Full text of "The Lord of glory; a study of the designations of Our Lord in the New Testament with especial reference to His deity"

tibvwy of Che theological gminavy

PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY
PRESENTED BY

Mrs. John D # Davis

BT 590 .N2 W2 c
Warfield, Benjamin

Breckinridge, 1851-1921
The Lord of glory

V 1

-,»>

fry (^

THE LORD OF GLORY

The Lord of Glor

A STUDY OF

JAN 1 192

THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD IN
THE NEW TESTAMENT WITH
ESPECIAL REFERENCE
TO HIS DEITY

BENJAMIN B. ^WARFIELD

Professor in Princeton Theological Seminary

1907

AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY

150 Nassau Street New York

William Park Armstrong, Jr.

Caspar Wistar Hodge, Jr.

MASH TAIN • lYNEPrOIN • AIAAIKAAOIN

ZTNAOTAOIN OMOWYXOIN

XAPIN EXQN.

Plurima quasivi, per singula qua que cucurri,
Sed nihil inveni melius quam credere Christo.

— Paulinus of Nola.

CONTENTS

PAGE

Introductory . . . . . i

Pervasive Witness of the N. T. to Christ, I —
Scope of this Discussion, 2 — Designations of our
Lord in the Synoptic Gospels, 3 — Starting Point
of the Survey, 4.

The Designations of our Lord in Mark . 5

Narrative Designation, 5 — Popular Designation,
6 — Formulas of Address, 6 — Significance of
1 Teacher ', 8 — Significance of ' Lord ', 9 — Mes-
sianic Designations, 12 — ' Jesus Christ ', 14 —
'The Christ', 15 — Anarthrous 'Christ', 16 —
Royal Titles, 17 — ' Son of God ', 19 — ' The Son ',
21 — Our Lord's Own Testimony to His Messiah-
ship, 23 — •' Son of Man ', 25 — Usage of ' Son of
Man ', 28— Meaning of ' Son of Man ', 29.

Mark's Conception of our Lord . . 32

A Divine Intervention in Christ, 32 — Christ's Life
Thoroughly Supernatural, 33 — Jesus the Messiah,
34 — Jesus' Person Enhances His Designations,
36 — Jesus a Superangelic Person, 36 — Jesus of
Heavenly Origin, 38 — Jesus' Earthly Life a
Mission, 39 — Jesus' Functions Divine, 41 — The
Uniqueness of Jesus' Sonship, 42 — Jesus As-
similated to Jehovah, 45 — Jesus Identified with
Jehovah, 47 — Mark's Method, 50 — Mark's Silence,
51 — Mark's Conception of the Messiahship, 53.

The Designations of our Lord in Matthew 57

The Narrative Name, and Exceptions, 57 —
1 Christ ' as a Proper Name, 59 — Why so Seldom
Used, 62 — Jesus' Popular Name, 63 — Early Use
vii

via Contents

PAGE

of ' Christ ' as a Proper Name, 64 — Simple Hon-
orific Addresses, 66 — ' Master of the House ' 68 —
1 Lord ' as an Address, 69 — ' Lord ' as an Appel-
lation, 72 — Messianic Titles, 73 — Our Lord's
Own Messianic Claims, 74 — The Simple Messi-
anic Designations, 76 — Meaning of 'the Son of
God ', 78 — Culminating Assertions, 81 — Less Com-
mon Messianic Titles, 83 — ' The Son of Man ', 84
—The High Meaning of ' Son of Man ', 87.

Matthew's Conception of our Lord . 89

Profundity of Matthew's Suggestiveness, 89 — Rich-
ness of His Implications, 91 — Assimilation of Jesus
with God, 92 — Identification of Jesus with God,
93 — Participation of Jesus in the Name, 94.

The Designations of our Lord in Luke

and their Implications ... 97

The Narrative Designations, 97 — Ordinary Forms
of Address, 99 — ' Master ', 100 — ' Lord ' as an
Address, 101 — ' Lord ' as an Appellative, 102 —
Significance of ' Lord ', 104 — The ' Prophet ',
io 6— ' Saviour ', 107—* The Lord's Christ ',109—
'The King', 112— God's Elect', 113— 'God's
Holy One', 113— Meaning of 'Holy', 115—
' The Son ', 117—' The Son of Man ', 119— Jesus'
Mission, 122 — The ' Bridegroom ', 123.

The Jesus of the Sy.noptists . . .125

Variety of Titles Used, 125 — Extent of Jewish
Use, 126 — Old Testament Foundation, 127 —
Jesus' Messianic Claims, 128 — Divergence from
Current Expectations, 129 — Transfigured Con-
ception of Messiah, 131 — Highest Designations,
I33 — Meaning of ' Son of Man ', 135 — Meaning
of 'Son of God', 137— Meaning of 'Lord',
140 — Synoptical Christ Divine, 145.

Contents ix

PAGE

The Jesus of the Synoptists the Primitive

Jesus ...... 146

Significance of Synoptical Testimony, 146 — Date
of the Synoptics, 146 — Earlier Documentary Basis,
147 — The Sources of the Synoptics, 148 — Chris-
tology of the Primitive Mark, 149 — Other Possible
Elements in the Primitive Mark, 152 — Christology
of the ' Primitive Sayings', 153 — Resort to ' His-
torical Criticism', 155 — The Reportorial Element
in the Gospels, 156 — Trustworthiness of the Evan-
gelical Report, 157 — Faith the Foe of Fact, 158—
Primary Canon of Criticism, 159 — Futility of This
Canon, 162 — Can We Save Any Jesus at all?
163 — Jesus Certainly Claimed to be Messiah and
* Son of Man ', 166 — Jesus Certainly Claimed to
be Superangelic, 168— And God, 169— The
Synoptic Jesus the Real Jesus, 171.

The Designations of our Lord in John and

their Significance . . . 174

Same Christology in Synoptics and John, 174 —
Differences in Method, 175 — The Prologue of
John, 177 — Jesus' Narrative Name in John, 179 —
Jesus' Popular Designations, 180 — Formulas of
Address, 180 — ' Lord ', 181 — Jesus the ' Christ \
182 — Jesus' Own Use of ' Jesus Christ \ 184 —
Jesus' Relation to God, 186— 'King', 189—
Accumulation of Titles, 189 — Jesus' Mission,
190 — The ' Lamb of God ', 192 — Figurative Des-
ignations, 193 — ' Son of Man ', 194 — ' Son of
God ', 195 — ' Son ', 196 — Eternal Sonship, 198 —
' God ', 199—' God ', no New Title, 200.

The Designations of our Lord in Acts and

their Significance .... 202

Value of Acts' Testimony, 202 — ' Jesus ' in Acts,
203 — ' Jesus of Nazareth ', 204 — ' Jesus Christ ',
205 — ' Christ Jesus ', 205 — ' The Lord Jesus ',
206 — ' Lord ', 207 — ' Lord ' as Narrative Name,

x Contents

PAGE

209 — ' Son of Man ', 212 — ' Son of God ', 213 —
Prevalence of ' Christ ', 214 — Accumulation of
Titles, 216— 'The Name', 218.

The Corroboration of the Epistles of

Paul ...... 220

Relative Early Date of Paul's Letters, 220 — The
Value of their Testimony, 221 — Constant Use of
1 Lord ', 222 — Ground of Jesus' Lordship, 223 —
' Lord ' a Proper Name of Jesus, 226 — Jesus Em-
braced in the One Godhead, 228 — Trinitarian
Background, 229 — ' Lord ' the Trinitarian Name
of Jesus, 231 — Appearance of Subordination, 232 —
Its Impossibility with Paul, 234 — Implication of
Term ' Lord ', 236 — Subordination is Humilia-
tion, 237 — Designations Compounded with ' Lord ',
238 — •' Christ ' Paul's Favorite Designation, 241 —
' Christ Jesus ', 242 — Jesus the ' Saviour ', 244 —
' The Great God ', 245—' The Beloved ', 245—
Jesus the ' Man ', 247 — But not Merely Man,
248 — The Two Sides of Christ's Being, 249 — ' Son
of God', 251 — God 'the Father', 252 — Christ
All that God Is, 254 — Paul's Jesus the Primitive
Jesus, 255 — Inaccessibility to Critical Doubts,
258 — No Substantial Development, 260.

The Witness of the Catholic Epistles . 262

Catholic Epistles Corroborative, 262 — James' and
Jude's Christology High, 263 — Christ ' the Glory ',
264 — Christ ' the Despot ', 266 — Christology of 1
Peter, 266 — 2 Peter and the Deity of Our Lord,
268 — John's Epistles and ' the Son of God ', 270 —
Jesus the ' True God ', 272 — How Our Lord's
Companions Thought of Him, 274.

The Witness of the Epistle to the He-
brews ...... 276

Prevalence of ' Christ \ 276 — Recognition of Jesus'
Humanity, 277 — What ' the Son ' is, 278 — His
Deity, 280 — Soteriological Titles, 282 — Christ our
Priest, 284.

Contents xi

PAGE

The Witness of the Apocalypse r . . 286

A Summary View of Early Conceptions, 286 —
Two Classes of Designations, 287 — Simple Des-
ignations, 287 — Descriptive Designations, 290 —
* The Lamb ', 290 — Accumulative Designations,
292 — The Deity of Our Lord, 294 — Trinitarian
Background, 296.

The Issue of the Investigation . .298

Fundamental Conviction of the Christian Commu-
nity, 298 — This Conviction Presupposes our Lord's
Teaching, 299 — And Something More than His
Teaching, 300 — Including Something Very Con-
clusive, 301 — Not Supposable that Jesus Made
False Claims, 302 — The Issue the Sufficient Evi-
dence of the Source, 303.

Indexes .......

