05.13. The Servant of Jehovah the Lord of the Sabbath

13. — The Servant of Jehovah the Lord of the Sabbath

"And it came to pass, that he was going on the sabbath day through the cornfields; and his disciples began, as they went,*1 to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Did ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungered, he, and they that were with him? How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and did eat the showbread, which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also*2 to them that were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for*3 man, and not man for*3 the sabbath: so that the Son of man is lord even*4 of the sabbath" (Mark 2:23-28, R.V.).

{*1 "began to walk on, plucking the ears," JT.N.D.
*2 "even," J.N.D.
*3 "on account of," J.N.D., W.K.
*4 "Lord also," J.N.D., W.K.} The Servant of Jehovah is shown by the Evangelist in a variety of circumstances, carrying out in them all the will of God with absolute and unvarying perfection, so that in every recorded word and deed we have for our admiration and humble emulation a living exemplification of divine truth.

We have seen Him at the feast spread by the love of Matthew the publican, having accepted the invitation with that humility which was the wonder of the Pharisees and is the ambition of the believer. But as He thus "goes along with the lowly" we see the Guest become the Host. He will be debtor to none, and in that motley assemblage of self-righteous and self-abased men He dispenses the hospitality of heaven, making them free of truths of the kingdom which the prophets and kings, the Abrahams and Davids of old, had longed in vain to know.

We now see Him a wanderer, and His followers staying their hunger with a few grains of corn, plucked by the wayside. They who had no occasion to fast because the Bridegroom was with them were compelled to fast because the Bridegroom was a rejected one. The Pharisees raised objections to this act of the disciples, as if the law of God were infringed thereby, but the Lord exposed their sophistry by means of the Old Testament scriptures, and accepting His title as the rejected Servant, He asserted the authority of the Son of man as the Lord of the Sabbath.

Jesus in the Cornfields The Lord and those who were with Him were walking in the cornfields on the Sabbath day. We learn from the parable of the Sower that a public way or path often lay through the cornfields, on which indeed some seeds were apt to fall in sowing-time (Mark 4:4). The disciples, as they passed along, began to pluck some of the ears of corn, and, after rubbing them in their hands, to eat the early ripened grain. This act was not regarded as a violation of the law of private property. On the contrary, it was expressly permitted under the Mosaic economy: "When thou comest into thy neighbour’s standing corn, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour’s standing corn" (Deuteronomy 23:25). Accordingly, in this case we do not find that any protest was raised by the husbandman himself, but the envious and jealous eyes of the Pharisees were upon the little band, and directly they began (Matthew 12:1-2) to pluck the corn in their hunger, the hostile critics in their indecent haste to find some occasion to condemn the Lord, said to Him, "Behold, why do they on the Sabbath day that which is not lawful? " The Lord Himself had not participated in the act of the disciples, but He defended them against their accusers. Precious proof of His faithful guardian love for those whom the Father had given Him out of the world! If He is for His own, who can be against them? The time was to come when the little flock would be left alone, and in that future evil day they must gird themselves with the girdle of truth and wield the sword of the Spirit. Now the Master, whose hands had been taught to fight in the wilderness (Psalms 144:1), used the two-edged sword of scripture to overcome these adversaries who sought to fasten upon His followers the stigma of law-breakers. The reply of Jesus, as recorded by Mark, consists of two distinct portions, each of which is introduced by the words, And he said unto them." (1) He appealed to written scripture in support of what was done: "Did ye never read what David did?" etc. (2) He vindicated the act of the disciples on the ground of the origin of the Sabbath, and of His own authority as Lord of the Sabbath. To this two-fold testimony the Pharisees, so far as we learn, returned no reply. We can well believe that, in a greater degree than in the case of the protomartyr Stephen, "they were not able to withstand the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake" (Acts 6:10). In the Gospel by Luke, the same two points raised by the Lord are given, but in Matthew two other points are added, so that His testimony there is shown to have a fourfold character. But this we can now do no more than mention. The Lord there is stated to have cited, in addition to that given by Mark and Luke — (1) the example of the priests serving on the Sabbath day in the temple, executing their duties in the offering of sacrifices and the like, not contrary to, but in accordance with the law, and (2) the declaration of Jehovah through Hosea of His desire for the exercise of His own mercy rather than the reception from man of the sacrifice required by law (Matthew 12:5-7;Hosea 6:6). But of all these things the Pharisee in his religious pride was ignorant, or he would not have condemned the guiltless disciples. This instance afforded a practical illustration of the truth previously declared by the Lord that the old wine-skins of the law could not contain the new wine of the kingdom.

