1. The Designations Of Our Lord In Mark
THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD IN MARK
N arrative Designation In Mark what we may call the narrative designation of our Lord is uniformly the simple 'Jesus.' Mark employs no other designation in his entire narrative.2 On the other hand, he places this designation, in its simplicity, in the mouth of no one else. In the heading of his Gospel he sets, it is true, that "solemn designation of the Messianic personality," 'Jesus
Christ.' This is a designation not only which occurs nowhere else in this Gospel,4 but which occurs elsewhere in the four Gospels only rarely and only in similar formal connections. It seems already, here at least, to be employed as a proper name. But in the narrative itself, as we have intimated, Mark uses only the simple 'Jesus,' which nevertheless he never represents as used by others either in speaking of or in speaking to Jesus.
Popular Designation
The name by which Jesus was popularly known to His contemporaries, according to Mark, was apparently the fuller descriptive one of 'Jesus of Nazareth' (10:47, 16:6, 14:67). On one occasion He is represented as addressed by this full name (1:24), and on two others by the name 'Jesus,' enlarged by a Messianic title ('Jesus, Son of the Most High God' 5:7, 'Jesus,
Son of David' 10:47). The inference would seem to be that 'Jesus' was too common a name to be sufficiently designatory until our Lord's person had loomed so large, at least in the circles to which the Gospels were addressed, as to put all other Jesuses out of mind when this name was mentioned. The employment of the simple 'Jesus' as the narrative name in this Gospel is, therefore, an outgrowth of, and a testimony to, the supreme position He occupied in the minds of Christians.
Formula of Address The formula by which Jesus is represented by Mark as ordinarily addressed is apparently the simple honorific title, 'Rabbi,' by which in that age (Mt 23:7) every professed teacher was courteously greeted. The actual
Aramaic form 'Rabbi' occurs, however, but seldom in his narrative, and only on the lips of Jesus' disciples (9:5, 11:21, 14:45, Judas in betraying Him); although the parallel form 'Rabboni' occurs once on the lips of a petitioner for healing (10:51). In its place stands customarily its simplest and most usual Greek rendering, 'Teacher' (διδάσκαλε). The general synonomy of the forms of address, 'Teacher,' 'Master,' 'Lord' (διδάσκαλε, ἐπιστάτα, κύριε), as all alike Greek representatives of 'Rabbi,' is fully established by a comparison of the parallel passages in the Synoptics, as well as by such defining passages as Jno 1:38, 20:16.
What is to be noted here is that in his report of the forms of address employed by those conversing with Jesus, Mark confines himself among
Greek formulas to 'Teacher' (διδάσκαλε) as his standing representation of 'Rabbi.' The use of 'Lord' (κύριε) in 7:28 is not strictly an exception to this, since the speaker on that occasion was a heathen, and 'Lord' (κύριε) may be best viewed as indicative of this fact. It is the common Greek honorific address, equivalent in significance to the Jewish 'Rabbi' or 'Teacher.'
Significance of 'Teacher'
The address 'Teacher' is used by Mark broadly, and is put upon the lips both of our Lord's disciples in their ordinary colloquy (4:38, 9:38, 10:35,
13:1), obviously as their customary form of addressing Him; and of others who approached Him for every variety of reason (5:35, 9:17, 10:17, 20,
12:14, 19, 32). There does not necessarily lie in this mode of address, therefore, anything more than a general polite recognition of our Lord's claim to be a teacher and leader of men, although of course this recognition may rise on occasion above mere courtesy and become the expression of real reverence and dependence and a recognition of His authority and sovereignty. When something like this was insincerely or frivolously expressed, our Lord was offended by it, as in the case of the rich young ruler who addressed Him flatteringly as 'Good Teacher' (10:17). But when the expression was sincere it was received by Jesus in good part and the recognition of His authority involved in it welcomed and responded to, even when the authority suggested far exceeded that of an ordinary Rabbi and involved at least Messianic claims (10:35, 9:38, 4:38). Not only does
He accept this designation; He even adopts it, instructing His disciples to speak of Him to others as 'the Teacher' (14:14),—and there is involved perhaps in this adoption of the title all that is expressed in the declarations of Mt 23:1–12. Although not necessarily recognized as all that He was by every one who approached Him saying 'Teacher,' yet under this designation
He certainly is recognized as claiming and certainly does claim an authority above that of those who shared the title of 'Teacher' with Him (1:22, 27 etc.).