Index of the Designations of Our Lord, 307 — Index
of the Passages of Scripture Cited, 312 — Index of
Names Cited, 330.

305

This man so cured regards the curer, then,

As — God forgive me! — who but Go$ Himself,

Creator and sustainer of the world,

That came and dwelt on it awhile! ....

And must have so avouched himself in fact,

The very God! think Ahih; dost thou think?

— Robert Browning.

THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD

IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

They . . . crucified the Lord of Glory.
— I Corinthians ii. 8,

Who is this King of Glory?
The LORD of hosts,
He is the King of Glory.

— Psalm xxiv. 10.

THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD

The proper subject of the New Testament is Christ.
Every page of it, or perhaps we might better say

Pervasive every line of it, has its place in the por-
Witness of N. T. trait which is drawn of Him by the

to Christ whole. In forming an estimate of the
conception of His person entertained by its writers,
and by those represented by them, we cannot neglect
any part of its contents. We can scarcely avoid dis-
tinguishing in it, to be sure, between what we may
call the primary and the subsidiary evidence it bears
to the nature of His personality, or at least the more
direct and the more incidental evidence. It may very
well be, however, that what we call the subsidiary or
incidental evidence may be quite as convincing, if not
quite as important, as the primary and direct evidence.
The late Dr. R. W. Dale found the most impressive
proofs that the Apostles themselves and the primitive
Churches believed that Jesus was one with God, rather
in the way this seems everywhere taken for granted,
than in the texts in which it is definitely asserted. " Such
texts," he remarks, " are but like the sparkling crys-
tals which appear on the sand after the tide has re-
treated; these are not the strongest — though they may
be the most apparent — proofs that the sea is salt:
the salt is present in solution in every bucket of sea-
water. And so," he applies his parable, " the truth
of our Lord's divinity is present in solution in whole

2 The Designations of Our Lord

pages of the Epistles, from which not a single text
could be quoted that explicitly declares it." 1

We need offer no apology, therefore, for inviting

somewhat extended attention to one of the subsidiary

Scope lines of evidence of the estimate put

of this upon our Lord's person by the writers

Discussion f fa ]sj ew Testament and by our Lord
as reported by them. We certainly shall not, by so
doing, obtain anything like a complete view of the
New Testament's evidence for the dignity of His
person. But it may very well be that we shall obtain
a convincing body of evidence for it. What we pur-
pose to do is to attend with some closeness to the
designations which the New Testament writers apply
to our Lord as they currently speak of Him. These
designations will be passed rapidly under our eye with
a twofold end in view. On the one hand we shall
hope, generally, to acquire a vivid sense of the atti-
tude, intellectual and emotional, sustained by the sev-
eral writers of the New Testament, and by the New
Testament as a whole, to our Lord's person. On the
other, we shall hope, particularly, to reach a clearer
notion of the loftiness of the estimate placed upon His
person by these writers, and by those whom they rep-
resent. We are entering, then, in part upon an exposi-
tion, in part upon an argument. We wish to learn,
so far as the designations applied to our Lord in the
New Testament are fitted to reveal that to us, how
the writers of the New Testament were accustomed
to think of Jesus; we wish to show that they thought
of Him above everything else as a Divine Person. For
the former purpose we desire to pass in review the
whole body of designations employed in the New Tes-

1 Christian Doctrine, 1895, p. 87.

Introductory 3

tament of our Lord; for the latter purpose, in pass-
ing this material in review, we desire to order it in
such a manner as to bring into clear relief its testimony
to the profound conviction cherished by our Lord's
first followers that He was of divine origin and na-
ture. In prosecuting our exposition we shall seek to
run cursorily through the entire New Testament; in
framing our argument we shall lay primary stress on
the Gospels, or rather on the Synoptic Gospels, and
adduce the remaining books chiefly as corroborative
and elucidative testimony to what we shall find in
the evangelical narratives. Thus we hope to take at
once a wide or even a complete view of the whole field,
and to throw into prominence the unitary presupposi-
tion by the entire New Testament of the deity of our
Lord.

We turn, then, first to the Gospels, and in the first
instance to the Synoptic Gospels. We observe at once
Designations tnat ' on a V r ' lma f ac ' ie view, the designa-
of Our Lord tions they apply to our Lord fall into
in the three general classes. They seem to be
Synoptic Gospels either pm^ly^e^natory, generally hon-
orific, or specifically Messianic. Of all purely designa-
tory designations, the personal name is the most natural
and direct. We can feel no surprise, therefore, to learn
that our Lord is spoken of in the Gospels most com-
monly by the simple name of ' Jesus.' Nor shall we
feel surprise to learn that the simplest honorific titles
are represented as those most frequently employed in
addressing Him, — ' Rabbi/ with its Greek renderings,
* Teacher ' and ' Master,' and its Greek representative,
4 Lord.' No Messianic title again is more often met
with in the narrative of the Gospels than the simple

4 The Designations of Our Lord

1 Christ,' although on our Lord's lips ' the Son of
Man ' is constant. The general effect of the narrative
on the reader, who passes rapidly through it, noting
particularly the designations employed of our Lord,
is a strong impression that (He is thought of by the
y writers, and is represented by them as thought of by His
^contemporary followers and by Himself, as a person
of high dignity and unquestionable authority; and that
this dignity and authority were rooted, both in their
and in His estimation, in His Messianic character. If
we are to take the designations employed in the Gos-
pel narratives as our guide, therefore, we should say
that the fundamental general fact which they suggest
is that Jesus was esteemed by His first followers as
the promised Messiah, and was looked upon with
reverence and accorded supreme authority as such.
Whether this impression is fully justified by the evi-
dence when it is narrowly scrutinized; and if so what
the complete significance of the fact so established is;
and whether more than appears upon the surface of
it is really contained in the fact — these are matters
which must be left to a closer examination of the de-
tails to determine.

In undertaking such a closer examination of the
details, it will conduce not only to clearness of treat-
Starting ment, but also to surety of result, to
Point of the take up the several Gospels separately.
Survey ^nd p erna ps it may be as well to begin
with the Gospel of Mark. It is the briefest and in
some respects the simplest and most direct narrative
we have of the career of our Lord. It may be sup-
posed, therefore, to present to us the elements of our
problem in their least complicated shape.

THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD IN

MARK

In Mark what we may call the narrative designation

of our Lord is uniformly the simple ' Jesus.' 1 Mark

. employs no other designation in his

Designation entire narrative. 2 On the other hand,
he places this designation^ in its sim-
plicity, in the mouth of no one else. 3 In the heading
of his Gospel he sets, it is true, that " solemn designa-
tion of the Messianic personality," ' Jesus Christ.'
This is a designation not only which occurs nowhere
else in this Gospel, 4 but which occurs elsewhere in the
four Gospels only rarely and only in similar formal
connections. It seems already, here at least, to be

1 It occurs seventy-three times in Mark. In all these instances it
has the article, except the first (i 9 ), where the article is absent in
accordance with the general rule that names of persons occur first
without the article, and after that take it.

2 In i 1 "Jesus Christ" occurs, but this is not in the narrative but ia
the heading of the book. "Jesus the Nazarene," io 47 , is not the lan-
guage of Mark but of the people, repeated by him. "Lord Jesus,"
16 19 , "Lord," 16 20 , are in the spurious closing paragraph.

3 Unless the order in which the words stand in io 47 , " Thou Son of
David, Jesus," and in 14 67 , "That Nazarene, Jesus," be thought to
constitute an exception. The designation, 'Jesus,' occurs on the lips
of others in such combinations as: i 24 , "Jesus, thou Nazarene"; 5 7 ,
"Jesus, Son of the Most High God"; io 47 , "Jesus, the Son of David";
and also again, "Jesus, the Nazarene"; 14 67 , "Jesus, the Nazarene";
16 6 , "Jesus, the Nazarene."

4 Cf. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, p. 37.

6 The Designations of Our Lord

employed as a proper name. 5 But in the narrative
itself, as we have intimated, Mark uses only the simple
' Jesus,' which nevertheless he never represents as
used by others either in speaking of or in speaking to
Jesus.

The name by which Jesus was popularly known to
His contemporaries, according to Mark, was appar-
ently the fuller descriptive one of ' Jesus

dS- of Naza - th ' < 1047 l66 **")/ °"

one occasion He is represented as ad-
dressed by this full name (i 24 ), and on two others
by the name ' Jesus/ enlarged by a Messianic title
('Jesus, Son of the Most High God' 5 7 , 'Jesus, Son
of David' io 47 ). The inference would seem to be
that ' Jesus ' was too common a name 7 to be sufficiently
designatory until our Lord's person had loomed so
large, at least in the circles to which the Gospels were
addressed, as to put all other Jesuses out of mind when
this name was mentioned. The employment of the
simple ' Jesus ' as the narrative name in this Gospel
is, therefore, an outgrowth of, and a testimony to,
the supreme position He occupied in the minds of
Christians.

The formula by which Jesus is represented by Mark
as ordinarily addressed is apparently the simple hon-
orific title, 'Rabbi,' by which in that

F Add Ula ° f age ( Mt 2 3 7 ) every P r °f essed teacner
was courteously greeted. 8 The actual

5 So, e.g., Meyer, Holtzmann, Wellhausen.

6 On the form NaXapyvos see Swete, on Mark i 24 .

7 See Delitzsch, Der Jesusname in " Zeitschr. f. d. luth. Theol.," 1876,
zoyseq., or Talmud. Stud., xv.; and cf. Keira, Geschichte Jesu, 1, 384
seq.

