In the second place, it is a question of the speeches of the demoniacs. According to Mk 3:11 the unclean spirits, as often as they saw him, threw themselves at his feet and addressed him as the Son of God (cf. also Mk 1:24, Mk 5:7). It is true, he rebuked this cry and commanded silence. But if we did not have the incontestably sure information that during the whole of his Galilean ministry the people knew no more than that he was a prophet or Elijah, we should be forced to assume that these cries of the demoniacs made the people somehow aware of his true character. As it is, however, we may discern with precision, from the fact that the demon-cries were ignored, how very far men were from suspecting him to be the Messiah. [pg 130] Who believed the devil and the wild speech of the possessed? In the third place, it is a question of the expression “Son of Man.” If Jesus used it as a self-designation before Cæsarea Philippi, that would constitute in each case a messianic suggestion, for every one must refer this expression of the book of Daniel to the person who was to characterise the last time. According to Mark, Jesus twice employed this expression as a self-designation _before_ Cæsarea Philippi (Mk 2:10 and 2:28), and it occurs in the same sense in a series of passages peculiar to Matthew (Mt 8:20, 11:19, Mt 12:32, 40, 13:37, 41 and 16:13). In judging these passages also one must proceed from the sure ground which is furnished by the reply of the Disciples at Cæsarea Philippi. Either Jesus had not used this expression up to that time, in which case these Son of Man passages are chronologically anticipated, and constitute a mere literary phenomena. Or else he had used the expression. Then he must have done so in such a way that no man could suppose that he assumed for himself the dignity of the Son of Man of Daniel. The problem in the second period is still harder. The Disciples knew his secret, but they dared reveal it to no one. But how [pg 131] about the people? Did they now have a presentiment of the messianic dignity of Jesus? The problem has to do therefore with three facts: 1. The whole discussion in the Jerusalem days turns in no wise upon the messianic dignity of Jesus, but has to do rather with legal propositions and with questions of the day. Far too little weight has been attached hitherto to the fact that neither the people nor the scribes took up a position towards him as the messianic personality. How different the Jerusalem days would have been if the question which agitated them was: Is he the Messiah—is he not? can he be—can he not? In reality he is merely the unofficial authority of the Galilean people, before whom the scholars of the capital bring their questions of the school, whether with a sincere mind, or with the perfidious intention of destroying his authority.