xiv. 6) " Let her alone (a0ere avrfy) "
in the plural. The parallel Matthew has (xxvi. 10) "Why trouble ye the woman? "
(which Mark also adds). "A0es occurs also in the Marcan story of the Syro-
phoenician, but in a strangely different sense and context. Instead of meaning
" Let a/one," it means "Let, or permit" and Mark inserts an object of the verb,
"Let the children be first fed." But Matthew omits this objective clause. The
following evidence points to the conclusion that Matthew omitted it because it was
not in the original, and that Mark inserted it to make sense, but made wrong
sense the original being simply "A^es, ''Hold!" "Have done!"
"A0es (From Letter 1066, and Krauss p. no) was a Greek word adopted into
late Hebrew, and was ambiguous in Greek as well as in Hebrew, since it might
mean "dismiss" or "let go," or "permit." Comp. Mk iv. 36 afovres rbv ox^ov,
A.V. " sent away the multitude," R. V. " leaving the multitude." The usual word
for "dismiss" is diroXtiw (Mk vi. 36, Mt. i. 19 (divorce), Lk. ii. 29) frequent in all
the Synoptists. Matthew has here (xv. 23) " let her go (or, dismiss her} (a.ir6\vffot>
avTriv)." Only it is assigned not to Jesus but to the disciples. 'Airo\u(rot> appears to
be Matthew's substitute for &<pes. The Aramaicized aphes, being of the nature of
an exclamation, and not a sing, imperative (comp. Mk xv. 36 a<f>ere parall. to Mt.
xxvii. 49 a0es), was liable to various interpretations resulting in various adaptations
of context. It looks as though, in the story of the Syrophoenician, the interpre-
tations (i) "He said aphes" (2) "They said aphes" led to the several questions
(i) "To whom did He say it?" (2) "To whom did they say it?" Mark replied
(i) "Jesus said it to the woman" ; Matthew (2) " They said it to Jesus, about the
woman.' 1 '' But the fact may have been that (3) Jesus said it to the disciples.
[3353 (iv) h] It may be objected that the person using the word "dogs" is
clearly shewn to be the Lord by the woman's expostulatory " lord " in Nat, Kvpie,
Kal [yap] TO. Kvvdpia.... But, in MSS., Ktipie, i.e. /ce, and ical, i.e. /ce, are confusable
(3492 q, zuAJoh. Gr. 2657 d), so that Kvpie might here be a repetition of /cat. More-
over, if Kupie is genuine, the woman may be appealing to Jesus, over the heads, so
to speak, of the disciples whom she is virtually answering in her appeal to their
Master. The drama, according to hypothesis (3) above, would run thus :
1. The woman throws herself at Christ's feet. The disciples attempt to
prevent her.
2. Jesus says "Let her atone," using the Aramaic aphes as an exclamation
addressed to all the disciples.
3. The disciples say, " It is not fit to take the bread of the children and cast it
to the dogs."
4. The woman, appealing to the Lord against His disciples, says, "Nay
Lord, even the dogs...."
The use of ac^es, according to this hypothesis, would be similar to that of
a^ere in Mt. xix. 14 "Let the children {alone}, and do not hinder them from
coming," where the parall. Mk x. 14, Lk. xviii. 16 have " Let the children come,
and do not hinder them." And the situation would be the same. The disciples
intervene to prevent approach to Jesus, and He rebukes them.
[3353 (iv) i] In Mk vii. 27, if we leave out the words that Mark inserts after
<*( 
