bore reference to the confession of Nathanael: 'Thou art the Son of God; Thou art the
King of Israel.' It is, as if He would have turned the disciples from thoughts of His being
the Son of God and King of Israel to the voluntary humiliation of His Humanity, as being
the necessary basis of His work, without knowledge of which that of His Divinity would
have been a barren, speculative abstraction, and that of His Kingship a Jewish fleshly
dream. But it was not only knowledge of His humiliation in His Humanity. For, as in the
history of the Christ humiliation and glory are always connected, the one enwrapped in
the other as the flower in the bud, so here also His humiliation as the Son of Man is the
exaltation of humanity, the realisation of its ideal destiny as created in the likeness of
God. It should never be forgotten, that such teaching of His exaltation and Kingship
through humiliation and representation of humanity was needful. It was the teaching
which was the outcome of the Temptation and of its victory, the very teaching of the
whole Evangelic history. Any other real learning of Christ would, as we see it, have been
impossible to the disciples - alike mentally, as regards foundation and progression, and
sp iritually. A Christ: God, King, and not primarily 'the Son of Man,' would not have been
the Christ of Prophecy, nor the Christ of Humanity, nor the Christ of salvation, nor yet
the Christ of sympathy, help, and example. A Christ, God and King, Who had suddenly
risen like the fierce Eastern sun in midday brightness, would have blinded by his dazzling
rays (as it did Saul on the way to Damascus), not risen 'with kindly light' to chase away
darkness and mists, and with genial growing warmth to woo life and beauty into our
barren world. And so, as 'it became Him,' for the carrying out of the work, 'to make the
Captain of Salvation perfect through sufferings,'3 so it was needful for them that He
should veil, even from their view who followed Him, the glory of His Divinity and the
power of His Kingship, till they had learned all that the designation 'Son of Man' implied,
as placed below 'Son of God' and 'King of Israel.'
1. St. John i 51.
2. For a full discussion of that most important and significant appellation 'Son of Man,'
comp. Lücke, u. s. pp. 459-466; Godet (German transl.) pp. 104-108; and especially
Westcott, pp. 33-35. The main point is here first to ascertain the Old Testament import of
the title, and then to view it as present to later Jewish thinking in the Pseudepigraphic
writings (Book of Enoch). Finally, its full realisation must be studied in the Gospel-
history.
3. Hebr. ii. 10.
This idea of the 'Son of Man,' although in its full and prophetic meaning, seems to furnish
the explanation of the miracle at the marriage of Cana. We are now entering on the
Ministry of 'The Son of Man,' first and chiefly in its contrast to the preparatory call of the
Baptist, with the asceticism symbolic of it. We behold Him now as freely mingling with
humanity, sharing its joys and engagements, entering into its family life, sanctioning and
hallowing all by His Presents and blessing; then as transforming the 'water of legal
purification' into the wine of the new dispensation, and, more than this, the water of our
felt want into the wine of His giving; and, lastly, as having absolute power as the 'Son of
Man,' being also 'the Son of God' and 'the King of Israel.' Not that it is intended to
convey, that it was the primary purpose of the miracle of Cana to exhibit the contrast
between His own Ministry and the asceticism of the Baptist, although greater could