084-Prop. 81. This Kingdom, thus covenanted, belongs to Jesus as the Son of Man.

Prop. 81. This Kingdom, thus covenanted, belongs to Jesus as “the Son of Man.” THE KINGDOM IS PRIMARILY AND EXCLUSIVELY (I.E. BY COVENANT AND PROPHECY) PROMISED TO THE SON OF DAVID, ALTHOUGH INTIMATIONS ARE GIVEN (AS E.G. IN DAVID’S SON AND DAVID’S LORD, AND ALSO IN THE PERFECT THEOCRACY INSTITUTED, ETC.) THAT THE DIVINE SHALL BE UNITED WITH THAT SON. WE HAVE ONLY TO REFER TO THE DAVIDIC COVENANT WHERE THIS IS DISTINCTLY ANNOUNCED. UPON THIS COVENANT IS BASED THE PROMISE, REPEATED BY THE PROPHETS, THAT THE DESCENDANT OF DAVID SHOULD REIGN; AND FROM THE SAME, AND ITS RELATION TO HUMANITY, ARISES THE DISTINCTIVE TITLE “SON OF MAN.” THE KINGDOM, THEREFORE, IS POINTEDLY IN HARMONY WITH COVENANT AND PROMISE, PREDICTED AS BESTOWED UPON “THE SON OF MAN,” AS E.G.DAN 7:13. HENCE, TOO, WHEN PETER PREACHES HIS FIRST SERMON (ACT 2:30) HE IN THE SAME STRAIN DECLARES “THAT GOD HAD SWORN WITH AN OATH TO HIM (I.E. DAVID), THAT OF THE FRUIT OF HIS LOINS, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, HE WOULD RAISE UP CHRIST TO SIT ON HIS THRONE.”

Obs. 1. It is not our purpose to enter into a detailed account of the doctrine pertaining to the divine and human natures in Christ. Able writers (as Neander, Lange, Dorner, Hengstenberg, etc.) have done this, showing that both are necessary to constitute the Saviour, “the Christ.” The Infinite and the Finite, the God and the Man, the Absolute and the Relative, are united in this the most astonishing of all unions. We dare not separate what God has joined, and we declare, (1) that such a union is perpetual, and (2) that its foundation-overlooked by many writers-is in the Theocratic Plan as purposed (comp. Prop. 199). But while this is so, our argument, in accord with the expressed Divine Purpose, makes much of the human nature and the important part it is yet to take in Redemption. This union of the divine and human has been the battle-field between faith and false philosophy, revelation and proud reason. This great truth, one of the most profound and essential, has been, for the last years, the center of strife between its foes and its friends. Work after work leveled against the divine in Christ has been issued and hailed with delight by unbelievers, while believers have sent forth an equal number in defence of the same. But in this contest while the divine and human are both acknowledged by the Christian party, it must be sadly confessed that, in the effort to exalt the divine, too little stress has been laid on the human. It seems to be taken for granted, that the human, having accomplished its mission on the cross, is swallowed up in the divine; that its sole work is finished, and that it was no longer necessary to continue and carry out the Plan of the Divine economy. Now contrary to all this, the early church faith, while conjoining the divine with the human and making the former the supporter and ennobler of the latter, insists upon the human maintaining its distinctive and enduring relationship in the Christship of Jesus. It is to be lamented that able works written in defence of the Divinity of Jesus entirely overlook the strong argument derived in favor of the same by the relationship that the Humanity of Jesus sustains to the Theocratic order. A Theocratic King, if ruling as covenanted, must be both Man and God. While we may not run to the extreme of Robertson (Frederick, as quoted by Cobbe in Darwinism in Morals), saying “only a human God and none other must be adored by man,” yet it is true that the incorporation of the Davidic line into the Theocratic order contemplates the manifestation of God in and through humanity as found in the predicted Son of David, so that he who beholds this Son sees the Father also, and this owing to the Theocratic position and relationship of the same. Hence justice to “the Christ,” in any life of His, ought to show the requisite union of the Divine and Human in the Theocratic Plan, and, therefore, lay great stress upon the coming revelation of these essential factors.