Significance of 'Lord'
Similarly we are not quite at the end of the matter when we say that the heathen woman in addressing Him as 'Lord' (7:28) only makes use of the common Greek honorific address. When one comes to a religious teacher petitioning so great a benefit, the honorific title which is employed is apt to be charged with a far richer meaning than mere courtesy or respect. And Jesus received it in this case at its full value; in a sense bearing some relation to His own appellative use of the same term, 'Lord' (κύριος), when
He declared Himself 'Lord of the Sabbath' and 'David's Lord' as well as his 'Son' (2:28, 12:36, 37). It is in this appellative use of the term 'Lord' by Jesus indeed that we may discover the deepest significance of the application of that title to Him (1:3, 2:28, 11:3, 12:36, 37 [12:9, 13:35]). It is no doubt sometimes very difficult to determine whether in a given instance it refers to God or to Jesus, a fact which has its significance. But the certain cases will themselves carry us very far. When, for example,
Jesus is quoted as declaring that "the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath" (or, perhaps, "of the Sabbath, too"), the implication is that He is
Lord of much more than the Sabbath, and that this His Lordship is an appanage of His Messianic dignity.15 And when He is represented as arguing with the scribes over the significance of the title 'Son of David'
(12:36, 37), it cannot be doubted that He had Himself as the Messiah in mind; and, whatever else His words suggest, they certainly intimate that He held Himself as the Messiah to be greater than David as truly as He was greater than Solomon (Mt 12:42); that, in a word, David (as that prophetic
monarch himself recognized) was no more His father by virtue of His descent from him, than he was His servant by virtue of his essential relation to Him. He was at the very least, and was predicted by David himself as,
David's sovereign.
Such being the conception of His lordship which was in His mind, we must assume it was this lofty dignity which He claimed for Himself when
He instructed His disciples, whom He sent to bring Him the ass's colt which was to bear Him into Jerusalem, to tell those who might dispute their right to it, that "the Lord hath need of him" (11:3); and this is borne out by the strongly Messianic character of the whole transaction (verses 9, 10, cf. Mt
21:4, 5, Jn 12:14, 15). And surely some such implications attend also the semi-parabolic designation of Himself as the 'Lord of the House' whose coming is to be watched for (13:35). And at least as much as this is involved when the evangelist identifies Him with 'the Lord' whose way was to be made ready for Him by the ministry of John the Baptist in fulfillment of the prophetic declarations of Isaiah and Malachi (1:3); for the alterations in the language of the declarations introduced by the evangelist make clear his purpose to apply these phrases directly to Jesus.
It is not necessary to presuppose that 'Rabbi' underlies this appellative use of 'Lord' (κύριος). In Mark 12:37 (and probably also 1:3) the underlying term is Adhoni, and elsewhere it is doubtless Maran, or Marana (or Maraʾa).
In other words the implications of the term in this application of it are those of supremacy and sovereignty. Whence it emerges that Jesus is represented as claiming for Himself (2:28, 12:36, 37, 13:35, 11:3), and as being recognized within His own circle as possessing (11:3), supreme sovereignty,
—a sovereignty superior to that of the typical king himself (12:36, 37), extending over the divinely ordained religious enactments of the chosen
people (7:28, cf. 7:15–19), and entitling Him to dispose of the possessions (11:3) and the very destinies of men (13:35). There is here asserted not only
Messianic dignity and authority, but dignity and authority which transcend those ordinarily attributed even to the Messiah (12:36, 37), and are comparable only to those of God Himself (1:3).
