3. The Designations Of Our Lord In Matthew
THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD IN MATTHEW
W hen we turn to Matthew's Gospel, and observe the designations applied in it to our Lord, what chiefly strikes us is that it runs in this matter on precisely the same lines with Mark, with only this difference, that what is more or less latent in Mark becomes fully patent in Matthew.
The Narrative Name, and Exceptions The narrative name of our Lord is in Matthew (as in Mark) the simple
'Jesus'; which (as in Mark) never occurs as other than the narrative name, with the single exception (which is no exception) that in announcing His birth the Angel of the Lord is reported as commanding, "Thou shalt call His name Jesus" (1:21). And not only does Matthew, like Mark, reserve the simple 'Jesus' for his narrative name, but, also like Mark, he practically confines himself to it. The only outstanding exceptions to this are that Matthew sets (like Mark) the solemn Messianic designation 'Jesus Christ' in the heading of his Gospel (1:1), and follows this up (unlike Mark) by
repeating it both at the opening of his formal narrative (1:18), and at an important new starting point in his narrative (16:21 v. r.); and that he employs a certain fulness of designation throughout the formal genealogy with which the Gospel begins, by which he places the 'Jesus' of whom he is to speak clearly before the readers and clearly as the Messiah. "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham" (1:1) is the phraseology with which he opens this genealogy: he closes it with the words, "Mary of whom was born Jesus surnamed Christ" (1:16); and in the summary which he adjoins he calculates the generations "unto Christ"
(1:17)—a designation which meets us again at 11:2. Thus Matthew in beginning his Gospel leaves no room for doubting that he purposes to present the story of Jesus' life as the life of the Messiah; but as soon as he has given that formal emphatic enunciation, he takes up the narrative with the simple 'Jesus' and with only the two breaks at 11:2 and 16:21 v. r. carries it on with the simple 'Jesus' to the end. The simple 'Jesus' occurs thus in his narrative about 139 times, and is replaced only by the compound 'Jesus
Christ' (1:1, 18, 16:21; v. r., cf. 1:16), and by the simple 'Christ' (1:17, 11:2, cf. 1:16), each, at most three times.
'Christ' as a Proper Name In this sparing use of 'Jesus Christ' and 'Christ' by Matthew himself, the term 'Christ' appears to be employed not as an appellative but as a proper name. In 2:4, no doubt, "the Christ" is used in the general sense of "the Messiah": Herod did not inquire of "the chief priests and scribes of the people" where Jesus was born, but where, according to prophecy, "the Messiah should be born": but just on that account there is no direct reference to Jesus at all here. The commentators are very generally inclined to look upon the use of "the Christ" in 11:2 as a similar instance, as if what
John had heard in the prison was that "the works of the Messiah"—such works, that is, as were expected of the Messiah,—were occurring abroad; and accordingly sent and asked Jesus whether He was indeed "the Coming
One." Attractive as this explanation is, however, it scarcely seems to fit in with the connection. Jesus' exhibition of His works to the messengers would hardly in these circumstances have been an answer to John's inquiry, so much as rather a refusal to give an answer. And the connection of the pronoun "Him" in verse 3 with its antecedent "Christ" of verse 2 appears to require us to take that term not as a general but as a particular one: John surely is not said to have sent to "the Messiah" and inquired of "Him" whether He was the Messiah. In other words if "the Christ" (ὁ Χριστὸς) can be taken as a proper name, designating Jesus, surely it must be so taken here. And that it can be so taken and is so taken by Matthew, its use in 1:17 appears to show.
"The Christ" in 1:17 also has sometimes, to be sure, been understood as the general term, "the Messiah." But this throws it out of range not only with the other names in this simple summary, wherein the corresponding terms in the accounting are most simply given—Abraham, David, the Babylonian deportation; but also with the precedent phrase, 'Jesus, surnamed Christ,' of verse 16 to which it refers back and which it takes up and repeats. For that the 'Christ' in this phrase is a simple proper name is not only suggested by the absence of the article with it, but is indicated by the currency of a similar mode of speech in the case of like instances of double names. It appears then that the addition, "surnamed Christ," is intended in this passage as a formal identification of the particular Jesus in question; and the employment of "Christ" instead of "Jesus" in the subsequent summary (verse 17) is perhaps best explained in the interests of this
clearness of designation, the article accompanying it having the force of "the aforesaid Christ."