8 Cf. Westcott, on John 3 2 .

The Designations in Mark 7

Aramaic form * Rabbi ' occurs, however, but seldom
in his narrative, and only on the lips of Jesus' disciples
(9 5 ii 21 ; 14 45 , Judas in betraying Him) ; although the
parallel form ' Rabboni ' occurs once on the lips of
a petitioner for healing (io 51 ). In its place stands
customarily its simplest and most usual Greek ren-
dering, * Teacher ' (deddexate) * The general synon-
omy of the forms of address, ' Teacher/ * Master/
'Lord' (deddaxaAe, iruazdra^ xvpee) , as all alike
Greek representatives of ' Rabbi,' is fully established
by a comparison of the parallel passages in the
Synoptics, as well as by such denning passages as Jno
i 38 20 16 . 10

What is to be noted here is that in his re-
port of the forms of address employed by those con-
versing with Jesus, Mark confines himself among
Greek formulas to 'Teacher' (deddexaXe) as his
standing representation of ' Rabbi.' The use of
' Lord ' ( xupee ) in 7 28 is not strictly an exception to
this, since the speaker on that occasion was a heathen,
and ' Lord ' (xupts) may be best viewed as indica-
tive of this fact. It is the common Greek honorific
address, equivalent in significance to the Jewish
4 Rabbi ' or ' Teacher.' 11

The address c Teacher ' 12 is used by Mark broadly,
and is put upon the lips both of our Lord's disciples

9 See esp. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, xiv., E. T., pp. 331.^.

10 Cf. Swete, on Mark 4 s8 ; Dalman, 327, 336.

11 Cf. Wellhausen, in he: "The address xupts Is found in Mark
only in this passage, in the mouth of a heathen ■woman." Swete goes
astray here in paraphrasing, " True, Rabbi," — " Rabbi " is out of
place.

12 The rendering of o<.dd(Txalo$ (after the Vulgate, M agister)
by "Master" is, as Westcott remarks (on John 3 2 ), "apt to suggest

8 The Designations of Our Lord

in their ordinary colloquy (4 s8 9 s8 io 35 13 1 ), obviously
as their customary form of addressing

ol^Teacher' HIm; and ° f ° therS wh ° a PP roached
Him for every variety of reason (5 s5 9 17

io 17 ' 20 12 14 * 19 ' 32 ). There does not necessarily lie in this
mode of address, therefore, anything more than a
general polite recognition of our Lord's claim to be a
teacher and leader of men, although of course this
recognition may rise on occasion above mere courtesy
and become the expression of real reverence and de-
pendence and a recognition of His authority and sov-
ereignty. When something like this was insincerely
or frivolously expressed, our Lord was offended by it,
as in the case of the rich young ruler who addressed
Him flatteringly as 'Good Teacher' (io 17 ). 13 But
when the expression was sincere it was received by
Jesus in good part and the recognition of His authority
involved in it welcomed and responded to, even when
the authority suggested far exceeded that of an ordi-
nary Rabbi and involved at least Messianic claims
(io 35 9 38 4 38 ). Not only does He accept this designa-
tion; He even adopts it, instructing His disciples to
speak of Him to others as 'the Teacher' (14 14 ), —
and there is involved perhaps in this adoption of the
title all that is expressed in the declarations of Mt
23 1 " 12 . Although not necessarily recognized as all that
He was by every one who approached Him saying
* Teacher,' yet under this designation He certainly is

false associations." Yet the implication of authority is present in it;
and that might be missed in rendering it ' Teacher ' ; cf . Schoettgen,
Hor. Hebr. on Mt io 40 , Jno 15 14 , Gal 4 19 .

13 Dalman, p. 337: "This address was at variance with actual usage,
and moreover in the mouth of the speaker, it was mere insolent flat-
tery." Cf. Swete in loc: but see also Alexander and Weiss-Meyer.

The Designations in Mark 9

recognized as claiming and certainly does claim an
authority above that of those who shared the title of
4 Teacher' with Him (i 22 ' 27 etc.).

Similarly we are not quite at the end of the matter

when we say that the heathen woman in addressing

Him as 'Lord' (7 28 ) only makes use

Significance Q £ ^ common Greek honorific address.
When one comes to a religious teacher
petitioning so great a benefit, the honorific title which
is employed is apt to be charged with a far richer
meaning than mere courtesy or respect. And Jesus
received it in this case at its full value; in a sense
bearing some relation to His own appellative use of
the same term, ' Lord ' ( xupeos ) , when He declared
Himself ' Lord of the Sabbath ' and ' David's Lord '
as well as his ' Son ' (2 28 12 36 ' 37 ) . It is in this appella -
tive^ use of the term ' Lord ' by Jesus indeed that we may
discover the deepest significance of the application of
that title to Him (i 3 2 28 n 3 12 36 ' 37 [12 9 13 35 ]). It
is no doubt sometimes very difficult to determine
whether in a given instance it refers to God or to Jesus 14 ,
a fact which has its significance. But the certain cases
will themselves carry us very far. When, for example,
Jesus is quoted as declaring that " the Son of Man is
Lord even of the Sabbath " (or, perhaps, " of the Sab-
bath, too"), the implication is that He is Lord of
much more than the Sabbath, and that this His Lord-
ship is an appanage of His Messianic dignity. 15 And

14 This matter is carefully investigated by Sven Herner, Die An-
wendung des Wortes xbpios im N. T., 1903, pp. 7-9, with the result
that he assigns i 3 2 28 7 28 n 3 I2 36 > 37 , and also possibly but not prob-
ably 5 19 , to Jesus.

15 So Weiss-Meyer : " The conclusion rests ... on the vocation
of the Son of Man, as bringing the highest blessing to man, to control

io The Designations of Our Lord

when He is represented as arguing with the scribes
over the significance of the title ' Son of David '
(i2 36 ' 37 ), it cannot be doubted that He had Himself
as the Messiah in mind; and, whatever else His words
suggest, they certainly intimate that He held Himself
as the Messiah to be greater than David as truly as
-c He was greater than Solomon (Mt 12 42 ) ; that, in
a word, David (as that prophetic monarch himself
recognized) was no more His father by virtue of His
descent from him, than he was His servant by virtue
of his essential relation to Him. 16 He was at the very
least, and was predicted by David himself as, David's
sovereign.

Such being the conception of His lordship which
was in His mind, we must assume it was this lofty
dignity which He claimed for Himself when He
instructed His disciples, whom He sent to bring Him
the ass's colt which was to bear Him into Jerusalem,
to tell those who might dispute their right to it, that
"the Lord hath need of him" (n 3 ); and this is
borne out by the strongly Messianic character of the
whole transaction (verses 9, 10, cf. Mt 21 4 ' 5 , Jno
12 14 ' 15 ). 17 And surely some such implications attend

everything that has been arranged for man's blessedness, and there-
fore also the Sabbath." Wellhausen perceives that the passage as it
stands imports that such authority can be exercised only by the Mes-
siah. Cf. Holtzmann.
-^ 16 Cf . Alexander, in loc: "The person thus described, as the supe-
rior and sovereign of David and his house and of all Israel, could not
possibly be David himself, nor any of his sons and successors except
■^.one who by virtue of his twofold nature was at once his sovereign
' and his son . . ." : also Meyer, in loc, whom, however, Weiss seeks
to correct (cf. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, 249, and N. T. The-
ologie, 1. 243).

17 Wellhausen remarks in loc: " 6 xupio? is purposely meant to
sound mvsterious: Tesus does not elsewhere so designate Himself, nor

The Designations in Mark 1 1

also the semi-parabolic designation of Himself as the
1 Lord of the House ' whose coming is to be watched
for (13 85 ). And at least as much as this is involved
when the evangelist identifies Him with ' the Lord '
whose way was to be made ready for Him by the
ministry of John the Baptist in fulfillment of the
prophetic declarations of Isaiah and Malachi (i 3 );
forme alterations in the language of the declarations
introduced by the evangelist make clear his purpose to
apply these phrases directly to Jesus. 18

It is not necessary to presuppose that ' Rabbi ' un-
derlies this appellative use of ' Lord ' (xopcoq). In
Mark 12 37 (and probably also i 3 ) the underlying term
is Adhonl, and elsewhere it is doubtless Maran, or
l Marana (or Mara' a). 19 In other words the implica-
tions of the term in this application of it are those of
supremacy and sovereignty. Whence it emerges that
Jesus is represented as claiming for Himself (2 28 12 36 ' 37
13 35 II 3 ), and as being recognized within His own
circle as possessing (n 3 ), supreme sovereignty, — a
sovereignty superior to that of the typical king himself

is He so named by His disciples or by the narrator." But this is surely
hypercritical in the presence of 2 28 and i2 3c ' 37 .

18 Cf. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, p. 55: "Instead of aoroo at the
end there stands rod 6soo y/jtajv in the lxx. The change shows that
the evangelist, by the xupio$ of the first member, wished not God but
the Messiah to be understood." See also Sven Herner, Die Aniven-
dung des Wortes xuptoq im N. 7\, p. 7: "Nor can there be any doubt
that the citation, already known from Mt. 3 s — ' Prepare ye the way
of the Lord ' — refers to Christ." Mark has, he tells us, quoted, imme-
diately before, the words found also in Mt u 10 with alterations from
the O. T. text such as show they are intended by him to refer to
Christ: and the connection necessarily demands that these now before
us should also be referred to Christ (cf., p. 4).

19 Cf. Dalman, Words, 328, and cf. 326. It must not be supposed,
however, that 'Rabbi' might not be charged with a high significance
(cf. Dalman, p. 334).

12 The Designations of Our Lord

(12 36 ' 37 ), extending over the divinely ordained reli-
gious enactments of the chosen people (7 28 , cf. 7 1519 ),
and entitling Him to dispose of the possessions (n 3 )
and the very destinies of men (13 85 ). There is here
asserted not only Messianic dignity and authority, but
dignity and authority which transcend those ordinarily
attributed even to the Messiah (12 36 ' 37 ), and are com-
parable only to those of God Himself (i 3 ).