Messianic Designations The transition from such a designation of Jesus as 'Lord' to the designation of Him as 'Messiah,' is only a passage from the general to the particular. What is noteworthy is, therefore, not that specifically Messianic titles are freely assigned to Jesus in the narrative, but that no other titles than Messianic ones seem to be employed of Him. There is indication indeed that our Lord was recognized as a prophet (6:15, 8:28); in point of fact, that He recognized Himself as a prophet (6:4). It is clear indeed that He was widely spoken of as a prophet and that He Himself accepted the designation as appropriate. But this is little emphasized in this Gospel, and would form no exception to the rule that no designations are suggested for Jesus except Messianic titles. Neither can we consider the designations
'Bridegroom' (2:19, 19, 20) and 'Shepherd' (14:27), which Jesus seems to have applied incidentally to Himself, exceptions. In the former of these
Jesus, discoursing of John the Baptist (2:18) doubtless with intentional reference to a saying of his which is recorded for us only in John (3:29), identified Himself on the one hand with the 'Bridegroom' of Old Testament prophecy (cf. Hos 2:19), and set Himself forth on the other as the Head of the people of God now to be gathered into the promised kingdom: in other words, the designation is Messianic to the core. And certainly not less is to be said of His identification of Himself with the mysterious 'Shepherd' of Zech 13:7, who is the fellow of the Lord of Hosts (14:27 || Mt 26:31; and cf.
6:34 || Mt 9:36; and see Mt 25:32, eschatologically; and Jno 10:2). By the side of these it may also be necessary to recognize as a Messianic designation, the epithet 'Beloved,' which is applied to Him in the divine commendations of the Son—"Thou art my Son, the Beloved, in whom I am well pleased," "This is my Son, the Beloved" (1:11, 9:7). But apart from these more unusual designations none are applied to Jesus in the whole course of the narrative by any of the characters introduced, including Jesus in His own person, but familiar Messianic titles. These occur in considerable variety, and include not only the simple 'Christ' with its equivalents, 'the King of Israel' or 'of the Jews,' and 'the Son of David,' but also the more significant ones of 'the Holy One of God' and 'the Son of God,'—varied to 'the Son of the Most High God,' and 'the Son of the Blessed,'—and Jesus' own chosen self-designation, 'the Son of Man.'
'Jesus Christ'
The evangelist himself nowhere in the course of his narrative speaks of Jesus by one of these titles. As we have seen, his narrative name of our Lord is exclusively the simple 'Jesus.' No reader will doubt, however, that he considered all of them applicable to Jesus; and he announces his book, in the heading he has prefixed to it, as intended to recount the origins of "the Gospel of Jesus Christ"—possibly adding also the further Messianic designation of "the Son of God." This compound name 'Jesus Christ' occurs extremely rarely in the Gospels, and never except in the most formal and ceremonious circumstances. It appears, indeed, to be reserved as an august name, weighted with the implication of the entire content of Jesus' claims, and therefore suitable only for setting at the head of documents designed to exhibit His life and work, or at the opening of accounts of significant periods or acts of His career. It is very fairly described by Holtzmann,
therefore, as "the solemn designation of the Messianic personality."24
Although in it the term 'Christ' has ceased to be an appellation and become a portion of a proper name, its use as such bears all the stronger testimony to the ascription of the Messiahship to Jesus. Other Messiah than He had ceased to be contemplated as conceivable, and the very appellation
'Messiah' had become His distinguishing name.
'The Christ'
Although this compound name occurs nowhere else in Mark, and the reverse combination, 'Christ Jesus,' which is also in use in Acts and Paul, never, the simple 'Christ' appears in his narrative with sufficient frequency to evince that it was a favorite designation of the Messiah (8:29, 12:35,
13:21, 14:61, 15:32), applied as such to Jesus (8:29, 14:61, 15:32) in order to mark Him out as the Messiah; and accepted as such by Jesus, who thus asserts Himself to be the Messiah (8:30, 14:62, cf. 9:41, 12:35, 13:21). Its significance, as the simplest of all Messianic titles, is well brought out by the synonyms with which it is coupled. When Peter assigned it to our Lord in his great confession (8:29), our Lord at once takes it up as the equivalent of His own favorite self-designation of 'the Son of Man.' When our Lord would instruct the scribes with respect to the real dignity of the Messiah, He asks them how they can speak of the Christ as 'the Son of David,' when
David himself calls Him his 'Lord' (12:35, 37). When the high-priest at His trial adjured Him to say whether He was 'the Christ, the Son of the Blessed,' in His assenting reply He calls Himself the 'Son of Man' (14:62, 63). And in like manner the scoffing Jews mockingly addressed Him as He hung on the cross as 'the Christ, the King of Israel' (15:32). In all these instances the term is obviously used as an appellation, and has no different content from the general one common to all the designations which impute Messiahship.