Why so Seldom Used Matthew thus notifies us at the beginning of his narrative that the 'Jesus' with whom he is to deal has another name, to wit, 'Christ' (1:16), and so prepares the way for an occasional employment of this other name (1:17,
11:2). Our only surprise is that he employs it so seldom. The account to be given of this is probably that, after all, in the circles for which Matthew wrote, this 'Jesus' had become so unapproachably the only 'Jesus' who would come to mind on the mention of the name, that the more distinctive surname 'Christ' was not needed in speaking of Him to secure His identification; it is employed, therefore, only when some suggestion of His
Messiahship was intruding itself upon the mind, as is the case certainly at 11:2; and no doubt also at 1:17; and we may add equally so in 1:1 (cf. "the Son of David"), 1:18 and 16:21 (cf. v. 20), where the compound 'Jesus
Christ' occurs. This is to recognize, of course, that the surname 'Christ' was the name of dignity as distinguished from the simple name of designation, and preserved, even when employed as a proper name, its implications of Messiahship; but this is in any event a matter of course and should not be confounded with the question of its appellative use. The employment of the term 'Christ' as a proper name of Jesus so far from losing sight of His claim to Messiahship, accordingly, bears witness to so complete an acquiescence in that claim on the part of the community in which this usage of the term was current, that the very official designation was conceived as His peculiar property and His proper designation (cf. 27:17–22). The sparingness of Matthew's employment of it, on the other hand, manifests how little our
Lord's dignity as Messiah needed to be insisted on in the circles for which
Matthew wrote, and how fully the simple name 'Jesus' could convey to the readers all that was wrapped up in His personality.
Jesus' Popular Name Besides this sparing use of 'Jesus Christ' and 'Christ,' then, Matthew makes use in his own person of no other designation in speaking of our
Lord than the simple 'Jesus,' although on three occasions he adduces with reference to Him designations which he finds in the prophets: 'Immanuel'
(1:23), 'Lord' (3:3), 'the Nazarene' (2:23). The implications of the first two of these we may leave for later reference. The last bears witness to the fact that Jesus was currently known by His contemporaries as "a Nazarene," that is to say, that His ordinary distinctive designation among the people in the midst of whom His ministry was passed would be, 'Jesus the Nazarene,' as the maid, indeed, is recorded to have spoken of Him in the court of the high priest (26:71). This exact designation, however, does not elsewhere occur in Matthew's narrative, although its broader equivalent, from the standpoint of a Jerusalemite, 'Jesus the Galilean,' is represented as employed by the companion maid (26:69), and the multitude seeking to do Him honor is represented as describing Him with great fulness as "the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee" (21:11). The simple 'Jesus,' as has been already pointed out, He is not represented as called, except by the angel announcing
His birth (1:21), but Pilate is quoted as designating Him by His full name, "Jesus, surnamed Christ" (27:17, 22), and we are told that there was set over His head on the cross the legend, "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews"
(27:37). In both instances the adjunct is, no doubt, scornful, though it is less obviously so on Pilate's lips than in the inscription on the cross.
Early Use of 'Christ' as a Proper Name
The employment by Pilate of the full name, 'Jesus, surnamed Christ,' seems to bear witness that already before Jesus' death He had been so prevailingly spoken of as the Messiah that this official designation might seem to have become part of His proper name. The alternatives are to suppose that Matthew does not report the exact words of Pilate, who may be thought rather to have used the phrase appearing in the parallel passage in Mark—"the King of the Jews"; or else that the term Christ is employed here in its full official sense as an appellative,—"Jesus who is commonly called the Christ."10 The former, however, is a purely gratuitous suggestion; Mark and Matthew do not contradict but supplement one another. And the latter seems not quite consonant with the language used.
There seems, moreover, really no reason why we may not suppose Pilate to have caught the term "Christ" as applied to Jesus, and to have understood it as a proper name, especially when we are expressly told by Luke (23:2) that the accusation which was lodged against Him took the form that He had proclaimed Himself to be "Christ, a King." Nor, indeed, does there seem any compelling reason why it may not already have been employed of Jesus by His followers sufficiently constantly to have begun to be attached to Him as at least a quasi-proper name (cf. 11:2). On heathen ears, as we know, the term "Christ" was apt to strike as a proper name; and, in any event, the title
'Christ' began very early, at least in Christian circles, to be appropriated to Jesus in much the connotation of a proper name, because men did not wait for His death before they began to hope it would be He who should deliver
Israel.12 If we may suppose, as in any event we must, that even as a proper name, or as a quasi-proper name, there clung to the term 'Christ' a sense of its honorific character, it would appear quite possible that Pilate, "knowing that it was from envy that they had delivered Him up," meant by giving
Jesus His full and evidently honorific name, to play upon the multitude, that they should demand "Jesus, surnamed Christ," rather than Barabbas.