David and Abiathar

Let us consider now this reference — the only one — made by the Lord to the history of His ancestor according to the flesh, the great king of Israel (1) regarding the incident itself, and (2) inquiring what is its application to the event in the cornfields.

David, chosen of God and anointed of Samuel to be king over Israel, was in flight from Saul, who sought to kill him. It was a day when the appointments of Jehovah for His worship and praise in Israel were sadly "out of course." The ark was at Kirjath-jearim, while the tabernacle was at Nob (1 Samuel 7:2; 2 Samuel 6:2), where the priests were also; and thither David came, a fugitive from the wrath of the king, and famished with hunger. He arrived on the Sabbath day when the priests had changed the twelve loaves of showbread ("the bread of the face," or "of the presence") which according to divine instruction were placed on the golden table in the holy place every Sabbath (Exodus 25:30; Leviticus 24:5-9). The ritual was therefore proceeding, though there was no ark within the holy of holies — an indication of the manner in which the nation had departed from the centre and core of worship as laid down in the beginning of its history. David asked the priest for some of the stale loaves for himself and his companions. This was a bold request, for this hallowed bread, unleavened, anointed with pure frankincense, one of the most holy fire offerings to Jehovah, was eaten in the holy place by the priests only (Leviticus 24:7-9). But the priest recognised in the hungry David fleeing from Saul the anointed of Jehovah, and he gave him showbread, in spite of the evil eyes of Doeg the Edomite, a creature of Saul’s, which were upon him (1 Samuel 21:7), and by whose hand the fearful vengeance of the king was speedily wreaked upon Nob and its priestly inhabitants.

It was to the written account of this incident in the life of David that our Lord referred by way of scriptural support of what the disciples had done on the Sabbath. "Did ye never read what David did?" The parallel is clear. The glory of God had departed from the temple, and the Pharisees were despising and rejecting their Messiah, even as David was hunted into exile by the cruel and unrighteous rage of Saul. In that day the letter of the ancient ordinances had to yield to the necessities of him who was the anointed king after God’s heart. Of what value then were these petty cavils of the Pharisees who sought to impose grievous burdens contrary to the spirit of the law, and refused to acknowledge either the King or His kingdom? Their objections recoiled to their own condemnation, for were they not to blame because the Lord from heaven was wandering on the Sabbath, with His followers, hungry and homeless? "In the presence of the evil that despises God’s beloved and faithful witnesses in the earth, the outward ordinances of the Lord lose their application for the time being. The sanctity of ritual disappears before the rejection of the Lord and His people." "Granted that the showbread was only for the priests, yet for them to keep their consecrated bread and let the anointed king starve would be strange homage to God and the king. And now the Son of David, the Lord of David, was there, and more rejected, more despised, than David himself."

Abiathar or Ahimelech? In a divine revelation there must be of necessity difficulties to a finite mind. And in an inspired history extending over many centuries and consisting of events selected and grouped for moral and spiritual instruction, there must indeed be difficulties many of which arise from the omission of connecting links which, though unessential to the divine aim, would nevertheless, if supplied, at once remove the perplexity. An instance of such a difficulty, which is indeed common in all history, occurs in this section of Mark. The Lord’s words, as recorded in this Gospel, are, "Did ye never read what David did . . . how he entered the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest." In the book of Samuel, David is said to have come to Ahimelech the priest, (1 Samuel 21:1), who gave him the bread, and was subsequently massacred with his family by order of Saul (1 Samuel 22:11-19), one of his sons named Abiathar escaping to David, and afterwards becoming high priest. So that apparently the same man is called Ahimelech in one place and Abiathar in another. This constitutes the "difficulty," and if we were in possession of the whole of the details it would no longer be a difficulty to our intelligence, as it is now none to our faith. We dare not suppose that our Lord was ignorant of the name of the priest at Nob, nor that Mark, who alone of the Evangelists supplies the name, was permitted by the inspiring Spirit to record the words of his Master erroneously. But as the Lord definitely challenged the Pharisees, who were so punctilious as to the letter of scripture, on their reading ("Did ye neverread?") we may examine the Old Testament for help. The Lord’s words, as we have seen, imply that the truth on this point could have been ascertained by reading.