Obs. 2. Various reasons are assigned by theologians for the use of this phrase “the Son of Man,” a favorite with Jesus, such as its reference to the incarnation, to His relationship with man, to His being the predicted man, to his special peculiarity of personality, to His humiliation, condescension, and lowliness, to His being the ideal or representative man, etc Now whatever of truth may be attached to any of these, the true reason for its usage appears to be the following: it is the peculiar, distinctive, predicted name of the Messiah given to Him in virtue of His covenanted relationship to the Kingdom. This is clearly seen, (l) by the covenant designating the Man, pre-eminently, of the seed of David to whom the Kingdom rightfully belongs; (2) by the fact that the Kingdom is promised to such an one in the way of identification and realization by David and others, and hence is, and properly must be, adopted by Jesus; (3) by the invariable linking of the name with the reception of the Kingdom by Jesus Himself, as e.g.Matthew 25:31-34; Matthew 16:27-28, etc.; (4) by the remarkable-but too much overlooked-scriptural fact, that the Kingdom, when specifically promised, is always promised to the humanity of Jesus, i.e. to Him as “the Son of Man,” and not to His Divine nature, i.e. to Him as “the Son of God.” This naturally results from the covenant specifying Him as the Son of David to whom alone the Kingdom is promised. Of course, as the Kingdom is also God’s, being a Theocracy, the Divine is united with this inheriting, but for the purpose of identification and consistency with solemn covenant declarations, Jesus selects the very title which accords with both covenant and prophecy, and which most directly indicates His covenant connection with the Kingdom itself. The reader is only reminded that it is so far sweeping in its range that it also embraces, aside from the distinctive reference to the seedship of Abraham and David (indicative of covenanted relationship to the Kingdom), a second headship of the human family in the person of a Second Adam, made such by the Redemptive process. This interesting subject urges us to say something more respecting the opinions that are usually entertained concerning the phrase. These are far from being satisfactory, seeing that they do not meet the requirements of its usage and the connection it sustains to covenant and prediction. Thus e.g. to say (1) as Oosterzee (Ch. Dog., vol. 2, p. 528), that “the name Son of man” is a “figurative indication of the Messianic dignity,” seeing that it is a real indication of the same, i.e. a real coming of such an one, based on the covenant with David. (2) That the name simply denotes the human nature of Christ is not sufficient, because it was not necessary to assume such a title to prove that He had a human body, but it was requisite to identify Him as the specific Man intended by the covenant. Dr. Campbell (Diss. on the Gospels) remarks, that the phrase meant that the Messiah “would be human, not an angelical, or any other being; for in the Oriental idiom, Son of Man and man are equivalent.” This is only part of the truth; Ha was indeed human, a man, but He assumed the title because the covenant demands a man derived from the lineage of David, and this man promised is already designated by David (Psalms 80:17), and by Daniel (7:13), hence if Jesus is indeed the predicted promised One, it becomes Him to assume the name previously given to Him to distinguish Him as the intended One from all other men. (3) Fairbairn endorses Campbell’s view, but thinks that to it should be added the idea of it Divine Man, as it was in “the Son of man” that God was to appear to raise up man from his fallen condition, etc. Now while rejoicing in the divinity of the Man Jesus, and regarding it as a grand essential in the work of Redemption, yet planting ourselves firmly on the covenant and the development of it as presented by the prophets, it will be found that the phrase is not used to designate the divine nature of Christ, but His descent from David and His being the designated, pre-ordained One to whom the Kingdom, by virtue of such descent, rightfully belongs. It is freely admitted that with it can be associated other things, as His relationship to man and even to God, but logically the ground of the title lies in the covenant. (1) Some tell us that the name is to be taken in a typical sense; but that no type is intended is evident from the terms of the covenant, the birth of Jesus, the direct application of the name, and the future continued reception of the title. It indicates at His birth, in His life, at His Second Coming, a particular Man, i.e. the Son of David to whom the Kingdom is promised. (5) Others inform us that the name was “a mere periphrasis of the personal pronoun,” but this is disproved by the use made of it by Stephen (Acts 7:56), by Daniel, David, and Jesus Himself. (6) Some declare that the name is only applied to a temporary humiliation, but that this is erroneous follows from His retaining the title in connection with His glorified and Kingly state (as seen e.g.Matthew 25:31; Mark 13:26, etc.). In this connection the strange utterance of Oosterzee (Theol. N. Test., p. 75) may be quoted: “It (i.e. Son of Man) is nothing else than the allegorical designation of the Messiah in His lowly appearance on earth, derived from the vision of the prophet Daniel 7:13-14.” Having sufficiently answered this unauthorized interpretation, it may be well to add, that Daniel, in the passage designated, does not speak of humiliation, but of exaltation, and with the period of Christ’s highest glory the title is associated as various Scriptures testify. (7) Others merely find that it was assumed to identify Him as the predicted One, regarding it as an accommodation. But it is more than this: a permanent reality, and ever remaining such, as the Divine Purpose indicates in Christ’s greatest exaltation. (8) We are gravely told by one writer that the title was chosen as the lowest to manifest His humility, and to prevent His disciples from being overawed by His majesty. This, in view of the continued use of the title at the Second Advent, etc., presents an exceeding low estimate of the name and its preciousness. (9) A favorite notion prevails that it was significant of His being “the model man,” “the representative man,” “the ideal of humanity,” etc. Whatever of truth there may be in the abstract in such representations, they are too one-sided to embrace its full meaning and entirely overlook its covenanted relationship to the Kingdom. Various other meanings, differing but slightly from those given, are presented by authors, and we may conclude by saying, that while the name embraces in its comprehensive meaning allusions to the Incarnation, the Messiahship, the covenanted relationship, and an affinity to humanity as the Second Adam, yet, in virtue of His being the covenanted Man or Son of David, its meaning reaches far beyond the present into the future, indicating the future conjoining and manifestation of the covenanted Son of Man and His Kingdom. These two are inseparable, and the one suggests the other. Hence it is incorrect to say, as an eminent writer does, that we are not to “seek the explanation of this name in any views bearing on the future.” To confine the name to His First Advent or to this dispensation, is to limit it within unauthorized bounds, for Jesus repeatedly shows that this name stands allied with, and most intimately related to, His final Advent and the revelation of His Kingdom. Van Oosterzee, in his Art. “The Son of Man” (Princeton Review, July, 1878), accurately says, what we also must not overlook, that the very assumption of this name, whatever the intention, evidences-as no other man assumed it as a significant title-that “He was conscious of being originally and essentially different from man, and infinitely more.” This is true, but to it we must add, that Omniscience gave Him this very title in the covenanted line and Theocratic Purpose, seeing that in Him, as David’s Son, God-the Divine-would thus draw nigh to man in man. Fausset (Com.Ezekiel 2:1 and Daniel 7:13) says, the “title, as applied to the Messiah, implies at once His lowliness and His exaltation in His manifestations as the Representative Man at His First and Second Comings respectively.” Whatever of truth in this, it does not sufficiently express the covenanted and predicted Theocratic relationship. (Comp. Dr. Schaff’s “Excursus on the Meaning of the Title ‘The Son of Man’” in Lange’s Com. John, p. 98; much of which we can incorporate with our view.)