Simple Honorific Addresses Like Mark, Matthew represents Jesus as customarily addressed by the simple current honorific titles. The actual Aramaic form, 'Rabbi,' however, oddly enough, is retained only in repeating the only two remarks recorded in Matthew's narrative as made to the Lord by Judas Iscariot (26:25, 49). Its usual Greek rendering, 'Teacher' (διδάσχαλε), also takes a relatively inferior place in Matthew, being largely supplanted by the more Greek 'Lord'
(κύριε), perhaps as the representative of the Aramaic Mâri. A tendency seems even observable to reserve 'Teacher' (διδάσκαλε) for the noncommittal, respectful address of those who were not followers of Jesus
(12:38, 22:16, 24, 36, 9:11, 17:24, cf. 19:16). It is employed, however, in the case of a scribe who came to Jesus and declared his purpose to become
His constant follower (8:19, cf. 19:16). And our Lord places it on His disciples' lips when He instructs them to "go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Teacher says, My time is at hand; I keep the passover with my disciples at thy house" (26:18). Similarly in didactic statements He refers (10:24, 25) to the relation between Him and His followers as well under the terms of 'Teacher and disciple' as under those of 'servant and Lord,' 'the Householder and the household': and forbids His followers to be called 'Rabbi,' because He alone is their 'Teacher,' as pointedly as He forbids them to be called 'guides,' because He, the Christ, alone is their
'Guide' (23:7–10).
Master of the House Two new terms are brought before us in these last-quoted declarations,
—'House-master' (οἰκοδεσπότης, Mt 10:25, 24:43; cf. Mk 13:25) and
'Guide' (καθηγητής, 23:10 only in N. T.); both of which seem to have higher implications than 'Teacher' (διδάσκαλος), although both are placed in the closest connection with it as its practical synonyms (10:24, 25, 23:8, 10).
'Guide' (καθηγητής) occurs indeed nowhere else: and we can say of it only that our Lord chose it as one of the designations which expressed His exclusive relation to His disciples. He was their only Teacher, Guide,
Master and Lord. But 'House-master' (οἰκοδεσπότης) seems to have been rather a favorite figurative expression with Him, to set forth His relation to His disciples, whether in didactic or in parabolic statement. In one of His parables, indeed, it is not He who is the 'House-master' (οἰκοδεσπότης), but God, while He is God's Son and Heir (21:33 et seq.) in distinction from the slaves which make up otherwise the household; and the uniqueness of His relation to the Father as His Son is thrown up into the strongest light, and is further emphasized in the application, where Jesus speaks of Himself as the chief cornerstone on which the Kingdom of God is built (verse 42) and on their relation to which the destinies of men hang (verse 44). In other parables, however (13:24 et seq.‚ 20:1 et seq.), the 'House-master'
(οἰκοδεσπότης) is Jesus Himself, and the functions that are ascribed to Him as such have especial reference to the destinies of men. As the 'Housemaster' (οἰκοδεσπότης) He distributes to men the rewards of their labors in accordance with His own will, doing as He will with His own (20:15): and bears with the tares in the field in which He has sown good corn until the time of harvest shall come, when He will send the reapers—who are "His
Angels"—to gather them out and burn them with fire (13:24 et seq., 36 et seq.). In a word, to the 'House-master' (οἰκοδεσπότης) who is expressly identified with 'the Son of Man' (13:38) the inalienably divine function of Judge of the earth is assigned, and it is with this high connotation in His
mind that He speaks of Himself as such, over against His "domestics," when He warns them not to expect better treatment at the hands of men than
He has received (10:25). The implications of sovereignty inherent in the term run up in its application therefore into the sovereignty of God: as 'House-master' (οἰκοδεσπότης), Jesus is pictured as our divine Lord.