It is the complete synonym of 'the King of Israel' (15:32), 'the Son of David'
(12:35), 'the Son of the Blessed' (14:61), 'the Son of Man' (8:31, 14:62). In a word it is the general title of the Messianic Sovereign, whom Jesus claims to be in His acceptance of this designation, and whom He is asserted to be by its application to Him by His followers.
Anarthrous 'Christ'
In the remarkable passage, 9:41, alone does 'Christ' appear without the article. And therefore it has been frequently supposed to be employed there not as an appellation but as a proper name, and therefore again to be out of place on Jesus' lips and to be accordingly an intrusion into the text from the later point of view of His followers. There seems to be no reason, however, why 'Christ' (χριστός) even without the article may not be taken appellatively (cf. Lk 23:2); and in that case, no reason why our Lord may not have told His followers that no one who should do them a benefit "in the name that they are the Christ's," i. e., on the ground that they are the servants of the Messiah, should lose his appropriate reward. In this view our
Lord would no doubt be once again claiming for Himself the Messianic dignity; but He would not be doing it in language inappropriate upon His lips, especially at a period in His ministry subsequent to the great confession of Peter at Cæsarea Philippi (8:29), after which, we are expressly told (8:31, 32), Jesus began to teach both formally and quite openly what and who He was and what was to befall Him in the prosecution of His mission. The thought thus brought out differs in nothing from that of Mt 10:42 and the mode of expressing the thought is equally appropriate with that recorded there, on the lips of One who knew Himself to be
Teacher and Lord only because He was the Christ. At the same time it must not be too easily assumed that our Lord could not speak of Himself as
'Christ' taken even as a proper, or quasi-proper, name, although we need not dwell upon this at this point.
Royal Titles It was because He announced Himself as the 'Christ' and was widely understood to possess claims upon that dignity that, when He was arraigned before Pilate, it was precisely upon His pretensions to be 'the King of the Jews' that He was interrogated (15:2, 26). On Jewish lips this title naturally was corrected to 'the King of Israel' (15:32), which again is identified with the appellation 'the Christ' (15:32). In this form also Jesus was far from repelling the Messianic ascription, but on the contrary expressly allows it
(15:2). To all appearance, however, neither 'the Christ,' nor 'the King of Israel,' was more current as a Messianic designation than the kindred form
'the Son of David' (12:35, cf. 11:10), though this title appears in Mark's narrative only once as actually applied to Jesus (10:47, 48). The blind man at the gates of Jericho, hearing that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by, and wishing to ask a favor at His hands as the expected King of Israel, knew no better name by which to address Him than 'Son of David.' It was the faith thus expressed which Jesus commended in him when He responded to his appeal,—thus accepting this Messianic title also (10:49, 51, 52, cf. 11:10).
It is quite untenable, therefore, to suppose that Jesus wished to repel this designation in the question He put as He taught in the temple (12:35), "How say the scribes that the Christ is the son of David," when "David himself"
(and speaking "in the Holy Spirit") "calls Him rather Lord?" He does not deny that He is David's son; He asserts that He is David's Lord. It seems, therefore, not quite exact even to say that He wishes to suggest that His sonship derives from a higher source than David: that He is, in a word, the Son of God rather than of David. But it seems clear that He desires to
intimate that as Lord of David He was something far more than was conveyed by the accustomed—and so far acceptable33—title of 'Son of David': and something of this higher dignity than mere kingship belonging to Him is doubtless inherent in this, therefore, higher Messianic title of 'Son of God.'
