=

His going out Tаρà тоû Ocоû (xvi. 27, 28; comp. xvii. 8 άπò eоû: xiii. 3, xvi. 30), or the synonymous expression, é тоû πаτρós (xvi. 28; comp. viii. 42), which Scholten, p. 101, erroneously refers to the divine yévvnois. But in the same γέννησις. obedience, in which Jesus on earth showed the love of the Son to the Father (§ 143, c), did the Son, beloved from eternity, come down from heaven to fulfil the will of Him who sent Him (vi. 38), and this will of God was directed to the Messianic blessing of men, a blessing which finds its consummation in the resurrection (vv. 39, 40), as also in the execution of the Messianic judgment, which the Father has committed to the Son (v. 22, 29), just because He is the Son of man (ver. 27). For the discharge of these tasks was conditioned by His earthly human appearance.

5

(c) Even in John, Jesus very frequently designates Himself as the Son of man (ò viòs Tоû ȧveрáπov). There can

of the Son into the world presupposes the giving of Him (ver. 16) as, vi. 38, the καταβαίνειν ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (comp. vii. 29), then that is involved in the peculiarity of this messenger of God, but it does not give occasion for any other interpretation of this formula.

4 Any possibility to refer this otherwise than to a going out from the heavenly existence with the Father, is excluded by this, that to it, xvi. 28, is opposed the leaving of the world, and the going home to the Father (xiv. 12, 28, xvii. 11, 13; comp. vii. 33, xvi. 5, 10; comp. xiii. 1, 3), which doubtless must be understood of His exaltation to heaven (comp. xii. 23: i↓ovolas in rūs yūs, xiv. 2). Without taking up these decisive examples, Beyschlag, appealing to the figurative character of these expressions, would find the supernatural birth of Jesus indicated by them (pp. 79-82); and he presses the i oùpav in iii. 13, in order to find an uninterrupted fellowship with God (p. 99 f.; comp. Schenkel, p. 376). As that coming of His into the world is designated, in a plastic, Biblical way, as a coming down from heaven in which He was (comp. vi. 33-58), so this return thither (xx. 17) is spoken of as a going up to the Father, and, vi. 62, Jesus says of it expressly, that He goes up thither, where He was before.

" In order to give life to the world, the true bread of God must come down from heaven (vi. 33), in order that it may be partaken of, and so the life contained in it may be imparted to the world (vv. 50, 51, 58), or, without a figure, He must appear as Man among men, in order to tell them the truth (viii. 40), which brings life. Just because He thereby offers them salvation, He can also execute judgment on them, when they have decided either for or against it. The identification of the viòs ávépúxov (v. 27) with Jesus' standing designation of Himself, vids Toũ ávépárov (comp. Frommann, p. 396; Beyschlag, p. 29; Scholten, p. 110), is not to be thereby excused, that here the expression stands as the predicate, since the two articles belong to the essence of that selftestimony (§ 16, b), and robs the proof of its special moment which establishes it.

here be no doubt that this name has its origin in Daniel (§ 16, a), since the (original) Son of man, who is in heaven (iii. 13), necessarily brings to remembrance Dan. vii. 13, where one like the Son of man comes in the clouds of heaven." But this passage directly shows that among the sons of men He is alone, because He, like no other, was originally in heaven (iii. 13), whither He will return again (vi. 62). As He who came from heaven, He possesses, in conformity with His original nature, a glory which, in His human appearance, is not manifest in itself, is acknowledged throughout His earthly activity only in the narrower circle (xiii. 31; comp. xvii. 10), and in the wider circle will be acknowledged only after His death, at His glorification (xii. 23). As the Son of man who has come down from heaven, He waits for His exaltation, which is to bring round even the world itself, and will serve this purpose of making Him known as He is, according to His original Being (viii. 28). But He could fulfil even that peculiar calling to which His designating Him

Here, too, the form of the name, as in § 16, b, can but point to the peculiarity of the Son of man, who exists not as a son of man among others (v. 27), but who can say of Himself, what no other can say of himself. At any rate, it sometimes appears as though this peerlessness, as § 16, c, lay only in His calling, which all confessed, yet can be applied only to one. For, vi. 27, it is the Son of man who gives the imperishable food, which leads to the Messianic salvation, or which, by His death, brings life to the world (ver. 53); and, iii. 14, 15, that He may do this, there is appointed for Him a destiny already prefigured in the Old Testament, on which account even the people would by this name think of the Anointed One, who was to set up the everlasting kingdom (xii. 34). But if the oldest tradition, on the ground of the words about the second coming, expected the coming of the Son of man from heaven, beheld in Daniel's prophecy only in the future, then the present use of the name in the mouth of Jesus by John, on the ground of the sayings explained in notes a, b, may contain the reference to His heavenly origin, as Daniel asserts it of the Messiah.