The transition from such a designation of Jesus as
1 Lord ' to the designation of Him as * Messiah/ is

only a passage from the general to the
Messianic part ; cu l an What is noteworthy is,
Designations * \*

therefore, not that specifically Mes-
sianic titles are freely assigned to Jesus in the narrative,
but that no other titles than Messianic ones seem to
be employed of Him. There is indication indeed that
our Lord was recognized as a prophet (6 15 8 28 ) ; in
point of fact, that He recognized Himself as a prophet
(6 4 ). It is clear indeed that He was widely spoken
of as a prophet and that He Himself accepted the
designation as appropriate. 20 But this is little empha-
sized in this Gospel, and would form no exception to
the rule that no designations are suggested for Jesus
except Messianic titles. Neither can we consider the
designations * Bridegroom ' (2 19 ' 19 - 20 ) and 'Shepherd'
(14 27 ), which Jesus seems to have applied incidentally
to Himself, exceptions. In the former of these Jesus,
discoursing of John the Baptist (2 18 ) doubtless with
intentional reference to a saying of his which is re-

20 See Swete's note on 6 4 : " The Lord here assumes the role of the
Prophet, which was generally conceded to Him (6 15 8 28 , Mt 2I 11 ' 46 ,
Lk 24 19 , Jno 4 19 6 14 7 40 9 17 , Acts 3 22 7 37 )." And compare Hastings'
Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, i, art. " Foresight," where the
matter is examined.

The Designations in Mark 13

corded for us only in John (3 29 ), identified Himself
on the one hand with the ' Bridegroom ' of Old Testa-
ment prophecy (cf. Hos 2 19 ), and" "set Himself forth
on the other as the HeacLof- the people of God now to
be_j£athered into the promised kingdom: in other
words, the designation isJMessianic to the core. 21 And
certainly not less is to be said of His identification of
Himself with the mysterious * Shepherd ' of Zech 13 7 ,
who is the fellow of the Lord of Hosts (14 27 || Mt
26 31 ; and cf. 6 34 || Mt 9 36 ; and see Mt 25 s2 , eschato-
logically; and Jno io 2 ). By the side of these it may
also be necessary to recognize as a Messianic designa-
tion, the epithet * Beloved/ which is applied to Him
in the divine commendations of the Son — " Thou art
my Son, the Beloved, in whom I am well pleased,"
"This is my Son, the Beloved" (i 11 Q 7 ). 22 But apart
from these more unusual designations none are applied
to Jesus in the whole course of the narrative by any
of the characters introduced, including Jesus in His
own person, but familiar Messianic titles. These occur
in considerable variety, and include not only the simple
4 Qirist ' with its equivalents, ' the King of Israel ' or
4 of the Jews,' and ' the Son of David,' but also the

21 Cf. Swete, in loc: " So the Lord identifies Himself with the Bride-
groom of O. T. prophecy (Hos. 2 20 , etc.), i.e. God in His covenant
relation to Israel, a metaphor in the N. T. applied to the Christ (Mt
25 1 , Jno 3 18 ' 29 , Eph 5 28 sq, Apoc 19 7 , etc.)." Christ is set forth Mes-
sianically under the name of the Bridegroom in N. T. only in Mk
219,19,20^ Mt 9 15 , Lk 5 34 , Jno 3 29 ; and in the Parable of the Ten Vir-
gins, Mt 25 1 ' 5 ' 6 ' 10 . The thing occurs oftener.

22 Cf. J. Armitage Robinson, in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, 11,
501 (art. "Isaiah, Ascension of," cf. Charles, The Ascension of
Isaiah, I. 4), and St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, 229-247 (Note on
" s The Beloved' as a Messianic title"). Dr. Robinson, however, does
not assert that the title occurs in Mark, though he finds it in the par-
allel passages in the other Synoptics.

14 The Designations of Onr Lord

more significant ones of 'the Holy One of God ' and
' the Son of God,' — varied to ' the Son of the Most
High God,' and ' the Son of the Blessed,' — and Jesus'
own chosen self-designation, ' the Son of Man.'

The evangelist himself nowhere in the course of
his narrative speaks of Jesus by one of these titles. As
we have seen, his narrative name of our Lord is ex-
clusively the simple ' Jesus.' No reader will doubt,
however, that he considered all of them applicable to
Jesus; and he announces his book, in the heading he
has prefixed to it, as intended to recount the origins
of " the Gospel of Jesus Christ " — possibly adding
also the further Messianic designation of " the Son
of God." This compound name ' Jesus Christ '
occurs extremely rarely in the Gospels,
'Jesus Christ* and never except in the most formal
and ceremonious circumstances. 23 It
appears, indeed, to be reserved as an august name,
weighted with the implication of the entire content of
Jesus' claims, and therefore suitable only for setting
at the head of documents designed to exhibit His life
and work, or at the opening of accounts of significant
periods or acts of His career. It is very fairly described
by Holtzmann, therefore, as " the solemn designation
of the Messianic personality." 24 Although in it the

23 It appears only in the headings of Mt (i 1 ) and Mk (i 1 ) and at
the starting point of the narrative of Mt (i 18 ) and the new beginning
made at Mt i6 21 : and similarly in John only at the first mention of
Jesus (i 17 ), which may be accounted the beginning of his narrative,
and at the opening of the great sacerdotal prayer (17 3 ). It begins to
be frequent in Acts (2 s8 3° 4 10 8 12 't 37 J io 3G io 48 n 17 15'- 6 i6 18
20 21 28 31 ) ; and in Paul it is very frequent. The contrary combina-
tion, ' Christ Jesus,' does not occur at all in the Gospels : but appears
occasionally in Acts (3 20 5 42 [17 3 i8 5 > 2S ] 24 24 ) and in Paul very often.

^Hand-Corn., p. 37.

The Designations in Mark 15

term ' Christ ' has ceased to be an appellation and be-
come a portion of a proper name, 25 its use as such bears
all the stronger testimony to the ascription of the Mes-
siahship to Jesus. Other Messiah than He had ceased
to be contemplated as conceivable, and the very ap-
pellation ' Messiah ' had become His distinguishing
name.

Although this compound name occurs nowhere else
in Mark, and the reverse combination, ' Christ Jesus,'
which is also in use in Acts and
'The Christ' Paul, never, the simple 'Christ' ap-
pears in his narrative with sufficient fre-
quency to evince that it was a favorite designation of
the Messiah (8 29 12 35 13 21 I4 G1 I5 32 )> applied as such
to Jesus (8 29 14 61 15 32 ) in order to mark Him out as
the Messiah; and accepted as such by Jesus, who thus
asserts Himself to be the Messiah (8 30 14 62 , cf. 9 41 12 35
13 21 ). Its significance, as the simplest of all Messianic
titles, is well brought out by the synonyms with which
it is coupled. When Peter assigned it to our Lord in
his great confession (8 29 ), our Lord at once takes it
up as the equivalent of His own favorite self-designa-
tion of ' the Son of Man.' 26 When our Lord would in-
struct the scribes with respect to the real dignity of
the Messiah, He asks them how they can speak of the
Christ as 'the Son of David,' when David himself

25 Wellhausen, on Mk i 1 : "But in 'Jesus Christ,' [Christ] has
already become a part of a personal name and has therefore lost the
article,— like Adam, Gen 5 1 ." Holtzmann, as cited: "The nomen pro-
prium 'I-qGous Xpiaros ... in which the personal name Jesus
. . . appears as the fore-name, the official name JpiffTos as the sec-
ond personal name."

26 Cf. also the parallels, Lk 9 20 , "the Christ of God"; Mt 16 16 , "the
Christ, the Son of the living God."

1 6 The Designations of Our Lord

calls Him his ' Lord ' (12 3537 ). When the high-priest
at His trial adjured Him to say whether He was * the
Christ, the Son of the Blessed/ in His assenting reply
He calls Himself the ' Son of Man ' ( 14 62 ' 63 ) . And in
like manner the scoffing Jews mockingly addressed Him
as He hung on the cross as ' the Christ, the King of
Israel' (15 32 ). In all these instances the term is ob-
viously used as an appellation, and has no different
content from the general one common to all the desig-
nations which impute Messiahship. It is the com-
plete synonym of 'the King of Israel' (15 32 ), 'the
Son of David' (12 35 ), ' the Son of the Blessed'
(14 61 ), 'the Son of Man' (8 31 14 62 ). In a word it is
the general title of the Messianic Sovereign, whom
Jesus claims to be in His acceptance of this designation,
and whom He is asserted to be by its application to
Him by His followers.