'Son of God'
This higher title, if it is not applied to Jesus by Mark himself in the heading of his Gospel (1:1), is at least in the course of the narrative repeatedly represented as applied to Him by others, and is expressly approved as so applied not only by the evangelist (3:11), but by our Lord
Himself (14:62). The form of the title varies from the simple 'Son of God'
([1:1] 3:11, cf. 15:39) to the 'Son of the Blessed' (14:61) and the 'Son of the Most High God' (5:7). It is, in the instances recited by Mark, found chiefly on the lips of the unclean spirits whom Jesus cast out (3:11, 5:7); though it is employed also, apparently as a culminating Messianic title, by the high priest at His trial, seeking to obtain from Jesus an acknowledgment of His great pretensions (14:62), and was frankly accepted by our Lord as fairly setting these pretensions forth (14:63). As a Messianic title it differs from those which have been heretofore engaging our attention, in emphasizing, as they do not, the supernatural side of the office and functions of the Messiah: He comes as the representative of God to do God's will in the world. From this point of view another Messianic title applied to Him by a demoniac—'the Holy One of God' (1:24),—ranges with it: and the employment by the unclean spirits of this class of titles only (cf. 3:11 and 1:34) may be due to the fact that they were voices from the spiritual world and were as such less concerned than the people of the land with national hopes or earthly developments.
'The Son'
By the side of the passages in which the precise title 'Son of God' is employed, there stands another series in which Jesus speaks of Himself, or is represented as spoken of by God, simply as 'the Son' (13:32, cf. 12:6,
1:11, 9:7), used obviously in a very pregnant sense: and these naturally suggest their correlatives in which He speaks of God as His 'Father' in the same pregnant manner (8:38, cf. 13:32, 14:36). The uniqueness of the relation intended to be intimated by this mode of speech is sharply thrust forward in the parable recorded in Mark 12. There were many slaves who were sent one after the other to the rebellious husbandmen; but only one son
—who is called "the beloved one," a term which is not so much designatory of affection as of that on which special affection is grounded, and is therefore practically equivalent to "only begotten," or "unique." It is possible that it is by this epithet that God designates this His Son on both of the occasions when He spoke from heaven in order to point Him out and mark Him as His own (1:11, 9:7)—"This is my beloved Son." The meaning is that the Son stands out among all others who may be called sons as in a unique and unapproached sense the Son of God. Of course it is possible to represent this as importing nothing more than that the person so designated is the Messiah, singled out to be the vice-gerent of God on earth; and it is noticeable that it is as the Messiah that Jesus calls God appropriatingly 'His
Father' when He declares that the Son of Man is to come in the glory of His Father with the holy angels (8:38), and certainly it was in lowly subjection to the will of God that He prayed at Gethsemane, "Abba, Father, remove this cup from me" (14:36). But this explanation seems scarcely adequate; in any case there is intimated in this usage a closeness as well as a uniqueness of relation existing between Jesus and God, which raises Jesus far beyond
comparison with any other son of man. And that remarkable passage, 13:32, in which Jesus declares His ignorance, though He be the Son, of the day of His advent, exalts Him apparently above not men only, but angels as well, next to the Father Himself, with whom rather than with the angels He seems to be classed.
Our Lord's own Testimony to His Messiahship All these Messianic designations are represented as not only ascribed to Jesus but accepted by Him. They are not, however, currently employed by Him; as reported in this narrative, He does indeed make occasional use of them—'the Christ' (9:41, cf. 8:29, 12:35, 13:21), the 'Son of David' (12:35), the 'Son [of God]' (13:32, cf. 12:6)—but only exceptionally. The Messianic designation which He is represented as constantly applying to Himself is also one peculiar to Himself—'the Son of Man.' That this designation is actually employed as a Messianic title, is apparent not only from its obvious origin in the vision of Daniel 7:13, to which reference is repeatedly made
(8:38, 13:26, 14:62), but also from the easy passage which is made, in the course of the conversations reported, from one of the other designations to this, whereby they are evinced as its synonyms. Thus in 8:31 in sequence to Peter's confession of Him as 'the Christ,' we are told that Jesus began to teach that "the Son of Man must suffer many things." Similarly in 13:26 our
Lord notifies us that although many "false Christs" shall arise who may deceive men, yet when certain signs occur, "then shall they see the Son of Man coming." Again when exhorted to declare whether He is "the Christ, the Son of the Blessed" (14:61), He responds in the affirmative and adds:
"And ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power."