'Lord' as an Address If 'Teacher' (διδάσκαλε) somewhat sinks in value as an honorific form of address in Matthew as compared with Mark, its more Greek equivalent,
'Lord' (κύριε), on the other hand, is more frequently and variously employed by Matthew than by Mark. It appears upon the lips alike of applicants for our Lord's mercy, whether Jewish (8:2, 9:28, 17:15, 20:30,
31, 33) or heathen (8:6, 8, 15:22, 25, 15:27), and of His disciples (8:21, 25, 14:28, 30, 16:22, 17:4, 18:21, 26:22); but never on the lips of one who is not in some sense a follower of Jesus, either as suitor for His grace or as His professed disciple. 'Lord' (κύριε) is accordingly a higher mode of designation in Matthew than 'Teacher' (διδάσκαλε), and imports a closer bond of connection with Jesus and a more profound and operative recognition of His authority. It occurs some twenty-one times as a form of address to Jesus, and, besides once as an address to God (11:25), only a single time (to Pilate, 27:63), outside of parables, as an address to anyone else. Even in its parabolic use, indeed, its reference is always (except 21:30 only) either to God (18:25, [26], 27, 31, 18:32, 34, 21:42, cf. 6:24) or to Jesus pictured in positions of supreme authority ([13:27]; 20:8, 24:45, 46,
48, 50, 25:[11], [11], 18, 19, [20], 21, 21, [22], 23, 23, [24], 26, cf. 10:24, 25). It cannot be said, of course, that this supreme authority is explicit in every case of the actual use of the term: in a number of instances the term may express no more than high respect and a general recognition of
authority, and in several instances it is represented in parallel passages in the other evangelists by one or another of its lower synonyms. But its tendency is distinctly upwards; and no reader can fail to catch a very high note in its repeated use, or can feel surprise when it is observed to be connected usually with at least Messianic implications (15:22, 20:30, 31,
7:21, 21) and is found occasionally to be suggestive of something even higher (25:37, 44). Nor will he be surprised to perceive that in its highest connotation it appears characteristically upon the lips of our Lord Himself, who represents men as seeking to enter the Kingdom of Heaven by crying to Him 'Lord, Lord' (7:21), and as addressing Him on the Day of Judgment as He sits King on the throne of His glory by the appropriate title of 'Lord'
(25:37, 44). In the latter case, of course, nothing is lacking of recognition of divine majesty itself: this 'Lord' is not only "the Son of Man" come in His glory with all the angels with Him (verse 31), 'the King' (verses 34, 40) seated on the throne of His majesty (verse 31), but 'the Judge of all the earth,' distributing to each man his eternal destiny, according to the relation in which each stands to His own person.
'Lord' as an Appellation It is clear enough from passages like these that our Lord is represented by Matthew as conceiving His relation to His followers as very properly expressed by the term 'Lord.' But the appellative use of the term of Jesus is nevertheless not common in Matthew. No more in Matthew than in Mark is
Jesus spoken of by the evangelist himself or represented as freely spoken of by others as 'the Lord.' Even in the words of the angel at the tomb, "Come, see the place where the Lord lay" (28:6), the words "the Lord" are probably not genuine. Nevertheless, on the lips of our Lord Himself the appellative use of the term does occur, and that in no low significance. He declares
Himself as 'the Son of Man' to be 'Lord of the Sabbath' (12:8). He instructs His disciples in requisitioning the ass and her colt for His formal entry into Jerusalem to reply to all challengers with the simple words, "The Lord has need of them" (21:3),—and the narrator connects this instruction with the fulfillment of the prophecy that the King of Zion shall enter it "riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass" (verse 5). He warns His followers that as they know not on what day 'their Lord' cometh (24:42),—that Lord who is the Son of Man, who is to come in glory for the judgment of the world (verse 44),—they are to preserve a constant attitude of watchfulness.
And in accordance with these declarations He explains that though David's son, He, the Christ, is much more than David's son,—as David himself in the Spirit recognized,—even David's 'Lord' (22:43–45), and that, a Lord who sits on the right hand of the Lord who is Jehovah. It is in full harmony with these definitions of His Lordship cited from the Lord's own lips that the evangelist himself (3:3) applies to Him the term 'Lord' in that prophecy of Isaiah, in which there is promised "a voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord," Jehovah; thus identifying
His coming with the promised advent of Jehovah and His person with Jehovah who was to come. However little therefore the mere form of address 'Lord' as applied to Christ may necessarily imply in Him a superhuman dignity, it is clear that the actual Lordship accredited to Him by Matthew, and by Himself as reported by Matthew, stretches above all human claims.
