These are the passages one must take as the point of departure in order to understand the significance of this expression in Jesus’ mouth. Jesus and the Son of Man are different persons for such as do not know his secret. They, however, to whom he has revealed his secret are aware of a personal connection between the two. Jesus it is who at the messianic day shall appear as the Son of Man. The revelation at Cæsarea Philippi consists in this, that Jesus reveals to his Disciples in what personal relationship he stands to the coming Son of Man. As the one who is to be the Son of Man he can confirm Peter’s confession of him as the Messiah. His reply to the High Priest is affirmative in the same sense. He is the Messiah—that they will see when he appears as the Son of Man upon the clouds of heaven. “Son of Man” is accordingly the adequate expression of his messiahship, so long as he, in this earthly æon as Jesus of Nazareth, has occasion to refer to his future dignity. Hence when he speaks to the Disciples about himself as the Son of Man he assumes this [pg 193] duality of consciousness. “The Son of Man must suffer and will then rise from the dead:” that is to say, “As the one who is to be Son of Man at the resurrection of the dead I must suffer.” To the same effect we must understand the word about serving: As the one who in the character of the Son of Man is destined to the highest rule I must now humble myself to the lowliest service (Mk 10:45). Therefore he says when they come to arrest him: The hour is come in the which he who is to be the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinners (Mk 14:21, 41). The problem about the Son of Man is herewith elucidated. It was not an expression which Jesus commonly used to describe himself, but a solemn title which he adopted when in the great moments of his life he spoke about himself to the initiated as the future Messiah, while before the others he spoke of the Son of Man as a personality distinct from himself. In all cases, however, the context shows that he is speaking of one who is yet to come, for in all these passages mention is made either of the Resurrection or of the appearing upon the clouds of heaven. The philological objections do not therefore apply here. Initiated and uninitiated must understand from the situation that he is speaking [pg 194] of a definite personality of the future,—and not of man in general, even though the expression in both cases would be the same. The case is entirely different with another set of passages where the expression occurs arbitrarily as a pure self-designation, a roundabout way of saying “I.” Here all critical and philological objections are thoroughly in place.