In the remarkable passage, 9 41 , alone does * Christ '

appear without the article. And therefore it has been

frequently supposed to be employed

^Christ" 8 there not as an a PP ellatl0n but as a
proper name, and therefore again to be

out of place on Jesus' lips and to be accordingly an
intrusion into the text from the later point of view
of His followers. 27 There seems to be no reason, how-
ever, why 'Christ' (XP e(TT ^) even without the ar-
ticle may not be taken appellatively 28 (cf. Lk 23 s5 ) ;

27 Dalman, Words, 305-6, explains the words " that ye are Christ's "
as an intrusion; on the ground that they are an unnecessary explana-
tion of a fiou which is not genuine. Even Swete, in loc, following
Hawkins, Hor. Syn., p. 122, is inclined to see here " a later writer's
hand," and Keil, like Dalman, affirms boldly that " on xpifftoo i<rri
is an explanatory statement adjoined by Mark to iv dv6[iart fiou"

28 It is so understood here e.g. by Fritzsche and Meyer ; and Delitzsch
points out that sometimes ' Messiah ' is used among the Jews them-

The Designations in Mark 17

and in that case, no reason why our Lord may not have
told His followers that no one who should do them a
benefit " in the name that they are the Christ's," i. e.,
on the ground that they are the servants of the Mes-
siah, should lose his appropriate reward. In this view
our Lord would no doubt be once again claiming for
Himself the Messianic dignity; but He would not be
doing it in language inappropriate upon His lips, espe-
cially at a period in His ministry subsequent to the
great confession of Peter at Cassarea Philippi (8 29 ),
after which, we are expressly told (8 31,32 ), Jesus began
to teach both formally and quite openly what and
who He was and what was to befall Him in the prose-
cution of His mission. The thought thus brought out
differs in nothing from that of Mt io 42 and the mode
of expressing the thought is equally appropriate with
that recorded there, on the lips of One who knew Him-
self to be Teacher and Lord only because He was the
Christ. At the same time it must not be too easily
assumed that our Lord could not speak of Himself as

* Christ ' taken even as a proper, or quasi-proper, name,
although we need not dwell upon this at this point. 29

It was because He announced Himself as the

* Christ ' and was widely understood to possess claims

upon that dignity that, when He was
J??^ al arraigned before Pilate, it was precisely

upon His pretensions to be * the King
of the Jews' that He was interrogated (15 2 ' 26 ). On
Jewish lips this title naturally was corrected to 4 the

selves without the article — according to Dalman, however, only in
the Babylonian Talmud {Words, p. 292). Dalman, loc. cit., says that
anarthrous Xpiarot; occurs in the Synoptics only in the phrases ' Jesus
Christ' (Mt i 1 ' 18 , Mk i 1 ), 'Jesus surnamed Christ' (Mt i 16 27 1T » 22 ),
'Lord Christ' (Lk 2 11 ), 'King Christ' (Lk 23 2 ), and here.
29 Cf. below, pp. tfseq.

1 8 The Designations of Our Lord

King of Israel' (15 32 ), which again is identified with
the appellation ' the Christ ' (15 32 ). In this form also
Jesus was far from repelling the Messianic ascription,
but on the contrary expressly allows it (15 2 ). To all
appearance, however, neither ' the Christ,' nor i the
King of Israel,' was more current as a Messianic des-
ignation than the kindred form ' the Son of David '
(12 35 , cf. ii 10 ), 30 though this title appears in Mark's
narrative only once as actually applied to Jesus
(io 47,48 ). The blind man at the gates of Jericho,
hearing that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by, and
wishing to ask a favor at His hands as the expected
King of Israel, knew no better name by which to ad-
dress Him than ' Son of David.' It was the faith
thus expressed which Jesus commended in him when
He responded to his appeal, — thus accepting this Mes-
sianic title also (io 49,51 - 52 , cf. n 10 ). It is quite unten-
able, therefore, to suppose that Jesus wished to repel
this designation 31 in the question He put as He taught
in the temple (12 35 ), "How say the scribes that the
Christ is the son of David," when " David himself "
T (and speaking " in the Holy Spirit") "calls Him
rather Lord? " He does not deny that He is David's

30 Holtzmann, N. T. Theologie, I. 243, speaks of it as " the most pop-
ular and comprehensive of all the Messianic titles," and supposes that
the underlying Jewish feeling of Matthew shows itself in the impor-
tant role which he makes this folk-cry play in his Gospel (Mt 9 27 12" 3

I5 22 20 30 ' 31 2I 9 ' 15 22 42 ' 45 ).

31 So e.g. Wellhausen (as before him Strauss, Schenkel and others):
" Jesus represents it as merely a notion of the scribes that the Messiah
is the son of David, and refutes it by a statement of David's own
which proves the contrary. An incitement to enter upon this question
He had only in case it concerned Himself. He held Himself for the
Messiah, though He was not the son of David," etc. Cf. on the con-
trary the remarks in Dalman, Words, p. 286: also Meyer's good note.

The Designations in Mark 19

son; He asserts that He is David's Lord. It seems,
therefore, not quite exact even to say that He wishes
to suggest that His sonship derives from a higher
source than David: that He is, in a word, the Son of
God rather than of David. 32 But it seems clear that
He desires to intimate that as Lord of David He was
something far more than was conveyed by the accus-
tomed — and so far acceptable 33 — title of ' Son of
David ' : 34 and something of this higher dignity than
mere kingship belonging to Him is doubtless inherent in
this, therefore, higher Messianic title of ' Son of God.'
This higher title, if it is not applied to Jesus by
Mark himself in the heading of his Gospel (i 1 ), is

at least in the course of the narrative
q"»? repeatedly represented as applied to

Him by others, and is expressly ap-
proved as so applied not only by the evangelist (3 11 ),
but by our Lord Himself (14 62 ). The form of the
title varies from the simple ' Son of God' ([i 1 ] 3 11 ,
cf. 15 39 ) to the 'Son of the Blessed' (14 61 ) and the
'Son of the Most High God' (5 7 ). It is, in the
instances recited by Mark, found chiefly on the lips of
the unclean spirits whom Jesus cast out (3 11 5 7 ) ;
though it is employed also, apparently as a culmi-
nating Messianic title, by the high priest at His trial,

32 See Dalman, Words, 286.

33 Cf. Meyer's good note E. T. Mark and Luke, 1. 194 note.

34 Dalman, arguing that what Jesus wished to suggest was that He
was Son of God, not of David, goes on to urge that this implies a
supernatural birth, and (though not the doctrine of the two natures) a
nature which though " appearing in human weakness, is yet a perfect
revelation of God," and fits Him for future rulership over the world.
Swete remarks: "The title does not involve divine sovereignty; yet
it was a natural inference that a descendant who was David's Lord
was also David's God."

20 The Designations of Our Lord

seeking to obtain from Jesus an acknowledgment of
His great pretensions (14 62 ), and was frankly accepted
by our Lord as fairly setting these pretensions forth
(14 63 ). As a Messianic title it differs from those
which have been heretofore engaging our attention, in
emphasizing, as they do not, the supernatural side of
the office and functions of the Messiah: He comes as
the representative of God to do God's will in the world.
From this point of view another Messianic title ap-
plied to Him by a demoniac — ' the Holy One of God '
(i 24 ), 35 — ranges with it: and the employment by
the unclean spirits of this class of titles only (cf. 3 11 and
i 34 ) may be due to the fact that they were voices
from the spiritual world and were as such less
concerned than the people of the land with national
hopes or earthly developments. 36

35 Westcott (on Jno 6 69 ) remarks: "The knowledge of the demo-
niacs reached to the essential nature of the Lord " (comparing Rev
3 7 , 1 Jno 2 20 ; and Jno io 36 and 6 27 ). The expression, however, (which
occurs only in Mk i 24 , Lk 4 34 , Jno 6 69 ) need not in itself, as Hahn
(Lk 4 34 ) puts it, "refer to the moral purity of Jesus (Keil) ; but may

express rather His Messianic dignity, designating Him as God's con-
secrated, dedicated One (cf. Jno io 36 )." Hahn adds that though the
demon knows of the humble human origin of Jesus (NaZapyvg) he
nevertheless knows also of His divine appointment. Holtzmann (p.
76) accords in general with Hahn, and points out that the demon
speaks for his class ("us"). Wellhausen supposes this title to have
been formed by transference to the Messiah of epithets at first appro-
priated to Israel: "Israel originally is both the Son of God and the
Holy One of the Highest" (on Mk i 24 ). It seems, however, a little
difficult to understand how the demons were supposed to recognize at
sight ("as soon as ever they saw him") an official appointment. Does
it not seem that there must have been supposed to be something about
Jesus which betrayed to an eye which saw beneath the surface His
superhuman nature — whether this were thought of as His supreme holi-
ness or as His unapproachable majesty?

36 From his own point of view Wellhausen speaks (on i 2 5,26) f
"the popular belief that the spirits have for the supersensual other

The Designations in Mark 21

By the side of the passages in which the precise title

1 Son of God ' is employed, there stands another series

in which Jesus speaks of Himself, or

'The Son* is represented as spoken of by God,
simply as ' the Son' (13 32 , cf. 12 6 ; i 11
9 7 ), used obviously in a very pregnant sense: 37 and
these naturally suggest their correlatives in which He
speaks of God as His * Father ' in the same pregnant
manner (8 38 , cf. 13 32 14 36 ). The uniqueness of the
relation intended to be intimated by this mode of
speech is sharply thrust forward in the parable recorded
in Mark 12. There were many slaves who were sent

eyes than flesh and blood," and that these eyes were sharpened in the
present case by their danger. This remark seems to imply that in the
popular view " the Holy One of God " imported something more than
divine appointment — something of superhuman nature or character.
The sharpest eyes could scarcely discern appointment.

37 On the strength of the difference between the precise phrase ' the
Son of God ' and these phrases where Jesus is called God's ' Son ' or
speaks of Himself as ' Son/ it has become common to say Jesus does
not use the title ' Son of God.' Thus e.g. Shailer Mathews, The
Messianic Hope in the N. T., 1905, pp. 106-7: "Jesus Himself does
not use the expression, although others use it with reference to Him.
It is of course true that Jesus frequently speaks of God as ' Father '
and of Himself as ' the Son,' but this is quite another matter from
speaking of Himself as 6 old? too Oeou. . . . That Jesus spoke of
God as His Father in some unique sense cannot be denied, but such
sayings as imply this do not employ either 6 ulo$ rod Oeoo or ulo$
6eoo" Dr. Mathews in a note refers to Jno io 36 n 4 , but hesitates to
speak of these as exceptions because of the possibility that John may
have substituted here " a term expressive of his own estimate of Jesus
for the word which Jesus used Himself." He might have pointed
also not only to the general implication of Jesus' acceptance of the title
when applied to Him by the demons and others, but to His express
acceptance of it at Mk 14 62 , and we may add at Mt 16 16 , though Dr.
Mathews would not allow this instance. Nor is it so very clear that
the ■ Son of God,' ' God's Son,' ' the Son,' are not closely related to one
another as Messianic titles.