Now it will be observed from the Historical Books that (1) the same person frequently possessed more than one name, and (2) that the same name frequently recurs in the pedigree of families. It is not therefore an improbable explanation that the priest who succoured David bore the joint names of Ahimelech and Abiathar, and that his son, who escaped the massacre at Nob, also bore the same double names. Indeed, the responsible priest at Nob is "called by no less than three names: Ahiah (1 Samuel 14:3; 1 Samuel 14:18), Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21:1-6;1 Samuel 22:9-23); and, as in St. Mark, Abiathar (1 Chronicles 18:16;1 Chronicles 24:6; 1 Chronicles 24:31). The Septuagint gives also the form Abimelech. Moreover, the son of this Ahimelech or Abiathar, who was afterwards David’s joint High Priest* with Zadok, was himself also called by both names, viz., Abiathar (1 Samuel 22:20-23;2 Samuel 15:24-29;1 Kings 2:26-27), and Ahimelech (2 Samuel 8:17;1 Chronicles 24:6; 1 Chronicles 24:31), or Abimelech (1 Chronicles 18:16). Now it has often been remarked that there occur in the Old Testament many instances of double names,** as Reuel, Jethro, and Hobab; Esau and Edom; Benjamin and Benoni; Gideon and Jerubbaal; Solomon and Jedidiah; Uzziah and Azariah; Zedekiah and Matthaniah(seePatrit.de Evang.50. 3. ;Diss.9: c. 3); but it has scarcely been noticed that the priests especially appear to have borne double names, and that father and son were frequently called by the same names. Yet both these facts are of the utmost value for the passage before us. The following are illustrations: — As to the first: In 1Ma 2:1-5 is a list of five priests, sons of Mattathias, all with double names. The priestly pedigree of Josephus, from the public records, furnishes several other examples (Jos.Vit.§§ 1, 2). As to the second: It was proposed to call John the Baptist Zechariah after the name of his father; and his father was a priest (Luke 1:5; Luke 1:59). In Josephus’s pedigree, Matthias, one of his priestly ancestors, had a son also called Matthias; whose grandson again was likewise named Matthias, and his son also Matthias(l.c.).Also, upon the deposition of Joseph Cabi, the High Priesthood was conferred on the son of the famous High Priest Ananus, "who was himself also called Ananus (Jos.Ant. 20.9.1). Thus, then, we not only have Old Testament evidence to the fact that the High Priest who gave David the hallowed bread bore the name of Abiathar as well as that of Ahimelech, and his son likewise; but also independent evidence that this possession of double and the same names by father and son in the families of the priests was not an unusual occurrence. With such evidence the alleged historical error of St. Mark completely vanishes.*** {*Strictly speaking, he is not termed high priest in the Old Testament, but priest.

**Compare also the double names of the apostles viz., Simon, Peter; Matthew, Levi. [Notes, W.J.H.] ***J. B. McClellan,The New Testament,p. 672,} This explanation seems preferable to that which supposes that the phrase in Mark is elliptical and means "in the days of Abiathar who afterwards became high priest." Abiathar, it is further assumed in this hypothesis, influenced his father to befriend David, and as he alone escaped, this may have been the case.