Messianic Titles We cannot fail to have observed, as we have contemplated these honorific addresses and titles accorded to our Lord, that it is His Messianic dignity which proximately underlies them all. And we shall be prepared by this
observation to note that with Matthew as with Mark, the presentation of Him as the promised Messiah belongs among the primary ends of the evangelist, and that in the process of this presentation a considerable number of Messianic titles are ascribed to Him. Matthew bears witness, like
Mark, to be sure, that the people recognized in Him a prophet (21:46, 21:11, 16:14) and that Jesus Himself was far from repelling this attribution
(13:57); but little stress is laid upon this and it may be easily understood that prophetic powers were conceived by Matthew, as by Mark, to be included in His Messianic endowment. We have seen that he himself calls
Jesus in the formal opening of his Gospel (1:1), at the beginning of the narrative proper (1:18), and at the new beginning marked by His open proclamation of His dignity (16:21), by the solemn compound name of 'Jesus Christ,' thus carefully announcing His Messianic claims as governing the very frame-work of his Gospel. And we have seen him following up this ceremonious use of the full name 'Jesus Christ' in the opening of the Gospel, by explaining the term 'Christ,' which forms a part of it, as a surname of Jesus due to the recognition of Him as the Messiah (1:16), on which account He forms the natural termination of the genealogy begun in Abraham (1:17); and by implying that His works marked Him out as the Messiah (11:2), so that the imprisoned John, hearing of them, was impelled to inquire into their meaning. How widespread the knowledge of His
Messianic claims was is witnessed by the adjuration of the high priest at His trial, "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ" (26:63), and the bitter sport His judges made of Him (26:68) as they smote Him and demanded, "Tell us, Christ, who smote thee."
Our Lord's Own Messianic Claims
Evidently our Lord's claim to the Messianic dignity is intended to be represented as having been clear, constant and emphatic: so a part of Himself in the popular understanding that His heathen judge already conceived the title 'Christ' as only His surname (27:17, 22, cf. 11:2). And indeed Matthew's narrative leaves us in no uncertainty that Jesus had claimed this title for Himself from His earliest ministry. When the Baptist, having heard of the works He did, sent from his prison to ask Him whether
He was 'the Coming One' (11:3), He replied with no doubtful indication that He was indeed 'the Christ.' When Peter (16:16) in his great confession declared Him "the Christ, the Son of the living God," Jesus pronounced the declaration a revelation from heaven (16:17), and only charged His disciples not as yet to reveal the fact that He was "the Christ" (16:20). It was evidently to elevate the conception current as to the Christ whom He represented Himself as being that He put to His opponents the searching question, how could the Christ be merely David's son, when David himself, in the Spirit, spoke of Him as his Lord—a Lord seated on the right hand of God (22:41–46). Because He was, as 'the Christ,' the sole 'Guide' to His followers, He would not have them be called guides, even as they should put no earthly person in the place of their one Father in heaven (23:10). The name 'the Christ,' He explained (24:5), was exclusively His own, and it would be a usurpation, therefore, which could only lead astray, if others should come "in the strength of His name, saying"—therefore falsely,—"I am the Christ." When the high priest adjured Him to tell whether He were
"the Christ, the Son of God" (26:63) He, accordingly, solemnly accepted the title and explained that in accepting it He took it in its highest connotation
(26:64)—in so high a connotation indeed that His judges promptly pronounced what He had spoken blasphemy. It is, therefore, only in
imitation of Jesus Himself that Matthew treats the designation of 'the Christ' as Jesus' peculiar property and—though of course without emptying it of its lofty connotation—deals with it as His proper name by which He might be currently designated.