22 The Designations of Our Lord

one after the other to the rebellious husbandmen; but
only one son — who is called " the beloved one," a term
which is not so much designatory of affection as of that
on which special affection is grounded, and is there-
fore practically equivalent to " only begotten," or
" , unique." 38 It is possible that it is by this epithet that
God designates this His Son on both of the occa-
sions when He spoke from heaven in order to point
Him out and mark Him as His own (i 11 9 7 ) — " This
is my beloved Son." The meaning is that the Son
stands out among all others who may be called sons
as in a unique and unapproached sense the Son of God.
Of course it is possible to represent this as importing
nothing more than that the person so designated is the
Messiah, singled out to be the vice-gerent of God on
earth; and it is noticeable that it is as the Messiah
that Jesus calls God appropriating^ ' His Father '
when He declares that the Son of Man is to come in
the glory of His Father with the holy angels (8 38 ) , and
certainly it was in lowly subjection to the will of God
that He prayed at Gethsemane, " Abba, Father, re-
move this cup from me " (i4 8G ). But this explanation
seems scarcely adequate; in any case there is intimated
in this usage a closeness as well as a uniqueness of rela-

38 Cf. Swete on Mk 12 6 and also Wellhausen on these passages. " l
olo$ jiou 6 ayaTCTjTOs" says the latter on i 11 , "for the Semites means,
not ' my dear Son,' but ' my unique Son.' " For a careful discussion
of all the involved conceptions see J. Armitage Robinson, St. Paul's
Epistle to the Ephesians, 1903, pp. 229-233, on "'The Beloved* as
a Messianic Title." Dr. Robinson seems to suppose that "beloved
Son " in Mark — not elsewhere — means simply " dear Son." But this
is scarcely conceivable. In point of fact, in 12 6 the meaning seems to
be, "sole, unique, Son"; while i 11 9 7 either bear that same meaning
or else must be taken, like their parallels, as uniting to the ascription
of Sonship an additional Messianic title — " the Beloved."

The Designations in Mark 23

tion existing between Jesus and God, which raises Jesus
far beyond comparison with any other son of man.
And that remarkable passage, 13 32 , in which Jesus
declares His ignorance, though He be the Son, of the
day of His advent, exalts Him apparently above not
men only, but angels as well, next to the Father Him-
self, with whom rather than with the angels He seems
to be classed. 89

All these Messianic designations are represented as
not only ascribed to Jesus but accepted by Him. They
Our Lord's own are not, however, currently employed by
Testimony to Him; as reported in this narrative, He
His Messiahship j oes indeed make occasional use of
them— ' the Christ' (9 41 , cf. 8 29 12 35 13 21 ), the 'Son
of David' (12 35 ), the ' Son [of God] ' (13 32 , cf. 12 6 )
— but only exceptionally. The Messianic designation
which He is represented as constantly applying to Him-

39 " Note," says Meyer, " the climax— the angels, the Son, the Father."
A. J. Mason {Conditions of our Lord's Life on Earth, 120), on the
other hand, thinks "there is no express triple ascent, from men to
angels, from angels to the Son " — but the oudi — audi is in a sort par-
enthetical : " None knoweth — no not the angels in heaven, nor yet the
Son— except the Father." " All the same," he adds, " the sentence is a
climax, and a pointed one. Our Lord does not say (what would have
been good Greek) oudk ol ayyeXoi ours 6 yfo?, as if the Son were
in the same class of beings with the angels in heaven, only the highest
of them. He says oudk — oudi] as if to say, ' You might suppose that
the secret was only a secret from those on earth; but it is kept a secret
even from those in heaven. You might suppose that the secret was
only a secret for created beings, but it is a secret for the uncreated Son
Himself. The Father alone knows it.'" Cf. Swete: "No one . . .
not even . . . nor yet." Dalman, Words, p. 194, arbitrarily sup-
poses that the closing words, "nor the Son but the Father only," may
be an accretion, while Zeller (Z. fur w. Th., 1865, p. 308), on the
ground of this ascription to Christ of a superangelic nature wishes to
assign Mark to the second century (see Meyer's reply, Mk. and Lk.,
E. T., 1, 205 note). From all which it is at least clear that the passage
confessedly assigns a superhuman nature to Jesus.

24 The Designations of Onr Lord

self is also one peculiar to Himself — ' the Son of
Man.' 40 That this designation is actually employed
as a Messianic title, is apparent not only from its ob-
vious origin in the vision of Daniel 7 13 , to which ref-
erence is repeatedly made (8 38 13 26 14 62 ), 41 but also
from the easy passage which is made, in the course of
the conversations reported, from one of the other des-
ignations to this, whereby they are evinced as its
synonyms. Thus in 8 31 in sequence to Peter's confes-
sion of Him as ' the Christ,' we are told that Jesus
began to teach that " the Son of Man must suffer many
things." Similarly in 13 26 our Lord notifies us that
although many " false Christs " shall arise who may
deceive men, yet when certain signs occur, " then shall
they see the Son of Man coming." Again when ex-
horted to declare whether He is " the Christ, the Son
of the Blessed" (14 61 ), He responds in the affirmative
and adds : " And ye shall see the Son of Man sitting
at the right hand of power." Evidently if we are to
ask, ' Who is this Son of Man,' we must give answer,

40 2 10 » 28 8 31 ' 38 9 9 > 12 > 31 io 33 ' 45 I3 26 Id. 21 ' 41 ' 62 .

41 The reference to Daniel 7 13 seems indisputable. But it is in some-
what wide circles not allowed. Even conservative writers are occa-
sionally found seeking another explanation of the phrase, although this
involves treating the passages mentioned as unhistorical. Exam-
ples may be found in Volkmar Fritzsche, Das Berufsbewusstsein Jesu,
I 905» PP« J 7 sq.; Siegfried Goebel, Die Reden unseres Herrn nach Jo-
hannes, 1906, (following his note on Jno i 51 ) ; and Zahn in his Com-
mentary on Matthew. (Zahn is directly refuted by Fritz Tillmann
in the Biblische Zeitschrift, 1907, vol. L, 348 seq.). Critics like Well-
hausen and N. Schmidt, of course, assume that ' Son of Man ' is merely
Aramaic for " Man," and deny all reference to Daniel. What may be
made of the term, and of the Danielic passage itself, from this point of
view may be conveniently read in Dr. Cheyne's Bible Problems, 1904;
or with a great display of hypothetical learning in Hugo Gressmann's
Der Uf sprung der israelitisch-jiidischen Eschatologie, 1905.

The Designations in Mark 25

shortly, ' The Christ of God.' And it lies in the evi-
dence not only that this was the underlying conception
of our Lord as reported in this Gospel but also that it
was — however dimly — apprehended by those He ad-
dressed. There is perhaps no single passage in Mark
so clear to this effect as John 1 2 34 , where the multitude
are represented as puzzled by our Lord's teaching that
the " Son of Man must be lifted up," in view of their
conviction that " the Christ abideth forever." " We
have heard out of the law," they say, " that the Christ
abideth forever: and how sayest thou that the Son
of Man must be lifted up ? Who is this Son of Man? "
This is as much as to say that that ' Son of Man ' who
is the Messiah is known to them and is known to them
as the eternal King : but no other * Son of Man ' is
known to them — who is to be " lifted up " from the
earth that He may draw all men unto Him. The same
implication is latent, however, in the instances reported
by Mark, the conversations recorded in which would
have been unintelligible had there not been in the hear-
ers' minds some intelligence of the phrase ' Son of
Man ' as a Messianic title, although it was apparently
not a Messianic title either in such current use that it
came naturally to their lips or so unambiguous as to
be easily comprehended by them in all the implications
which our Lord compressed into it.

The difficulty created by our Lord's use of this
phrase seems, indeed, as represented by Mark, not so
much to have lain in apprehending
- ^° n °, f that it involved a claim to Mes-
sianic dignity, as in comprehending the
character of the Messianic conception which He ex-
pressed by it. The constant employment of this des-

26 The Designations of Our Lord

ignation of Himself by our Lord 42 in preference to the
more current ones, such as, say, ' Son of David ' or
' King of Israel,' appears to mark in effect an attempt
on our Lord's part, in claiming for Himself the Mes-
sianic dignity, at the same time to fill the conception
itself with a new import. The nature of the revolution
which He would work in the Messianic ideal current
among the people, in other words, is signalized by
His avoidance of the current designations of the Mes-
siah and His choice for His constant use of a more
or less unwonted one which would direct their atten-
tion to a different region of Old Testament prophecy.
He says, in effect, In the conception you are cherishing
of the Messianic king, you are neglecting whole re-
gions of prophecy, and are forming most mistaken
expectations regarding Him : it is from the Son of
Man of Daniel rather than from the Son of David
of the Psalms and Samuel that you should take your
starting point. No single title, of course, sums up the
entirety of our Lord's conception of the jMessianic
function: there are elements of it adumbrated in very
different sections of Old Testament prediction. But

42 Cf. Dalman, Words, p. 259: "As for the evangelists themselves
they take the view that Jesus called Himself the ' Son of Man ' at all
times and before any company." Nevertheless Dalman himself sup-
poses He probably did not actually use the title before Peter's confes-
sion (Mk 8 38 ) ; and Bousset {Jesus, 194) is sure that it was only
towards the close of His life as death loomed before Him that He
applied the Danielic prophecy of the Son of Man to Himself, and that
He never adopted the title in its full content, including the ideas of
preexistence and of His own judgeship of the world — the ascription of
these to Him by the evangelists being only an instance of the faith of
the community working on the tradition (" it is inconceivable that Jesus
should have arrogated to Himself the judgeship of the world in place
of God," pp. 203-5).