Obs. 3. The manner in which Jesus employs this name is strongly corroborative and enforcive of our line of argument. In the use of it Jesus speaks of Himself as of a third person instead of employing the pronominal or customary personal application. Writers say that this is a more intensive, dignified, majestic form of speaking, but Judge Jones (Notes on Matthew 16:27) comes the nearest to the truth when he writes: “Our God uses this form of designation as a titular distinction to denote His relation to this world as its Sovereign or Lord”-to which is to be added, in order to bring out the whole truth, that the same is founded on His covenanted relationship as the Son of David to whom David’s throne and Kingdom (i.e. the Theocracy), and through the latter a world-dominion, is promised. It embraces then in its meaning the personal King to whom the Kingdom belongs, the perfected Redeemer and perfected Redemption through Him in accordance with covenanted promises, the exaltation of humanity and its intimate union with the Divine as intimated in the covenants, and, therefore, is a name that will never be laid aside, but continues forever perpetuated as most significant, descriptive, and real. For, in alliance with it is derived, as God has sworn, the salvation of mankind, not in prospect or in progress but completed, and, hence appropriately, the name is not merely applied to the incarnate Jesus but to the glorified Christ. If this were not so, a serious defect, vitiating our entire argument, would be found, but with it unity and an essential factor is astonishingly preserved. With some surprise, we find even Renan (Life of Jesus, p. 144, who notices that the title “Son of Man” occurs eighty-four times in the Gospels, and always in the discourses of Jesus) saying: “But He is never thus addressed, doubtless because the name in question could be more fully accorded to Him only at the period of His Second Coming.” This is true, for applicable as the name was to Jesus at His First Advent, yet it is pre-eminently so at His Second Advent, and the decisive proof is, that He Himself repeatedly and constantly thus refers it, making the future coming in power and glory in the establishment of the Kingdom the emphatic coming of the Son of Man (as e.g.Matthew 16:27; Matthew 26:64; Matthew 25:31; Matthew 19:28; Mark 8:38; Mark 13:26; Luke 9:26; Luke 21:27; John 5:27, etc.). The covenant promises demand this, and our faith in the covenant is strengthened by the significant phraseology of Christ. As already intimated, the God ruling in a Theocracy is taken for granted as fundamental to the idea of a Theocracy (hence even the Jews, as in the case of the high priest, looked for “the Son of God” to come and reign), therefore the phrase “the Son of God “is omitted and the phrase “the Son of Man” is substituted for the reasons assigned, thus giving us, if we will but receive it, the idea of God ruling in and through humanity. Dr. Schaff (The Person of Christ), therefore, correctly makes the title “Son of Man” one of elevation, dignity, instead of one of humiliation (so also Trench on The Parables, Nevin, and many others). This enables us also to appreciate the perversion of the title by others, as e.g. that it denoted (Amner) the Roman Republic, or (Grotius) the Fifth Kingdom, or (Berg) the United States, etc.