7 Beyschlag's assertion that, according to these passages, the Son of man preexisted, an assertion which is to refer them to an ideal pre-existence (p. 29 f.), has but apparently an unlimited support on the words. With Him the personal Son of man, who came down from heaven, and goes up into heaven, is an entirely different subject from the heavenly Son of man in His ideal (impersonal) pre-existence. According to our conception, Jesus designates His person simply, according to His historical appearance, by the name of Son of man, but He regards the latter as the identical subject of the former, as of His prehistorical pre-existence. Thus all those results which Beyschlag, p. 85, draws from vi. 62 in favour of an ideal pre-existence of Christ, fall to the ground of themselves; and since he designates this passage the key to the other passages for the pre-existence, his misinterpretation of them falls at the same time.

self as the Son of man seems sometimes to point (vi. 27, 53, iii. 14, 15; comp. footnote 6), only because He who was the Son of man had come down from heaven (comp. vi. 33, 50, 51, 58, iii. 13), and because on Him as such the angels of God continually ascend and descend from the opened heavens, in order to bring to Him the divine miraculous help (i 52; comp. Matt. iv. 11).8

(d) In consequence of His entrance on the earthly historical life, Jesus, like any other son of man, is put under the divine law (viii. 55, xv. 10), which tells Him what He is to do (xiv. 31), and what He is to suffer (x. 17, 18, xviii. 11). Even under the most pressing human impulses to act, He must wait till the hour appointed by God for Him to act is come (ii. 4, vii. 8; comp. ver. 10; xi. 6; comp. Matt. iv. 3, 4, and therewith § 18, b). Although in virtue of His original existence with the Father He possesses full knowledge of God, which enables Him at any time to proclaim the truth, yet must He always receive the command from the Father what He is to speak (xii. 49, 50), and He speaks only what He has heard of the Father (v. 30, viii. 26, 28, 40, xv. 15), and He gives only, further, the words which He has received of the Father (xvii. 8), because even His words are but the fulfilment of the calling which God has given Him." As the

8 Christ's miraculous works thereby appear as works given Him by God for the discharge of His calling as Son of man. As the Son of God, He could, in conformity with His nature, do nothing without the Father; as the Son of man, who as such no longer possesses the divine glory (xvii. 5), can He do nothing without the divine miraculous help; but now the Son of man, who by His origin and His calling stands alone among the children of men, is from the very beginning of His official activity (ar' apri) sure of this constant divine miraculous help.

It is clear from this, that Jesus, by free moral self-determination, realized (§ 143, c, footnote 7) in His earthly life the nature of the relation of Son, by which He could do nothing of Himself (v. 19, 30; comp. § 143, b, footnote 3). To be sure, it is the highest freedom for Him to do the Father's will (iv. 34), yet He speaks of the fulfilling His will (v. 30, vi. 38), and of seeking His honour (vii. 18, viii. 49, 50), as one to whom the conquering of His own will and selfseeking is a moral task, as it is to others. Although He was from eternity the object of the divine love, yet must He earn it ever afresh by His own loving obedience (x. 17, 18, xv. 10). Although in virtue of His calling He can be certain of constant divine help, yet must He make Himself worthy of it, by acting in a way well-pleasing to God (viii. 29). But on that account, like any other man, may He look for a reward for discharging the task given Him. Although originally He possessed the divine glory (xvii. 24), and may therefore

Son, clothed from eternity with the divine glory, Jesus cannot certainly be thought of in the position in contrast to God in which man stands in contrast with God. It is, on the other hand, quite intelligible how the Son, become man, having entered into all the conditions of the human life, must show Himself as such also in contrast with God, speaks of the only God (v. 44), the true God (xvii. 3), designates Him as His God (xx. 17), honours Him (viii. 49), and prays to Him (iv. 22, xii. 27, xvii. 1 ff.; comp. vi. 11, xi. 41, 42). Only as such can he designate the Father as the greater (xiv. 28).10 It is but the other side of this true human position towards God, if the world touches Him all round in the same way as it does all other men,11 Because with conscious consent to the divine will (vi. 38) He left the heavenly existence with the Father along with His glory, He must also be introduced into the divine consciousness as into the sensibility of the world of the sons of men.