The Simple Messianic Designations The ascription of the title 'Christ' to Jesus carries with it naturally certain other Messianic titles which are involved in it. The simplest of these is 'the Coming One,' based apparently on Mal 3:1 or Ps 40:7 or 118:26, and itself the basis of a customary method of pregnant speech of the Messiah as "coming." This designation is applied to Jesus in the question of the Baptist
—"Art thou the Coming One, or do we look for another?" (11:3), which Matthew records as having been called out by the report brought the Baptist of the "works of Christ"—using the name of 'Christ' here instead of 'Jesus,' contrary to his custom, apparently under the influence of this train of thought. And the evangelist records in accordance with this designation a series of sayings of our Lord in which He speaks pregnantly of having
"come" (5:17, 9:13, 10:34, 20:28, cf. 10:40), as well as certain popular ascriptions to the same effect (21:9, 23:39).Even more directly connected with the title, 'Christ,' however, is that of 'King': and we find Matthew accordingly recording the ascription of that title to Him in the heathen form of 'the King of the Jews,' alike by the wise men of the east who came to worship Him in His cradle (2:2) and by the Roman governor at His trial
(27:11, cf. 27:37) and the mocking soldiery (27:29). Jesus accepts it at Pilate's hands, despite the heathen form which he gives it, and which the priests (27:42) correct to the more acceptable 'King of Israel.' Of more significance is Matthew's application to Him, when He entered Jerusalem in triumph, of the prophecy of Zechariah, "Behold thy King cometh unto
thee," etc. (21:5). But, of course, the deepest significance of all attaches to our Lord's own use of the title 'King' with reference to Himself in the great judgment scene of Mt 25:31 seq. (verses 34 and 40). Here, calling Himself the 'Son of Man,' He ascends the throne of His glory, and as King, not of Israel, but of all flesh, dispenses their final awards to all, according to their several relations to Himself. Such a King certainly was something more than a 'Son of David' (22:43 seq.). But that designation also belongs to Him as the 'Christ,' God's Anointed, who was to occupy the Davidic throne, and accordingly it is represented that the sight of His Messianic works led Him to be recognized no more as 'the Coming One' (11:3) than as 'the Son of David' (12:23, 9:27, 15:22, 20:30, 31, 21:9, 45, cf. 1:1)—and that He by no means refused the ascription (esp. 21:9, 15).
Meaning of the 'Son of God'
Obviously, however, no lower title would suit the state of this Messianic King than that highest conceivable one, 'the Son of God.' It is likely that there were supernatural implications in the mind of the evangelist even when he applied to the persecuted infant Jesus the prophetic summary of Israelitish history, "Out of Egypt did I call my Son" (2:15), although at first sight we might seem to be moving here in the atmosphere of a merely official sonship. In every other instance of the adduction of this designation in Matthew these supernatural implications are thrust prominently forward.
The very point of Satan's temptation of our Lord was that He should exercise the supernatural powers which necessarily belonged to Him—if He were indeed really 'a Son of God' (4:3, 6, cf. 8:29). Similarly the confession wrung from the disciples by the spectacle of His control of the forces of nature, emphasizes as strongly as possible the supernaturalness of the Being who is capable of such works (14:33). In Peter's great confession (16:16)
the adjunction of 'the Son of the Living God' to the simple 'Christ' is no more without its high significance than the similar adjunction in the high priest's adjuration (26:63) of 'the Son of God' to the simple 'Christ.' In both instances the intention is to go beyond the mere designation of our Lord as the Messiah, and to bring into relief the supernaturalness of His person.
Even when the Jews railed at Him as He hung on the cross that He had proclaimed Himself 'the Son of God' (27:40, 43), the point of their scoff was that He had laid claim to a supernatural relationship which implied supernatural powers. Nevertheless, the deepest connotations of the Sonship to God come out most plainly in connection with the less technical forms of this designation. At the apex of these stands, of course, the double attestation which, it is recorded, was given to Jesus from heaven itself as God's 'Son,' who because His 'Son' was also His 'Beloved,' His chosen, in whom He was well pleased (3:17, 17:5). But quite worthy of a place by the side of these supreme attestations is the allusion which our Lord makes to Himself in one or two of His parables, as the 'Son,' in differentiation from all "servants" of God whatsoever; as God's Son and unique Heir, who, despite what those to whom He was sent should do unto Him, shall be constituted by God's marvelous working the stone which is the head of the corner (21:37–38); and as the King's Son, all those unworthy of a place at whose marriage feast should have their part in the outer darkness where is the weeping and the gnashing of teeth (22:2). This 'Son' obviously is no less in origin and nature divine than in His working in the earth the Lord of the destinies of men.
Culminating Assertions But perhaps the most illuminating passages in this reference remain yet to be adduced. These are those three remarkable utterances of our Lord which
are recorded at 24:36, 11:27 and 28:18–20. The first of these we have already ready met with in Mark. It is that difficult saying in which our Lord declares that "concerning the day and hour" of His coming "no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor yet the Son, but the Father only"—which differs from the parallel in Mark significantly only in the added emphasis placed on the exclusion of all others whatsoever from this knowledge by the adjunction to the exception of the Father of the emphatic word "only." The elevation of the Son here to superangelic dignity, as the climax of the enumeration of those excluded from the knowledge in question is reached in His name—no one at all, not even the angels of heaven, nor yet even the Son—is what it particularly concerns us to note, implying as it does the exaltation of the Son above the highest of creatures, "the angels of heaven."