Seeing that the senior priest at Nob was called Ahimelech and Abiathar, a pertinent inquiry arises why the Lord refers to him as Abiathar instead of Ahimelech, the latter being the name by which he is described in the narrative relating to the showbread incident. In connection with this inquiry, it should be remembered that Ahimelech was of the house of Eli, and that house was doomed to extermination by the judgment of God, because of the wickedness at Shiloh (1 Samuel 2:30-33;1 Samuel 3:12-14). In accordance with this judgment, Eli’s descendants were all slain at Nob, butwith one exception.For God was not unmindful of the mercy of Ahimelech shown to His anointed, and He did not then make a full end of the line of Ithamar, and blot out the posterity of Eli from the earth. Abiathar was spared to be the representative of the junior house of Aaron throughout the reign of David, being subsequently deposed by Solomon in fulfilment of the word of Jehovah spoken concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh (1 Kings 2:27). Abiathar therefore (to use the more frequent name by which he is called who was the companion of David in his exile) preserved the second name of his father Ahimelech throughout the glorious reign of David when the rest of the family were cut off. In the warning of judgment delivered to Eli by the man of God, he said, "It shall come to pass that every one that is left in thine house shall come and bow down to him [ Jehovah’s anointed] for a piece of silver and a loaf of bread, and shall say, Put me, I pray thee, into one of the priests’ offices, that I may eat a morsel of bread" (1 Samuel 2:36). But it came about that Jehovah’s anointed begged bread of the descendant of Eli, and as he was not denied, the mercy of God was displayed in the midst of the judgments that fell upon the ungodly house, and a scion of that house held the priestly office while David was upon the throne. The Lord therefore, in alluding to the act of kindness shown to David by Ahimelech, alludes also to its recognition and reward by Jehovah in a manner familiar to students of God’s word by selecting the least obvious of his names, but that name by which his reward is marked in Holy Writ, viz., in the mercy and distinction conferred upon his son Abiathar. The principle of moral and spiritual significance conveyed by the use of the one or the other of double names may be traced elsewhere in scripture. Compare, for example, the use of Jacob and of Israel in the prophecies, and of Simon and of Peter in the Gospels.

It is believed therefore that underlying this alleged historical difficulty there is a truth of great beauty which is seen upon patient inquiry. In addition to the assertion that the Son of David may do what David did, there is the quotation of an example of God’s grace shining out in a dark chapter in the annals of the priesthood. We cannot think there was no bread in Nob except the show-bread. But all closed their hearts to David except one, and he helped and honoured the true king of Israel when all else despised him. And Jehovah, true to His word spoken to the head of that priestly house, "Them that honour me I will honour," rewarded his kindness as is recorded. The Lord would have them know that the principle was equally true in their day. If the Pharisees received God’s anointed, already rejected by the spirit of the nation, their reward should be great in heaven. The stone of stumbling would assuredly fall in crushing judgment upon the guilty people, but the followers of the Lord in "His temptations" should "sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelves tribes of Israel."

Second-First Sabbath The parallel account in the Gospel of Luke of the Lord’s walk with His disciples through the cornfields contains a chronological note which does not occur in either Matthew or Mark. There we read, "Now it came to pass on the second-first sabbath that he was going through the cornfields" (Luke 6:1). The occasion is in this sentence specified by the use of a very unusual term, "the second-first sabbath." The word (for in the Greek it is but a single word) is so infrequent and so difficult of exact definition, that in many ancient MSS. it is unwarrantably omitted. For this insufficient reason the Revisers have also omitted the word, briefly indicating this omission by a note in the margin that "Many ancient authorities insertsecond-first." "Now the witnesses which omit the word are few, though high, and the difficulty of understanding a word nowhere else occurrent, and in itself hard to explain without an exact knowledge of Jewish scripture and usage, accounts readily for the tampering hand of copyists prone to cut knots instead of untying them. . . . Nobody would or could create a needless difficulty by inserting this [word in sixteen uncial MSS. ]; but we can easily account for a few omitting what was hard in their eyes, as it is to most readers still."*

{*W. Kelly.}

What then is to be understood by this difficult epithet, "second-first"? There have been many explanations, mostly far-fetched, the discussion of which is beyond the purpose and scope of the present article. That interpretation is prima facie most to be commended which is founded on the scripture itself.

Now there is an express injunction in the law of Moses forbidding the Israelites at harvest-time to partake of the fresh corn until the ceremony of the wave-sheaf was passed. This occurs amongst the very particular and explicit regulations regarding the feasts of Jehovah (Leviticus 23:9-14). The children of Israel were enjoined to bring a sheaf of the first-fruits of their harvest to the priest that he might wave it before Jehovah. This was to be done during the feast of unleavened bread, or of the passover, as it was also called, "on the morrow after the sabbath." This sabbath occurring after the slaying of the paschal lamb was considered of especial sanctity, and was regarded by the Jews as a great or high day (John 19:31). It was emphatically thefirstsabbath, not necessarily in point of time, but in point of importance. The following day, the wave-sheaf was offered to Jehovah, and the succeeding sabbath would be the "second-first." On the great sabbath no godly Jew would have partaken of ears of corn, because of the legal prohibition which stated, "Ye shall eat neither bread nor parched corn, nor fresh ears, until this selfsame day, until ye have brought the oblation of your God: it is a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings" (Leviticus 23:14). On the second-first sabbath the wave-sheaf would have been offered, and the injunction just quoted would therefore not be applicable to the action of the disciples, they being ceremonially free to partake of the newly-ripened corn.