Evidently if we are to ask, 'Who is this Son of Man,' we must give answer, shortly, 'The Christ of God.' And it lies in the evidence not only that this
was the underlying conception of our Lord as reported in this Gospel but also that it was—however dimly—apprehended by those He addressed.
There is perhaps no single passage in Mark so clear to this effect as John 12:34, where the multitude are represented as puzzled by our Lord's teaching that the "Son of Man must be lifted up," in view of their conviction that "the Christ abideth forever." "We have heard out of the law," they say,
"that the Christ abideth forever: and how sayest thou that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?" This is as much as to say that that 'Son of Man' who is the Messiah is known to them and is known to them as the eternal King: but no other 'Son of Man' is known to them—who is to be "lifted up" from the earth that He may draw all men unto Him. The same implication is latent, however, in the instances reported by Mark, the conversations recorded in which would have been unintelligible had there not been in the hearers' minds some intelligence of the phrase 'Son of Man' as a Messianic title, although it was apparently not a Messianic title either in such current use that it came naturally to their lips or so unambiguous as to be easily comprehended by them in all the implications which our Lord compressed into it.
'Son of Man'
The difficulty created by our Lord's use of this phrase seems, indeed, as represented by Mark, not so much to have lain in apprehending that it involved a claim to Messianic dignity, as in comprehending the character of the Messianic conception which He expressed by it. The constant employment of this designation of Himself by our Lord in preference to the more current ones, such as, say, 'Son of David' or 'King of Israel,' appears to mark in effect an attempt on our Lord's part, in claiming for Himself the Messianic dignity, at the same time to fill the conception itself with a new
import. The nature of the revolution which He would work in the Messianic ideal current among the people, in other words, is signalized by His avoidance of the current designations of the Messiah and His choice for His constant use of a more or less unwonted one which would direct their attention to a different region of Old Testament prophecy. He says, in effect,
In the conception you are cherishing of the Messianic king, you are neglecting whole regions of prophecy, and are forming most mistaken expectations regarding Him: it is from the Son of Man of Daniel rather than from the Son of David of the Psalms and Samuel that you should take your starting point. No single title, of course, sums up the entirety of our Lord's conception of the Messianic function: there are elements of it adumbrated in very different sections of Old Testament prediction. But He elected, apparently, to point to the picture which Daniel draws of the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth as furnishing a starting point for a revision of the Messianic ideal current among those to whom His preaching was in the first instance addressed.
It may be difficult, in view of the varied elements which entered into His Messianic conception, to infer with confidence from the substance of the sayings in which Jesus refers to Himself as the 'Son of Man,' precisely the Messianic conception He understood to be covered by that designation. And much less can we suppose that His whole Messianic idea is embedded in these sayings. He refers to Himself by this designation in only a portion of the sayings which must be utilized in an attempt to determine His Messianic conception; and there is no reason to suppose that He always uses this designation when giving utterance to conceptions which He subsumed under it. Nevertheless, having guarded ourselves against rashness of inference and undue narrowness of view by reminding ourselves of these
obvious facts, we must certainly, in an attempt to discover the significance of the designation 'Son of Man' in the Gospel of Mark, begin by observing the actual connections in which Jesus is represented in that Gospel as employing it, with a view to discovering, as far as possible, from the substance of these sayings the actual implications which it embodied for Him, and through Him for the writer of this Gospel who reports just these sayings from His lips.
