(_bar-nosh_,) “SON OF MAN,” which every where takes the place
of the original direct form. It should be noticed also, that in
every place in the Old Testament where this expression (“son of
man”) occurs, before Ezekiel, the former part of the sentence
invariably contains the direct form of expression, (“man,”)
and this periphrasis is given in the latter part of every such
sentence, for the sake of a poetical repetition of the same idea
in a slightly different form. Take, for instance, Psalm viii. 4,
“What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man,
that thou visitest him?” And exactly so in every other passage
anterior to Ezekiel, as Numbers xxiii. 19, Job xxv. 16, xxxv. 8,
Isaiah li. 12, lvi. 2, and several other passages, to which any
good concordance will direct the reader.
The New Testament writers too, apply this expression in other
ways than as a name of Jesus Christ. It is given as a mere
periphrasis, entirely synonymous with “man,” in a general or
abstract sense, without reference to any particular individual,
in Mark iii. 28, (compare Matthew xii. 13, where the simple
expression “men” is given,) Hebrews ii. 6, (a mere translation
of Psalm viii. 4,) Ephesians iii. 5, Revelation i. 13, xiv. 14.
In the peculiar emphatic limitation to which this note refers,
it is applied by Jesus Christ to himself about eighty times in
the gospels, but is never used by any other person in the New
Testament, as a name of the Savior, except by Stephen, in Acts,
vii. 56. It never occurs in this sense in the apostolic epistles.
(Bretschneider.) For this use of the word, I should not think
it necessary to seek any mystical or important reason, as so
many have done, nor can I see that in its application to Jesus,
it has any very direct reference to the circumstance of his
having, though divine, put on a human nature, but simply a nobly
modest and strikingly emphatic form of expression used by him,
in speaking of his own exalted character and mighty plans, and
partly to avoid the too frequent repetition of the personal
pronoun. It is at once evident that this indirect form,
in the third person, is both more dignified and modest in
solemn address, than the use of the first person singular
of the pronoun. Exactly similar to this are many forms of
circumlocution with which we are familiar. The presiding
officer of any great deliberative assembly, for instance, in
announcing his own decision on points of order, by a similar
periphrasis, says “The chair decides,” &c. In fashionable forms
of intercourse, such instances are still more frequent. In many
books, where the writer has occasion to speak of himself, he
speaks in the third person, “the author,” &c.; as in an instance
close at hand, in this book it will be noticed, that where it is
necessary for me to allude to myself in the _text_ of the work,
which, of course, is more elevated in its tone than the _notes_,
I speak, according to standard forms of scriptorial propriety,
in the third person, as “the author,” &c.; while here, in
these small discussions, which break in on the more dignified
narrative, I find it at once more convenient and proper, to use
the more familiar and simple forms of ♦expression.
♦ “expresssion” replaced with “expression”
This periphrasis (“_son of_”) is not peculiar to oriental
languages, as every Greek scholar knows, who is familiar with
Homer’s common expression υιες Αχαιων, (_uies Akhaion_,) “sons
of Grecians,” instead of “Grecians” simply, which by a striking
coincidence, occurs in Joel xiii. 6, in the same sense. Other
instances might be needlessly ♦multiplied.
♦ “multipled” replaced with “multiplied”
_Thou art a Rock_, &c.――This is the just translation of Peter’s
name, and the force of the declaration is best understood by
this rendering. As it stands in the original, it is “Thou art
Πετρος, (_Petros_, ‘a rock,’) and on this Πετρα (_Petra_, ‘a
rock’) I will build my church,”――a play on the words so palpable,
that great injustice is done to its force by a common tame,
unexplained translation. The variation of the words in the
Greek, from the masculine to the feminine termination, makes
no difference in the expression. In the Greek Testament, the
feminine πετρα (_petra_) is the only form of the word used as
the common noun for “rock,” but the masculine πετρος (_petros_)
is used in the most finished classic writers of the ancient
Greek, of the Ionic, Doric and Attic, as Homer, Herodotus,
Pindar, Xenophon, and, in the later order of writers, Diodorus
Siculus.
H. Stephens gives the masculine form as the primitive, but
Schneider derives it from the feminine.
After this distinct profession of faith in him, by his disciples,
through Peter, Jesus particularly and solemnly charged them all, that
they should not, then, assert their belief to others, lest they should
thereby be drawn into useless and unfortunate contests about their
Master, with those who entertained a very different opinion of him. For
Jesus knew that his disciples, shackled and possessed as they were with
their fantasies about the earthly reign of a Messiah, were not, as yet,
sufficiently prepared to preach this doctrine: and wisely foresaw that
the mass of the Jewish people would either put no faith at all in such
an announcement, or that the ill disposed and ambitious would abuse
it, to the purposes of effecting a political revolution, by raising
a rebellion against the Roman rulers of Palestine, and oversetting
foreign power. He had, it is true, already sent forth his twelve
apostles, to preach the coming of the kingdom, (Matthew x. 7,) but
that was only to the effect that the time of the Messiah’s reign was
nigh,――that the lives and hearts of all must be changed,――all which
the apostles might well preach, without pretending to announce who the
Messiah was.