Sabbath Made for Man The Evangelist proceeds to show that the Lord justified His followers on another ground — by the enunciation of a weighty truth concerning the sabbath which the Pharisees had nullified by their tradition. The distinction of this utterance from the Lord’s historical allusion to the Old Testament is marked in the narrative by the phrase, "And he said unto them." For He proceeded to introduce to them a new phase of the subject, illuminating it by the truth of God, as it could emanate from Himself only. In their ignorant zeal, under a thin veneer of piety, they had made the sabbath a yoke of bondage grievous to be borne. The Lord pronounced authoritatively, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." The object of the institution of the septenary season of rest was not the punishment of man, but his blessing. Was not this so at the beginning? When the works of creation were complete and the earth was in a glorious state of perfection and beauty fresh from the hands of its Maker, "on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made" (Genesis 2:2-3). In that rest our first parents were to participate, but sin entered into the world, and thorns and thistles, and wearisome labour and death. Still, as to original divine purpose, the sabbath was made for man who appeared on the sixth day. And if the people of Israel were to do no manner of work on the sabbath, a merciful and gracious Jehovah provided a double portion of manna on the sixth day. And when the sanctity of the seventh day was enforced by the attendant terrors of Sinai, this was due to the choice of the proud and self-confident people themselves, who placed themselves under the law and its restrictions (Exodus 19:8). The vexatious deprivations associated with the sabbath were therefore derived from man and not from God. In its original nature it was not mere prohibition, but positive blessing. The Lord declared that the sabbath was made not for Israel only, but for man. It was true that the sabbath was a special sign that Israel was the nation of Jehovah; but it was also true that it existed before Israel’s day, though the responsibility for the observance of the sanctity of the seventh day was placed upon them. Thus Jehovah said to them through Ezekiel, "Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths to be a sign between me and them" (Ezekiel 20:12). And the Levites in their worship said, "And [thou] madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them commandments and statutes and a law, by the hand of Moses thy servant" (Nehemiah 9:14). At Sinai therefore Israel received what had existed as the sabbath of Jehovah from the beginning and what in its original scope embraced all mankind.

"Pharisees might turn the sabbath into an engine for torturing man, but in God’s mind the sabbath came in most mercifully. There were the days of labour which God Himself had known something of in figure, for there was a time when He had wrought and made the earth; and God Himself was pleased to rest on the sabbath, and to sanctify it. Then sin came in, and God could no longer own it, and His word is silent. We read of the sabbath no more until God takes up His people in delivering mercy, and gives them manna from heaven. Then the sabbath day becomes a marked thing, and rest follows, the type of Jesus sent down from above. It disappears from the beginning of the first book of scripture, and reappears in the second. God makes rest once more. He was giving to man in grace when He brought Israel out of Egypt. Of this the sabbath was the appropriate sign." Law came in by-the-bye, imposing its observance with penalties for disobedience, but from the beginning it was not so. The Lord of the Sabbath

"The Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." In these words, to the confusion of the unbelieving Pharisees, the Servant of Jehovah asserted His claim to an absolute authority over the sabbath. In virtue of His own rights He was competent to decide what might or what might not be done on the sabbath, for He was Lord of the sabbath. This was an important revelation of the dignity of His person, and we find the saying recorded in each of the Synoptic Gospels in connection with the incident before us. But here it is especially instructive to observe that the Servant of Jehovah, so perfect in His dependence, so untiring in His energy, so exquisite in His sympathy, and so tender in His compassion, quietly and unostentatiously, using the simplest form of speech, claimed an unqualified authority which no man ever possessed previously. For, let it be remembered, this Lordship implied more than the Adamic supremacy over the lower creation. This was Lordship over a divine institution which Adam never had. The Son of man, who had power on earth to forgive sins, had power on earth to regulate the sabbath also, for, even as Peter said to Cornelius, "He is Lord of all." The ideal sabbath is yet to come. So the apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, after showing that the rest of God did not come about in Old Testament times, declares, "There remaineth therefore a sabbath-rest for the people of God" (Hebrews 4:9). Of this sabbatism the Son of man is Lord, as He is the true Joshua to lead His own into that rest, and to maintain them in it. At that day both the heavens and the earth will participate in the sabbath of Jehovah, whose glory shall fill the whole earth throughout the millennial day. This period to which the prophets witness will be the true sabbath when the second Adam, the Son of man, will rule, and both the heavenly and the earthly departments of His kingdom will enjoy this rest.