Usage of 'Son of Man'
From these sayings, then, we learn that the life of the 'Son of Man' on earth is essentially a lowly one: He came not to be ministered unto, but to minister (10:45). Suffering belongs therefore to the very essence of His mission (8:31, 9:12, 31, 10:33, 14:21, 41) and has accordingly been preannounced for Him in the Scriptures (9:12, 14:21). But this suffering is not in His own behalf, but for others, the form of His ministry to whom is "to give His life a ransom for many" (10:45). But just because His death is a sufficing ransom, death cannot be all: having given His life as a ransom for many the 'Son of Man' shall rise again (8:31, 9:9, 31, 10:34). Nor is this vindication by resurrection all. He is to "rise again" after three days (8:31,
9:31, 10:34), but is to "come" again "in clouds with great glory and power"
(13:26, cf. 14:62) at some more remote, undesignated time (13:32), to establish the Kingdom in which He shall sit at the right hand of power
(14:62). At this His coming He "shall send forth the angels and gather together His elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven" (13:27); and shall show Himself ashamed of all who shall have been ashamed of Him and of His words in the adulterous generation with which He dwelt on earth (8:38). It is clearly the judgment scene that is here brought before us, and the eternal destinies of
men are represented as lying in the hands of the 'Son of Man.' "His elect,"
"those whom He has chosen," are gathered into the Kingdom; His enemies, those who have rejected Him, are left without. Accordingly it is not surprising that He who came to give His life a ransom for many (10:45) and who is to come again in order to distribute to men their final destinies should have authority given Him even while on earth to order the religious observances by which men are trained in the life which looks beyond the limits of earth (2:28) and even to forgive sins (2:10). Perhaps in the light of 8:38, 13:27, in the phrase "on earth" we may see a contrast not so much with the "power" of God to forgive sins "in heaven" (cf. verse 7), as with the authority to award the destinies of all flesh (13:27 "His elect"; 8:38 those that are ashamed of Him) hereafter to be exercised in the heavenly kingdom by the 'Son of Man' Himself.
Meaning of 'Son of Man'
What perhaps most strikes us in this series of utterances is its prevailing soteriological, or perhaps we should say soteriologico-eschatological, rather than christological bearing. To Mark the 'Son of Man,' as reflected in the sayings he cites from the lips of the Lord, is the divinely sent Redeemer, come to minister to men and to give His life a ransom for many, who as Redeemer brings His chosen ones to glory and, holding the destinies of men in His hands, casts out those who have rejected Him—even while yet on earth preadumbrating the final issue by exercising His authority over religious ordinances and the forgiveness of sins. Little is said directly of the person of this Redeemer. It is a human figure, ministering, suffering, dying,
—though clothed already with authority in the midst of its humility (or should we not rather say, its humiliation?)—which moves before us in its earthly career: it is a superhuman figure which is to return, clothed in glory
—"sitting at the right hand of power" and coming with the clouds of heaven (14:62), or "coming in clouds with great power and glory" (13:26)—"in the glory of His Father with the holy angels" (8:38), those holy angels who are sent forth by Him to do His bidding, that they may gather to Him His chosen ones (13:27). Although there are intermingled traits derived from other lines of prophecy, the reference to the great vision of Daniel 7:13, 14 in these utterances is express and pervasive, and we cannot go astray in assuming that Jesus is represented as, in adopting the title of 'Son of Man' for His constant designation of Himself, intending to identify Himself with that heavenly figure of Daniel's vision, who is described as "like to a son of man" in contrast with the bestial figures of the preceding context, and as having committed to Him by God a universal and eternal dominion.
Primarily His purpose seems to have been to represent Himself as the introducer of the Kingdom of God; and in doing so, to emphasize on the one hand the humiliation of His earthly lot as the founder of the kingdom in His blood, and on the other the glory of His real station as exhibited in His consummation of the kingdom with power. So conceived, this designation takes its place at the head of all the Messianic designations, and involves a conception of the Messianic function and personality alike which removes it as far as possible from that of a purely earthly monarchy, administered by an earth-born king. Under this conception the Messianic person is conceived as a heavenly being, who comes to earth with a divinely given mission; His work on earth is conceived as purely spiritual and as carried out in a state of humiliation; while His glory is postponed to a future manifestation which is identified with the judgment day and the end of the world. In the figure of the 'Son of Man,' in a word, we have the spiritual and supernatural Messiah by way of eminence.