Jesus “Art thou the Messiah the son of the Blessed?” (Mark xiv. 61), and that the crowd about the cross flung their taunts at him (Matt, xxvii. 43), and the demoniacs proclaimed their knowledge of him (Mark iii. 11; v. 7).  The name must be interpreted in this sense also in the confession of Nathanael (John i. 49); moreover, it was not the coupling of the names “Messiah” and “son of the living God” in Peter’s confession that gave it its great significance for Jesus.  In all of these cases there is no evidence that there has been any advance over the theocratic significance which made the title “the Son of God” fitting for the man chosen by God for the fulfilment of his promises.

268.  The case is different with the name by which Jesus was called at his baptism (Mark i. 11).  The difference here, however, arises not from anything in the name as used on this occasion, but from that in Jesus which acknowledged and accepted the title.  With Jesus the consciousness that God was his Father preceded the knowledge that as “his Son” he was to undertake the work of the Messiah.  The force of the call at the baptism is found in the response which his own soul gave to the word “Thou art my Son.”  The nature of that response is seen in his habitual reference to God as in a peculiar sense his Father.  The name “Father” for God was used by him in all his teaching, and there is no evidence that he or any of his hearers regarded it as a novelty.  Psalm ciii. 13 and Isaiah lxiii. 16 indicate that the conception was natural to Jewish thinking.  The unique feature in Jesus’ usage is his careful distinction between the general references to “your Father” and his constant personal allusions to “my Father.”  Witness the reply to his mother in the temple (Luke ii. 49); his word to Peter, “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. xvi. 17), his solemn warning, “Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. vii. 21), and the promise, “Every one who shall confess me before men ... him will I also confess before my Father” (Matt. x. 32).  In the fourth gospel the same intimate reference is common:  so, for example, the temple is “my Father’s house” (ii. 16), the Sabbath cure is defended because “my Father worketh even until now” (v. 17), the cures are done “in My Father’s name” (x. 25), “I am the vine, and my Father is the husbandman” (xv. 1).  This mode of expression discloses a consciousness of unique filial relation to God which is independent of, even as it was antecedent to, the consciousness of official relation.