Son of Man The Lord advanced this claim of Lordship of the sabbath not as the Son of David, nor as the Seed of Abraham, nor as Immanuel, but as the Son of man. "The Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also." This title of Christ is remarkable for more reasons than one. In the New Testament it is found almost exclusively in the Gospels. The exceptions are two passages where the Lord is seen in vision and thus named as the future Judge of men (Revelation 1:13;Revelation 14:14) in accordance with other scriptures (Daniel 7:13;John 5:27); and a quotation from the Psalms which is used in Hebrews, "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?" (Hebrews 2:6;Psalms 8:4). Stephen, when arraigned before the Jewish council, also uses it (Acts 7:56). In the Gospels it does not occur in the narrative itself, nor in any utterances made by others either to the Lord or about Him, but is strictly confined to His own sayings. And it is by far the most frequent term applied by the Lord to Himself. Thus in Mark’s Gospel "Son" is recorded once (Mark 13:32); "Lord" twice (Mark 5:19;Mark 11:3); "Christ" once (Mark 9:41); "Master" (teacher) once (Mark 14:14); "Lord of the sabbath" once (Mark 2:28); "King of the Jews" once (Mark 15:2); "Sower" twice (Mark 4:3; Mark 4:14); "Master (lord) of the house" once (Mark 13:35); "Bridegroom" three times (Mark 2:19-20). But "Son of man" occurs fifteen times, which is more than all the others added together. A similar proportion is found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, while in John "Son" used alone is more prevalent than "Son of man."