§ 145. The Incarnation of the Logos.

John has shown in his Gospel that Jesus is the Messiah, or the Son of God, while he narrates how he had seen in the earthly life of Jesus the divine glory of the Only-begotten (a).

look for His final heavenly glory, in conformity with His nature, yet He hopes for it only as the reward for the discharge of His earthly calling (xiii. 32, xvii. 4, 5; comp. § 103, d; 120, d).

10 While it would be an incongruity, bordering on blasphemy, to seek to establish this for any other man, it yields a good sense, if the Son, who originally (in His heavenly existence with the Father) was equal to God in glory, claims that all who really love Him are to rejoice at His return to the Father, as He Himself rejoiced at it (comp. xvii. 13), because His going to the Father, throned in glory, made Him a partaker of that glory. Jesus accepts divine worship only (xx. 28) when, after His resurrection, He is on His way to His heavenly glory (ver. 17), in which He is to receive the full divine honour after finishing His Messianic work (v. 23; comp. § 143, b).

11 Hence is He subjected to the natural changes of human impulses. He is gladdened in fellowship with His disciples (xv. 11; comp. xvii. 33); the pain of a dear friend (xi. 3, 5, 36; comp. xiii. 23) draws tears from Him (xi. 35). The irritation to which He yields at the grave of His friend (xi. 33, 38), His higher peace of soul, in which He overcomes all anxiety and restlessness (xiv. 27), as also the deep shudder which seized His soul at the sight of death, and which must be conquered by prayer and resignation to the divine will (xii. 27; comp. xiii. 21, xviii. 11), show that in His earthly life He felt Himself quite as a man.

VOL. II.

Y

In order to designate the original nature of this Son of God, he calls Him, by an Old Testament expression, the Word, which had been from the very beginning the medium of creation and of revelation (b). As the Son of God was manifested by His appearance in flesh, so this Logos became flesh, and thereby the object of concrete perception (c). The idea of the communication of the Spirit in baptism is not irreconcilable, in the evangelist's conception, with these suppositions, if it is not even expressly brought about by them (d).

(a) If the evangelist, by means of his Gospel, would lead his readers to a belief in the Messiahship of Jesus (xx. 31: OT Ἰησοῦς ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός), this cannot have the same meaning for him, who writes for Gentile-Christian readers, as in the first evangelists (§ 136, d). If he more exactly designates the exalted One as the Son of God, then this name in his mouth is not, as in that of the Jews (i. 34, 50, xi. 27), simply a Messianic title of honour, but, on the ground of Jesus' selfmanifestation developed in the Gospel, it designates the eternal Son of God sent by God from heaven to accomplish the Messianic work (i. 4, 10, 14). In the light of this, John has acknowledged that the Old Testament prophets, when they prophesied of the Messiah, spoke of this eternal Son of God, and saw (xii. 41) that original glory proper to Him (xvii. 5, 24).1 John also yet preserves the original significance of

1 It is therefore quite the same whether the Christian confession is thus formulated,—that Jesus is the Son of God (I. iv. 15, v. 5),—or that He is the Christ (I. v. 1), without John's giving any other signification to this name (against Biedermann, p. 256), and that, as Gess, p. 530, asserts, after the example of the false teachers. If the apostle hence characterizes the antichristian false doctrines of his time, that they deny that Jesus is the Christ (I. ii. 22; comp. iv. 3), then he understands by this that those doctrines deny that Jesus is a person with the original divine nature, which, with him, as in the Epistle to the Hebrews (§ 118, b), the name of son designates; and because any other than the Son promised in the Old Testament, and made manifest in Jesus, can be only a lying fiction, so those false teachers, when they speak of a Xpiros or viós, yet have not throughout the Son (I. ii. 23). The ordinary name 'Ineous Xpiorós (i. 17, xvii. 3; I. ii. 1, iv. 2, v. 6; II. 7) has won for the apostle a special meaning, inasmuch as, in opposition to those false teachers, it expresses the identity of Jesus with the promised Messiah (in his own sense), on which account he is in the habit of so designating the (eternal) Son of God by a more solemn term (i viòs aùroũ 'Incoũs Xporós: I. i. 3, iii. 23, v. 20; comp. I. i. 7; II. 3). But the name i Xparós alone occurs only II. 9 (comp. § 134, a, footnote 1); and it is there, too, expressly emphasized, that in the doctrine of this