The Designations in Mark 27

He elected, apparently, to point to the picture which
Daniel draws of the establishment of the Kingdom
of God on earth as furnishing a starting point for a
revision of the Messianic ideal current among those
to whom His preaching was in the first instance ad-
dressed.

It may be difficult, in view of the varied elements
which entered into His Messianic conception, to infer
with confidence from the substance of the sayings in
which Jesus refers to Himself as the * Son of Man,'
precisely the Messianic conception He understood to
be covered by that designation. 43 And much less can
we suppose that His whole Messianic idea is embedded
in these sayings. He refers to Himself by this designa-
tion in only a portion of the sayings which must be
utilized in an attempt to determine His Messianic con-
ception; and there is no reason to suppose that He
always uses this designation when giving utterance to
conceptions which He subsumed under it. Neverthe-
less, having guarded ourselves against rashness of in-
ference and undue narrowness of view by reminding
ourselves of these obvious facts, we must certainly,
in an attempt to discover the significance of the des-
ignation ' Son of Man ' in the Gospel of Mark, begin
by observing the actual connections in which Jesus is
represented in that Gospel as employing it, with a view
to discovering, as far as possible, from the substance
of these sayings the actual implications which it em-
bodied for Him, and through Him for the writer of
this Gospel who reports just these sayings from His
lips.

43 Cf. the opening sentence of Dalman in his discussion of this sub-
ject {Words, 256).

28 The Designations of Our Lord

From these sayings, then, we learn that the life of

the * Son of Man ' on earth is essentially a lowly one :

He came not to be ministered unto, but

'SonTMan- t0 minister ( 10 ^ ■ Suffering belongs
therefore to the very essence of His
mission (8 31 9 12 ' 31 io 33 14 21 ' 41 ) and has accordingly
been pre-announced for Him in the Scriptures (9 12
14 21 ). But this suffering is not in His own behalf,
but for others, the form of His ministry to whom is
"to give His life a ransom for many" (io 45 ). But
just because His death is a sufficing ransom, death
cannot be all: having given His life as a ransom for
many the ' Son of Man ' shall rise again (8 31 9 9 ' 31 io 34 ).
Nor is this vindication by resurrection all. He is
to "rise again" after three days (8 31 9 31 io 34 ), but
is to " come " again " in clouds with great glory and
power" (13 26 , cf. 14 62 ) at some more remote, undes-
ignated time (13 32 ), to establish the Kingdom in which
He shall sit at the right hand of power (14 62 ). At
this His coming He " shall send forth the angels and
gather together His elect from the four winds, from
the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part
of heaven " (13 27 ) ; and shall show Himself ashamed
of all who shall have been ashamed of Him and of
His words in the adulterous generation with which He
dwelt on earth (8 38 ). It is clearly the judgment scene
that is here brought before us, and the eternal destinies
of men are represented as lying in the hands of the
1 Son of Man. 1 "His elect," "those whom He has
chosen," are gathered into the Kingdom; His enemies,
those who have rejected Him, are left without. Ac-
cordingly it is not surprising that He who came to
give His life a ransom for many (io 45 ) and who is

The Designations in Mark 29

to come again in order to distribute to men their final
destinies should have authority given Him even while
on earth to order the religious observances by which
men are trained in the life which looks beyond the
limits of earth (2 28 ) and even to forgive sins (2 10 ).
Perhaps in the light of 8 38 13 27 , in the phrase " on
earth " we may see a contrast not so much with the
"power" of God to forgive sins "in heaven" (cf.
verse 7), as with the authority to award the desti-
nies of all flesh (13 27 "His elect"; 8 38 those that
are ashamed of Him) hereafter to be exercised in
the heavenly kingdom by the ' Son of Man ' Him-
self.

What perhaps most strikes us in this series of ut-
terances is its prevailing soteriological, or perhaps we

should say soteriologico-eschatological,
1 Son of Man ' rather than christological bearing. To

Mark the ' Son of Man,' as reflected
in the sayings he cites from the lips of the Lord, is the
divinely sent Redeemer, come to minister to men and
to give His life a ransom for many, who as Redeemer
brings His chosen ones to glory and, holding the des-
tinies of men in His hands, casts out those who have
rejected Him — even while yet on earth preadumbrat-
ing the final issue by exercising His authority over
religious ordinances and the forgiveness of sins. Little
is said directly of the person of this Redeemer. It is
a human figure, ministering, suffering, dying, — though
clothed already with authority in the midst of its hu-
mility (or should we not rather say, its humilia-
tion?) — which moves before us in its earthly career:
it is a superhuman figure which is to return, clothed
in glory — " sitting at the right hand of power " and

30 The Designations of Our Lord

coming with the clouds of heaven (14 62 ), or " coming
in clouds with great power and glory" (13 26 ) — " in
the glory of His Father with the holy angels" (8 38 ),
those holy angels who are sent forth by Him to do
His bidding, that they may gather to Him His chosen
ones (13 27 ). Although there are intermingled traits
derived from other lines of prophecy, the reference
to the great vision of Daniel 7 13 ' 14 in these utterances
is express and pervasive, and we cannot go astray in
assuming that Jesus is represented as, in adopting the
title of * Son of Man ' for His constant designation of
Himself, intending to identify Himself with that
heavenly figure of Daniel's vision, who is described as
" like to a son of man " in contrast with the bestial
figures of the preceding context, and as having com-
mitted to Him by God a universal and eternal do-
minion. Primarily His purpose seems to have been
to represent Himself as the introducer of the Kingdom
of God; and in doing so, to emphasize on the one
hand the humiliation of His earthly lot as the founder
of the kingdom in His blood, and on the other the
glory of His real station as exhibited in His consumma-
tion of the kingdom with power. So conceived, this
designation takes its place at the head of all the Mes-
sianic designations, and involves a conception of the
Messianic function and personality alike which re-
moves it as far as possible from that of a purely
earthly monarchy, administered by an earth-born king.
Under this conception the Messianic person is con-
ceived as a heavenly being, who comes to earth with
a divinely given mission; His work on earth is con-
ceived as purely spiritual and as carried out in a state
of humiliation; while His glory is postponed to a fu-

The Designations in Mark 31

ture manifestation which is identified with the judg-
ment day and the end of the world. In the figure of
the ' Son of Man,' in a word, we have the spiritual
and supernatural Messiah by way of eminence. 44

44 The whole subject has recently been excellently reviewed by a
Roman Catholic scholar, F. Tillmann, Der Menschensohn, 1907. He
sums up as follows: "The result of our investigation is in brief this:
The designation 'the Son of Man' is a title of the Messiah just as
truly as the designation ' Son of David,' ' the Anointed,' and the like.
Jesus adopted this designation because it corresponded best to His
nature and His purposes, and gave least occasion for the political,
national hopes which His people connected with the person of the
Messiah. If we inquire further into the specific content of this
Messianic designation, the key is supplied by the reference embodied in
it to the prophecy of Daniel: the Son of Man is the Divine-human
inaugurator of the Messianic salvation predicted by the prophets, He
with whom the reign of God on earth takes its start" (pp. 175-6).

MARK'S CONCEPTION OF OUR LORD

If, now, we review the series of designations applied
to our Lord in the Gospel of Mark, as a whole, we
shall, we think, be led by them into the heart of Mark's
representation of Jesus.

What Mark undertook in his Gospel was obviously
to give an account of how that great religious move-
A Divine ment originated which we call Chris-
Intervention tianity, but which he calls " the Gospel
in Christ f j esus Christ " — the glad tidings,
that is, concerning Jesus Christ which were being pro-
claimed throughout the world. To put it in his own
words, he undertook to set forth "the beginning of
the Gospel of Jesus Christ " ( i 1 ). The account which
he gives of the beginning of this great religious move-
ment, by means of his ' Gospel,' is briefly that it origi-
nated in a divine intervention; and that this divine
intervention was manifested in the ministry of the di-
vinely promised and divinely sent Messiah who was no
other than the man Jesus. This man is represented
as coming, endowed with ample authority for His task;
and as prosecuting this task by the aid of supernatural
powers by which He was at once marked out as God's
delegate on earth and enabled, in the face of all dif-
ficulties and oppositions, to accomplish to its end what
He had set His hand to do.

It is idle to speak of Mark presenting us in his

Mark's Conception of Our Lord 33

account of Jesus with the picture of a purely human
Christ's Life life. It belongs to the very essence of
Thoroughly his undertaking to portray this life as
Supernatural SU p e rnatural; and, from beginning to
end, he sets it forth as thoroughly supernatural. The
Gospel opens, therefore, by introducing Jesus to us
as the divinely given Messiah, in whom God had from
the ages past promised to visit His people; heralded
as such by the promised messenger making ready the
way of the Lord; and witnessed by this messenger
as the " mightiest " of men, who bore in His hands
the real potencies of a new life (i 8 ); and by God
Himself from heaven as His Son, His beloved, in
whom He was well pleased (i 11 ). Anointed and
tested for His task, Jesus is then presented as entering
upon and prosecuting His work as God's representa-
tive, endowed with all authority and endued with all
miraculous powers. His authority was manifested
alike in His teaching (i 22 ), in His control of demonic
personalities (i 27 ), in the forgiveness of sins (2 10 ), ^
in His sovereignty over the religious ordinances of
Israel (2 28 ), in His relations to nature and nature's
laws (4 41 ), in His dominion over death itself (5 42 ).
As each of these typical exercises of authority is sig-
nalized in turn and copiously illustrated by instances,
the picture of a miraculous life becomes ever more
striking, and indeed stupendous. Even the failure of
His friends to comprehend Him and the malice of
His enemies in assaulting Him, are made by the evan-
gelist contributory to the impression of an utterly
supernatural life which he wishes to make on his
readers. So little was it a normal human life that
Jesus lived that His uncomprehending friends were

34 The Designations of Our Lord

tempted to think Him beside Himself, and His ene-
mies proclaimed Him obviously suffering from " pos-
session " (3 2030 ). Whatever else this life was, it cer-
tainly was not, in view of any observer, a " natural "
one. The " unnaturalness " of it is not denied: it is
only pointed out that this " unnaturalness " was sys-
tematic, and that it was systematically in the interests
of holiness. What is manifested in it, therefore, is
neither the vagaries of lunacy nor the wickedness of
demonism. What is exhibited is the binding of Satan
and the destruction of satanic powers (cf. i 27 et saepe) .
To ascribe these manifestations to Satan is therefore
to blaspheme the Spirit of God. Nobody, it appears,
dreamed of doubting in any interest the abnormality
of this career: and we should not misrepresent Mark
if we said that his whole Gospel is devoted to making
the impression that Jesus' life and manifestation were
supernatural through and through.