We may now inquire what is the significance of this title assumed by the Lord. This can only be learned by a careful study of the passages in which the title occurs. And with the intention of providing assistance in such a study the various references in the Synoptic Gospels are collated under headings which indicate their general tenor and form a basis for further research by such readers as are so disposed. The Lord refers to Himself as the Son of man when:
1. Foretelling His betrayal, sufferings and death —Matthew 17:12; Matthew 17:22;Matthew 20:18; Matthew 20:28;Matthew 26:2; Matthew 26:24; Matthew 26:45;Mark 8:31;Mark 9:12; Mark 9:31;Mark 10:33; Mark 10:45;Mark 14:21; Mark 14:41;Luke 9:22; Luke 9:41;Luke 18:31;Luke 22:22; Luke 22:48;Luke 24:7.
2. Foretelling His coming glory and kingdom —Matthew 10:23;Matthew 13:41;Matthew 16:27-28;Matthew 19:28;Matthew 24:27; Matthew 24:30; Matthew 24:37; Matthew 24:39; Matthew 24:41;Matthew 25:31;Matthew 26:64;Mark 8:38;Mark 13:26;Mark 14:62;Luke 9:26;Luke 12:40;Luke 17:22; Luke 17:24; Luke 17:26; Luke 17:30;Luke 18:8;Luke 21:27.
3. Foretelling His resurrection —Matthew 12:40;Matthew 17:9;Mark 9:9;Luke 11:30.
4. Foretelling His session on high —Luke 22:69.
5. Declaring Himself the homeless One —Matthew 8:20;Luke 9:58.
6. Declaring Himself the Forgiver of sins —Matthew 9:6;Mark 2:10;Luke 5:24.
7. Declaring Himself Lord of the sabbath —Matthew 12:8;Mark 2:28;Luke 6:5.
8. Declaring Himself the Saviour — [Matthew 18:11]Luke 9:56;Luke 19:10.
9. Declaring Himself the Sower —Matthew 13:37.
10. Referring to men’s opinion of Him —Matthew 11:19;Matthew 12:32;Matthew 16:13;Luke 7:34;Luke 12:10.
11. Referring to the confession of His name —Luke 6:22;Luke 12:8. In the Gospel by John it is recorded that the Lord used the term when speaking of:
1. His death —John 3:14;John 8:28;John 12:34.
2. His glorification —John 1:51;John 12:23;John 13:31.
3. His ascension —John 6:62.
4. His authority to judge —John 5:27.
5. His personal glory —John 3:13.
6. Himself as an object of faith —John 6:27; John 6:53; [John 9:35]. A consideration of the whole of these references is at this time impracticable; but a cursory glance is sufficient to instruct us that this title is one taken by the Lord in view of the fact that the kingdom of God which He proclaimed was not accepted by the people of Israel. On the contrary, He Himself was met with personal hatred, and in view of the culmination of this hatred in His crucifixion under a coalition of Jews and Gentiles, He adopted the designation of Son of man a title of wider limits than Son of David. Thus, when Peter, speaking for the other apostles, confessed Him as the Christ, the Lord "charged them that they should tell no man of him. And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he spake the saying openly" (Mark 8:27-32). And as may be seen from the above classification, a great proportion of the passages in the Gospels containing this term allude to His approaching death. The greater part of the remainder refer to His resurrection, ascension, glorification, and to the future manifestation of His kingdom in judgment and glory, which will be not only national but universal in its scope. But all the passages coincide to point out this title, though of wider significance than "Messiah," as that assumed by the Lord in consequence of His rejection by the chosen nation to which He expressly came. The use of this phrase in the Old Testament corroborates this interpretation of its significance. Passing over the general prophetic sense of the term in Job 25:6;Psalms 8:4;Psalms 80:17;Daniel 7:13; it is applied by Jehovah to two of His prophets, viz., Daniel and Ezekiel (Daniel 8:17;Ezekiel 2:1, etc.). Now both of these men were raised up as witnesses during the period when the nation, on account of its apostasy from the worship of Jehovah, was under a foreign yoke. Sovereignty was transferred from Israel to the Gentiles, and it is remarkable that these two contemporary servants of God who prophesied outside the land of Israel during the captivity are the only ones who are so designated. So that the Lord, in describing Himself as the Son of man, adopted a title hitherto borne only by prophets in exile. It was even then a title of reproach, inasmuch as it indicated that the nation of Israel, like Esau, renounced the privileges of its birthright. But what was the departure in the day of Daniel and Ezekiel to the departure in the day of the Gospel? Was it not an incomparable privilege that the Messiah should offer Himself to the Jews, insignificant as they were nationally at that period, and enslaved moreover to the Romans? But the people deliberately refused Him,* whereupon the Lord instructed His followers to proclaim Him no longer in that character (Matthew 16:13-28;Mark 8:30;Luke 9:21), but to know Him as the Son of man who was to pass through the depths of suffering to the heights of glory in the kingdom beyond. This was a difficulty to His disciples then even as it is still; only faith can adequately sustain him who seeks to walk in the pathway of the despised and suffering Son of man.

{*In Matthew, treating specially as it does of the presentation of Messiah to the Jews, it will be seen that more emphasis is laid on His rejection, by the construction of the Gospel, than in Mark or in Luke.} The Second Man, the Lord from heaven, was in a world different in nature from that in which the First man, Adam, was placed. He was in a world into which sin had entered, and in which it reigned unto death." And in this world, when it demonstrated its implacable hostility to all that is divine by refusing to receive Him or to recognise Him, He took the title of Son of man. This title implied that the Servant of Jehovah was in the world outside Eden, the same world into which Cain and Abel, Seth and Enosh were born, begotten in the likeness and image of fallen Adam. But Jesus was "without sin," Son of man truly, but not son of a man. He was "born of a woman," but the Holy Thing" born was the Son of God.

"He was to be the Son of man — a title the Lord Jesus loves to give Himself — a title of great importance to us. It appears to me that the Son of man is, according to the word, the Heir of all that the counsels of God destined for man as his portion in glory, all that God would bestow on man according to those counsels (see Daniel 7:13-14; Psalms 8:4-6; Psalms 80:17; Proverbs 8:30-31). But in order to be the Heir of all that God destined for man, He must be a man. The Son of man was truly of the race of man — precious and comforting truth! born of a woman, really and truly a man, and partaking of flesh and blood, made like unto His brethren.

"In this character He was to suffer, and be rejected, that He might inherit all things in a wholly new estate, raised and glorified. He was to die and rise again, the inheritance being defiled, and man being in rebellion — His co-heirs as guilty as the* rest."