The second of the utterances in question (11:27) is in some respects the most remarkable in the whole compass of the four Gospels. Even the Gospel of John contains nothing which penetrates more deeply into the essential relation of the Son to the Father. Indeed, as Dr. Sanday suggests,
"we might describe the teaching of the Fourth Gospel" as only "a series of variations upon the one theme, which has its classical expression in" this
"verse of the Synoptics": "All things were delivered unto me by my Father; and no one knoweth the Son save the Father; neither doth any know the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him."
The point of the utterance, it will be seen, is that in it our Lord asserts for Himself a relation of practical equality with the Father, here described in most elevated terms as the "Lord of heaven and earth" (v. 25). As the Father only can know the Son, so the Son only can know the Father: and others may know the Father only as He is revealed by the Son. That is, not merely is the Son the exclusive revealer of God, but the mutual knowledge of
Father and Son is put on what seems very much a par. The Son can be known only by the Father in all that He is, as if His being were infinite and as such inscrutable to the finite intelligence; and His knowledge alone— again as if He were infinite in His attributes—is competent to compass the depths of the Father's infinite being. He who holds this relation to the Father cannot conceivably be a creature, and we ought not to be surprised, therefore, to find in the third of these great utterances (28:18–20) the Son made openly a sharer with the Father (and with the Holy Spirit) in the single Name of God: "All authority was given me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Having in the former passage
(11:27) declared His intercommunion with the Father, who is the Lord of heaven and earth, Jesus here asserts that all authority in heaven and earth has been given Him, and asserts a place for Himself in the precincts of the ineffable Name. Here is a claim not merely to a deity in some sense equivalent to and as it were alongside of the deity of the Father, but to a deity in some high sense one with the deity of the Father.
Less Common Messianic Titles Alongside of these more usual Messianic titles, there are found in Matthew, as in Mark, traces of the use of others of our Lord, apparently less current among the people. In Matthew, too, for example, we find Jesus represented as designated from heaven 'the Beloved,' who has been chosen out by God as His representative (3:17, 17:5), and as identifying Himself with the mysterious Shepherd of Zechariah who is Jehovah's fellow (26:31).
And we find Him here also not only designating Himself the 'Bridegroom'
(9:15), but elucidating the designation in a couple of striking parables (the parable of the Ten Virgins, 25:1 seq., 5, 6, 10: and the parable of the Marriage of the King's Son, 22:1 seq.), the suggestion of which is that the fate of men hangs on their relation to Him; that men all live with reference to Him; and it is He that opens and shuts the door of life for them. The high significance of these designations as applied to Jesus has already been pointed out when we met with them in Mark. It is more important, therefore, to observe here that the implicit reference in Mark to the 'Servant of Jehovah' as a designation of Jesus is made explicit in Matthew by the formal application to Him of the prophecy in Isaiah 40:1 seq. (12:18 seq.) as a divine prediction of the unostentatiousness of His ministry, in its striking contrast with the expectations which had been formed of the Messiah's work on the basis of the predictions centering around the Anointed King, the Son of David.
The 'Son of Man'
This unostentatiousness entered also into the conception of the Messiah expressed in our Lord's favorite self-designation of 'Son of Man,'—which in Matthew's representation, too, appears as the standing Messianic designation which our Lord employs of Himself, occurring as such about thirty times. The Messianic character of this designation is placed beyond all doubt by its interchange with other Messianic titles (16:13, cf. verses 16,
20, 17:9, cf. verse 10 [the forerunner of Messiah]; 24:27, cf. verse 23, 26:64, cf. verse 63): and the conception suggested by it of the Messiah, as judged by the substance of the passages in which it occurs, differs in nothing from that derived from the passages in Mark except that it is illuminated by more details. Here, too, we learn that the 'Son of Man' came to minister,—or more specifically for the purpose of redemption: "the Son
of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many" (20:28). Suffering and death were, therefore, His appointed portion (17:12, 17:22, 20:18, 26:2, 24, 45), as indeed Scripture had foretold (12:40). But after death is the resurrection (17:9, 22, 20:19,
12:40), and after the resurrection the "coming" in great glory to judge the world (10:23, 24:27, 30, 39, 44, 26:64). There is nothing here which we had not already in Mark, but everywhere details are filled in. The fortunes of the earthly life of the 'Son of Man' are traced. We learn that He lived like other men, without asceticism,—"eating and drinking" (11:19); but lived a hard and suffering life,—He had not where to lay His head (8:20). His task was to sow the good seed of the word (13:37). As part of His lowliness, it emerges that blasphemy against Him is forgivable, as it is not against the Holy Ghost (12:32). And the suffering He is called on to endure runs out into death (17:12, 22). It would not be easy to give a more itemized account of the sufferings He endured at the end than Mark gives, but they are all set down here, too (20:18), as also is the promise of the resurrection (12:40,
17:9, 23, 20:18). When He shall come again is left here, too, in the indefinite future (24:36, cf. 10:23), but the suddenness of its eventuation is emphasized (24:27, 37, 39, 44).