Obs. 4. The most fruitful source of misinterpreting this Kingdom arises from not discriminating to whom this Kingdom is specially promised. According to the covenant-and this must necessarily be the basis of a correct Scriptural representation-it is promised to the Son of David, the, Son of Man. Not noticing this simple fact, leads to grave misapprehension. Many authors (as e.g. Priest, in Introd. to View of Mill.) assert that Jesus Christ now reigns in virtue of His Divinity and attributes as God, and, therefore, we are to expect no other reign. But this is a confounding of things that differ (comp. Props. 79, 80). No one refuses to believe in the Sovereignty of God as God, but this is materially different from a reign which is to be manifested in and through a Son of Man in a purely Theocratic manner, i.e. God in and through David’s Son condescending to act in the capacity of an earthly Ruler, which is the primary and true meaning of a Theocratic ordering as once witnessed and as covenanted. This Theocracy is given to this Son of Man (Prop. 83), and the reign is manifested through the glorified Son of David. Let it be repeated: it is not the Divine Sonship that constitutes “the Christ” (although an essential element), and it is not the Davidic Sonship that constitutes Him “the Messiah” (although essentially requisite), but it is the two inseparably united that makes Him “the Christ.” Now while this is so, the covenant and prophecies, in view of the incorporation of the Davidic line in the contemplated and purposed Theocratic Kingdom, point out the Man, in and through whom this rule shall be manifested. Thus we have (1) the Son of Man, as presented by covenant the central figure; (2) with this Son of Man is united the Divine to insure a pure and perpetual Theocratic rule; (3) this reign being Theocratic, and under a manifested Son of Man, is diverse from the general Sovereignty of God; (4) that to encourage our faith in the covenanted Theocracy stress is laid on the future coming and reign of “the Son of Man.”

It is, therefore, a distinctive title, constantly having a fixed, determined meaning, and not, as our opponents assert, susceptible of a variable or indefinite meaning. Thus e.g. Alexander (Com. onMatthew 10:23) overlooked this personal title, and pronounces the expression “till the Son of Man be come,” “an indefinite expression meaning sometimes more and sometimes less, but here equivalent to saying, ‘till the object of your mission is accomplished.” And in the same comment, he makes it equivalent to “the Kingdom (i.e. the Church) of Messiah finally established.” The simple fact is this: the phrase “Son of Man,” in its covenanted sense, does not fit into a spiritualistic system, and hence arises the various and conflicting senses applied to it, making it to denote more or less by way of accommodation. The Pre-Mill. doctrine alone gives it one determined and continuous meaning, and consistently preserves it throughout. One of the most repulsive and unscriptural statements, given (Introd.) under the plea of “the illuminating power of the Holy Ghost,” is Swormstedt’s (The End of the World is Near, ch. 6,) who, in his astounding interpretation of Revelation 12, makes (p. 78-9) the man-child to be the Second Adam born at the time of the marriage of the glorified church, and this birth consists in the separation of the union of the Divine and human natures! We give his idea thus: “The divine purposes, for which the two natures of God and man were united in the person of Jesus, viz.: the atonement, and intercession, and the perfecting the Second Adam, the seed of Abraham, having been accomplished at the moment the man-child is born, the mysterious union of the human and divine natures existing in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is terminated then, and the glorified spiritual man, who is the Second Adam, stands forth before the glorified church, separate and distinct from the Godhead.” This is monstrous! evidencing but little knowledge of the Person of a Messiah, the Theocratic idea, the Second Adamship, the perpetuity of the Christ and of His Divine glory, the unchangeableness of Jesus. It is derogatory and dishonoring.

