the Son willeth to reveal him” (Luke x. 22; Matt. xi. 27); and his confession of the limits of his own knowledge:  “But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” (Mark xiii. 32).  The confession of ignorance, by the position given to the Son in the climax which denied that any save the Father had a knowledge of the time of the end, is quite as extraordinary as the claim to sole qualification to reveal the Father.

257.  The similarity of these last two sayings to the discourses in the fourth gospel has often been remarked; the likeness is particularly close between them and the claims of Jesus recorded in the fifth chapter of John.  It is interesting to note that in the incident which introduces the discourse in that chapter Jesus shows that he preferred, after healing the man at the pool, to avoid the attention of the multitudes, precisely as in Galilee he sought to check too great popular excitement by withdrawing from Capernaum after his first ministry there (Mark i. 35-39), and enjoining silence on the leper who had been healed by him (Mark ii. 44).  When, however, he found himself opposed by the criticism of the Pharisees he spoke with unhesitating self-assertion and exalted personal claim, even as he did in like situations in Galilee.  During his earlier ministry in Judea he had not shown this reserve.  The cleansing of the temple, although it was no more than any prophet sure of his divine commission would have done, was a bold challenge to the people to consider who he was who ventured thus to criticise the priestly administration of God’s house.  In his subsequent dealings with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman Jesus manifested a like readiness to draw attention to himself.  From the time of the feeding of the multitudes all four of the gospels represent him as asserting his claims, with this difference, however, that in John it is the rule rather than the exception to find sayings similar to the two in which the self-assertion in the other gospels reaches its highest expression.  Although the method of Jesus varied at different times and in different localities, yet it is evident that he stood before the people from the first with the consciousness that he had the right to claim their allegiance as no one of the prophets who preceded him would have been bold to do.

258.  During the course of his ministry Jesus used of himself, or suffered others to use with reference to him, many of the titles by which his people were accustomed to refer to the Messiah.  Thus he was named “the Messiah” (Mark viii. 29; xiv. 61; John iv. 26); “the King of the Jews” (Mark xv. 2; John i. 49; xviii. 33, 36, 37); “the Son of David” (Mark x. 47, 48; Matt. xv. 22; xxi. 9, 15); “the Holy One of God” (John vi. 69; compare Mark i. 24); “the Prophet” (John vi. 14; vii. 40).  It is evident that none of these titles was common; they represent, rather, the bold venture of more or less intelligent faith on the part of men who were impressed by him.  There are two names, however, that are more significant of Jesus’ thought about himself,—­“the Son of God” and “the Son of Man.”