The details become notably numerous again, however, when the purpose and accompaniment of this coming are adverted to (13:41, 16:27, 19:28,
24:31, 25:31, 26:64). The 'Son of Man' is "henceforth to be seen sitting at the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven" (26:64, 24:30).
He is to come in the glory of His Father with His angels (16:27), for all the angels are to be with Him (25:31). The end of His coming is to pass judgment on men and to consummate the Kingdom. "For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then shall He
render unto every man according to his deeds" (16:27)—and this is "to come in His kingdom" (16:28). There is naturally a punitive side to this judgment and a side of reward. Of the punitive side we are told that "when the sign of the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory shall appear," "all the tribes of the earth shall mourn" (24:30); and that He "shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that cause stumbling and them that do iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth" (13:41). On the side of reward we are told that "those who have followed Him, in the regeneration when the 'Son of Man' shall sit on the throne of His glory" "also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (19:28). For "He shall send forth His angels with a great sound of trumpets, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds; from one end of heaven to the other" (24:31), and "then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father" (13:43).
It is obviously the universal judgment that is here brought before us; and the consummation of the Kingdom, when by this judgment all that is impure is drafted out of it and the chosen are made sharers in the universal regeneration. The whole scene of the judgment is pictured for us with great vividness in the remarkable passage, 25:31–46, where all the nations are depicted as summoned before the throne of the 'Son of Man's' glory and separated according to their deeds done in the body—interpreted as relating to Him—to the eternal inheritance of the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world or to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. The 'Son of Man' appears here accordingly as the King on His throne apportioning to men their eternal destinies.
The High Meaning of 'Son of Man'
Clearly, according to Matthew's account of our Lord's declarations, the 'Son of Man' has His period of humiliation on earth, living as other men
(11:19), sowing the seed (13:37), having not where to lay His head (8:20) as He ministers to men (20:28), forgiving even blasphemy against Himself
(12:32) and all indignities (17:12, 22), down to death itself (17:22, 20:18)— and yet even while on earth having authority to forgive sins (9:6) and to regulate religious ordinances (12:8), and dying only that He may ransom others (20:28). And He has also His period of exaltation, when having risen from the dead (12:40, 17:9, 23, 20:18) He in due time comes in His glory, surrounded by His servants the angels (16:27, 25:31, 24:31), and gathers to Himself His chosen ones whom He has ransomed by His death (24:31,
13:43) and, cleansing His Kingdom of all that is unclean, sets it up in its destined perfection (16:28). The picture that is drawn is clearly, then, a picture of voluntary humiliation for a high end, with the accomplishment of the end and return to the original glory. In order to bring all its implications out in their completeness we have only to recall what Matthew tells us, on the one hand, of the 'Son' who is superior to angels (24:36), who is God's adequate and exclusive Revelation, knowing Him even as He is known
(11:27), who is sharer with the Father in the one ineffable Name (28:18– 20); and, on the other, in the opening chapter of his Gospel, of the supernatural birth of this heavenly Being, breaking His way to earth through a virgin's womb in fulfillment of the prophecy that He should be called "Immanuel," "God with us." For it can scarcely be doubted that Matthew means this name 'Immanuel' (1:23) to be interpreted metaphysically of Jesus, and therefore adduces the prophecy as a testimony to the essential deity of the virgin-born child,—and indeed the angel messenger himself is recorded as not obscurely indicating this when he
explains that the child whose birth he announces shall be called Jesus "because it is He that shall save His people from their sins"—thus applying to the promised infant the words spoken in Ps 130:8 of Jehovah Himself:
"And He shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities." The very name 'Jesus' for Matthew, as truly as that of 'Immanuel' itself, is thus freighted with an implication of the deity of its bearer: and this is only a symbol of the saturation of his Gospel with the sense of the supreme majesty of the great personality whose life-history as the promised Messiah he has undertaken to portray.