Obs. 5. The Theocracy is promised to this Son of Man, and this teaches us to anticipate two things. (1) The Theocracy is a visible, outward Kingdom. Now indeed overthrown, but its restoration promised under this “Son of Man,” and so openly, so visibly that all flesh shall realize and acknowledge it. It is predicated of this Son of Man, that at His. Second Coming, He shall, through the power committed unto Him, overthrow His enemies and firmly re-establish the downfallen Theocratic Kingdom, and exhibit in an outward rule, an external organized form, the full realization of the Theocratic idea. (2) The very phrase “the Son of Man” implies and necessitates the visibility of His Coming and reign; to spiritualize it away destroys both its covenanted force and the fulfillment of covenant promise. Luther on this name, in his Dis. on Luke 21:25-27, remarks: “But, as He says, it is ‘The Son of Man’ whom they shall see, it is clearly expressed that it is a bodily coming and a bodily seeing, in a bodily form, though it shall be in great power,” etc. Luther is correct, for unless the Son of David comes thus to reign (glorified as to humanity), the covenant cannot be fulfilled, and the Theocracy cannot be established (comp. Props. 121 and 122). A number of interesting features connected as results from the Kingdom being that of “the Son of Man,” must be left for future consideration, such as the decided indication of a personal reign, as the early churches held, the suitableness and grandeur of the view that the Son of Man should in His glorified humanity exhibit His promised sovereignty in the very place where He lived in humiliation, suffered, and died, the elevation of humanity in and through Him, etc Some of the views held on this point present a sad commentary of human infirmity, which thinks to improve covenanted and oath-bound language by spiritualizing it, making it to mean something very different from the expressed grammatical sense.

OBS. 6. “THE SON OF MAN” IS FULLY IDENTIFIED WITH THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DAVIDIC THRONE AND KINGDOM BY COVENANT AND PROMISE. IN VIEW OF THIS, THEREFORE, IT WAS EMINENTLY PROPER FOR JESUS TO EMPLOY THIS PHRASE IN THE MANNER RECORDED. IF THE READER TURNS TO PSL. 80, HE WILL FIND DAVID REFERRING TO THE ELECT JEWISH NATION BROUGHT OUT OF EGYPT, WITH WHOM GOD IS ANGRY SO THAT IT IS OVERTHROWN AND PLACED IN THE HANDS OF THE HEATHEN. IMPLORING THE DIVINE INTERPOSITION AND RECALLING THE COVENANTED PROMISES, HE PRAYS WITH FAITH AND HOPE IN THE FUTURE RESTORATION OF THE NATION: “LET THY HAND BE UPON THE MAN OF THY RIGHT HAND, UPON THE SON OF MAN WHOM THOU MADEST STRONG FOR THYSELF.” To indicate how this idea of “the Son of man” was held by the Jews, we quote the following from the “Parables of Enoch,” c 46:1-2: “And then I saw one who had a head of days (i.e. was old, the Ancient of Days), and His head was white as wool, and with Him was another whose face was like the appearance of a man; full of agreeableness was his face like that of the holy angels. And I asked one of the angels who went with me, who showed me all the secret things concerning the Son of man, who He was, and whence He was, and why He came with that head of days. And he answered and said to me, This is the Son of man who has righteousness, with whom righteousness dwells, and who will reveal all the treasures of secrecy, because the Lord of Spirits (God) has chosen Him…. And this Son of man, whom thou hast seen, will arouse the kings and the mighty from their couches and the powerful from their thrones, and will loosen the bonds of the mighty and break the teeth of sinners.” He is also called “the Chosen One,” the “Just One,” and the “Anointed.” In Enoch 48:3, a pre-existence of the Messiah is asserted, and in Enoch 2:7. it is said: “For previously the Son of man was hidden, and the Most High God preserved Him before His power, and revealed Him to the chosen ones.” As to our application to the Messiah of Psalm 80, compare e.g. Alexander Com. loci, and Acts 5:31.

Obs. 7. Hence at the Second Advent there must be, in order to fulfill the oath-bound covenant made with David (viz.: that one “according to the flesh” must be raised up to sit on the restored Theocratic throne), a real, veritable Son of David. The humanity, glorified as it may be, cannot be ignored; it is an essential factor in the Theocratic ordering. Therefore the coming of “the Christ” is represented as the Coming of “the Son of Man,” i.e. a coming in the very humanity assumed under covenanted relationship.

Various writers (comp. e.g. Alford, Lillie, Braune (Lange’s Com.), Ger. Ver., etc., render 2 John 1:7 “is coming in the flesh,” i.e. is coming in humanity, referring it to the Second Advent, while 1 John 4:2 “hath come in the flesh” is interpreted of the First Advent. However this may be, the coming of humanity in glory is a result of the first coming in humiliation; and the one is just as reasonable and essential as the other. The Divine Plan requires both to effect the grand consummation. Even some of the apocryphal books do not rid themselves of this view. Thus e.g. in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (Second Cent.), the reign is attached to the humanity without discarding the Divine: “The Lord God, the Mighty One of Israel, shall appear upon earth as man.” The book of Enoch also employs the phrase “Son of Man.” Martensen, Oosterzee, and many others have properly insisted upon the fact that the individuality of Christ must be so maintained that “even a glorified individuality, a spiritual body, cannot be conceived of, without limitations,” otherwise “we are in danger of that error, which has so often appeared among mystics and Theosophists, which loses sight of a personal Christ in the general life of the Godhead; of the Christ of grace and salvation, in a pantheistic Christ of nature” (so Martensen). But if we were to assign a firm reason for such a view, it is found in the simple fact that covenant and prophecy, indicative of God’s purpose, in their still future fulfillment imperatively demand it.

Obs. 8. The critical reader will not fail to notice that the Incarnation is a covenanted necessity, and that it forms a fundamental part of our system of faith; for without it the fulfillment of covenant promises would be impossible. This doctrine, therefore, enforces the view of Dr. Dorner and others, of the necessity of the Incarnation, even apart from the fall. This we derive from the Theocratic ordering, by which the purest and firmest rule, theocratically, can be inaugurated and permanently secured. Again: while many systems make the Incarnation a central point in Theology, they either apply it mystically (as e.g. a present assimilating of the man into the Divine, as the Divine took upon itself man’s nature and transformed it, etc.), or else they virtually end its career as a still working factor in the Plan of Redemption from the death on the cross, or have it so overshadowed and absorbed by Deity that in the future it presents no special prominence as a leading characteristic of the Kingdom. Firmly holding to the covenant, and the promises based thereupon, many views, extensively prevailing and imbedded in the faith of multitudes, must be discarded as both derogatory to “the Christ” in His future manifestation as “the Son of Man,” and to the oath-confirmed covenant of God that positively requires this revelation of the Humanity of the King. It is not only Schwenkfeld (Kurtz’s Ch. His., vol. 2, p. 155) that has the “human nature absorbed by the divine,” but many have the same in a kind of pious mystical Pantheism, by which they think to exalt the Divine at the expense of the human, urged to it by the old, old gnostic feeling respecting matter. The Incarnation, so necessary and exceedingly precious, introduces us to the personality of “the Christ,” as promised; it is provisional for the contemplated end. On the other hand, the “Turneyites” (The Ch. Lamp) hold that Jesus is not a true descendant of David’s, not truly of his lineage, being “of the seed of David” but not “the seed of David,” hence not truly David’s son, but only David’s Lord. Now this is flatly opposed to the Davidic covenant, for he was not merely a man, separate and distinct, but he was to proceed from the loins of David, according to the flesh (supernaturally as Isaac), and hence is constantly and invariably recognized as David’s Son. Again, Fiske (The Christ of Dogma, p. 125 of the Unseen World), without a particle of proof, and over against express usage (John 1:51; John 3:13; John 4:27; John 13:31, etc.), asserts, that in the Gospel of John, “the title Son of Man has lost its original significance, and becomes synonymous with ‘Son of God.’” He makes a number of similar unfounded remarks, indicative of a desire to find flaws when they do not exist. Unbelief parades, with evident relish, the ideas of incarnation as presented in some mythologies, in order, if possible, to weaken the Christian idea, but we accept of the same as expressing a need and longing of humanity, viz.: that God should manifest Himself to man in a form indicative of union and accessibility. Neander (Life of Christ, 2: 12) makes some remarks in this direction, showing that these “cravings of the spirit” express the “wish, even though unconscious, to secure that union with God which alone can renew human nature, and which Christianity shows us is a living reality” (com. Dorner on the Person of Christ). The Ch. Incarnation is not an isolated fact, but results from a regular, revealed Divine Plan, as will hereafter be shown.