This is, of course, however, not quite the same as
saying that Mark has set himself to portray in Jesus
Jesus the life of a supernatural person,

the Whether the supernatural life he de-

Messmh picts is supernatural because it is the
life on earth of a supernatural person, or because it is the
life of a man with whom God dwelt and through whom
God wrought, may yet remain a question. Certainly
very much in Mark's narrative would fall in readily
with the latter hypothesis. To him Jesus is primarily
the Messiah, and the Messiah is primarily the agent
of God in bringing in the new order of things. Un-
doubtedly Mark's fundamental thought of Jesus is that
He is the man of God's appointment, with whom

Mark's Conception of Our Lord 35

God is. Designating Him currently merely by His
personal name of l Jesus,' and representing Him as
currently spoken of by His contemporaries merely as
1 Jesus of Nazareth ' and addressed by the simple hon-
orific titles of ' Rabbi/ ' Teacher/ ' Lord ' — His funda-
mental manifestation is to him plainly that of a man
among men. That this man was the Messiah need not
in itself import more than that He was the subject of
divine influences beyond all other men, and the vehicle
Df divine operations surpassing all other human ex-
perience. It may fairly be asked, therefore, what
requires us to go beyond the divine office to explain
this supernaturally filled life? Will not the assumption
of the Messiahship of Jesus fully account for the
abounding supernaturalism of His activity as por-
trayed by Mark? Questions like these are in point
of fact constantly raised around us and very variously
answered. But it behooves us to be on our guard re-
specting them that we be not led into a false antithesis,
is if we must explain Mark's presentation of the
supernatural life of Jesus either on the basis of His
office as Messiah or on the basis of His superhuman
Dersonality.

There is no necessary contradiction between these
:wo hypotheses; and we must not introduce here
i factitious " either — or." What it behooves us to do
is simply to inquire how the matter lay in Mark's mind;
what the real significance of the Messiahship he at-
tributed to Jesus, and represented Jesus as claiming
for Himself, is; and whether he posits for Jesus and
represents Him as asserting for Himself something
more than a human personality.

$6 The Designations of Our Lord

We cannot have failed to note in reviewing the
designations applied in the course of Mark's narrative
Jesus' Person to our Lord, a tendency of them all
Enhances His when applied to Him to grow in rich-
Designations ness £ content The term ' Lord ' is

merely an honorific address, equivalent to our ' Sir ' : but
when applied to Jesus it seems to expand in significance
until it ends by implying supreme authority. The term
1 Messiah ' is a mere term of office and might be ap-
plied to anyone solemnly set apart for a service: but
when applied to Jesus it takes on fuller and fuller
significance until it ends by assimilating Him to the
Divine Being Himself. He who simply reads over
Mark's narrative, noting the designations he applies
to our Lord, accordingly, will not be able to doubt
that Mark conceived of Jesus not merely as officially
the representative of God but as Himself a superhuman
person, or that Mark means to present Jesus as Him-
self so conceiving of His nature and personality. The
evidence of this is very copious, but also often rather
subtle; and, in endeavoring to collect and appreciate
it, we might as well commence with some of the plain-
est items, although this method involves a somewhat
unordered presentation of it.

Let us look, then, first at that remarkable passage

(13 32 ) in which Jesus acknowledges ignorance of the

Jesus a time of His (second) coming. 1 Here,

Superangelic in the very act of admitting limitations
Person t0 j_jj s k now l e( ]g e? } n themselves aston-
ishing, He yet asserts for Himself not merely a super-

1 On account of this profession of ignorance, Prof. Schmiedel {Encyc.
Biblica, 1881) gives this passage a place among those nine "absolutely
credible passages " which he calls " the foundation pillars for a truly

Mark's Conception of Our Lord 37

human but even a superangelic rank in the scale of
being.

In any possible interpretation of the passage,
He separates Himself from the " angels in heaven "
(note the enhancing definition of locality, carrying with
it the sense of the exaltation of these angels above
all that is earthly) as belonging to a different class
from them, and that a superior class. To Jesus as He
is reported, and presumably to Mark reporting Him,
we see, Jesus " the Son " stands as definitely and as
incomparably above the category of angels, the high-
est of God's creatures, as to the author of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, whose argument may be taken as a
commentary upon this passage (Heb i 4 2 8 ). Nor is
this passage singular in Mark in exalting Jesus in dig-
nity and authority above the angels. Already in the
account of the temptation at the opening of His min-
istry we find the angels signalized as ministering to
Him (i 13 ), and elsewhere they appear as His subor-
dinates swelling His train (8 38 ) or His servants obey-
ing His behests (13 27 , "He shall send the angels").
Clearly, therefore, to Mark Jesus is not merely a
superhuman but a superangelic personality: and the
question at once obtrudes itself whether a superangelic
person is not by that very fact removed from the
:ategory of creatures.

scientific life of Jesus." If so, a "truly scientific life of Jesus" must
illow that He asserted for Himself a superangelic, that is, a more
han creature ly dignity of person. Others, just for this reason, would
leny the words to Jesus (e.g. Martineau, Seat of Authority in Religion,
,90; N. Schmidt, The Prophet of Nazareth, 147, 231 note), and even
Salman is not superior to the temptation arbitrarily to apportion them
>artly to Jesus and partly to His followers {Words, p. 194). But all
his is purely subjective criticism.

38 The Designations of Our Lord

A similar implication, as has already been pointed
out, is embedded in the title ' Son of Man,' which
Jesus Mark represents as our Lord's stated

of Heavenly self-designation. The appeal involved
Origin j n j t t0 D an i e i yi3,w ; s a definite as-
sertion for the Messiah of a heavenly as distinguished
from an earthly origin, with all the suggestions of
preexistence, divine exaltation and authority, and end-
less sovereignty necessarily connected with a heavenly
origin. It would be impossible to frame a Messianic
conception on the basis of this vision of Daniel and to
suppose the Messiah to be in His person a mere man
deriving His origin from the earth. 2 This is sufficiently
illustrated indeed by the history of the Messianic ideal
among the Jews. There is very little evidence among
the Jews before or contemporary with our Lord, of re-
sort to Daniel 7 13 ' 14 as a basis for Messianic hopes:

/but wherever this occurs it is the conception of a pre-
existent, heavenly monarch who is to judge the world

' in righteousness which is derived from this passage. 3
No other conception, in fact, could be derived from
Daniel, where the heavenly origin of the eternal King
is thrown into the sharpest contrast with the lower

2 Cf . Dalman, Words, 242: "The destined possessor of the universal
dominion comes not from the earth, far less from the sea, but from
heaven. He is a being standing in a near relation to God . . ."

3 The Similitudes of Enoch and the Second Book of Esdras (more
commonly called 4 Esdras). Cf. Dalman, Words, pp. 242 and 131:
" From the first Christian century there are only two writings known
which deal with Dan 7 13 , the Similitudes of the Book of Enoch, and
the Second Book of Esdras" . . . "After the Similitudes of Enoch
the only representatives of the idea [of the heavenly preexistence of
the Messiah] independent of Enoch, are 2 Esdras in the first Christian
century and the Appendix to Pesikta Rabbati in the seventh or eighth
century."

Mark's Conception of Our Lord 39

source of the preceding bestial rulers. Judaism may
lot have known how to reconcile this heavenly origin
of the Messiah with His birth as a human being, and
may have, therefore, when so conceiving the Mes-
siah, sacrificed His human condition entirely to His
tieavenly nature and supposed Him to appear upon the
*arth as a developed personality. 4 That our Lord does
lot feel this difficulty or share this notion manifests,
in the matter of His adoption of the title ' Son of
Man ' as His favorite Messianic self-designation, His
independence of whatever Jewish tradition may be
supposed to have formed itself. But His adoption of
the title at all, with its obvious reference to the vision
of Daniel, 5 necessarily carried with it the assertion of
heavenly origination and nature.

This in turn carried with it, we may add, the con-
ception that He had " come " to earth upon a mission,
Jesus' a conception which does not fail to find

Earthly Life independent expression in such passages,
a Mission as j38 2 n IQ 45 # ^ov, t j lat ^ asser tions

in these passages that He " came forth " to preach,
that He " came " not to save the righteous but sinners,
that He " came " not to be ministered unto but to
minister and to give His life as a ransom for many,
refer to His divine mission (cf. also n 9,10 ), lies on
their face. It is suggested by the pregnancy of the

4 Cf. Dalman, 131: "Judaism has never known anything of a pre-
existence peculiar to the Messiah, antecedent to His birth as a human
being." " He is to make His appearance on earth as a fully developed
personality." See p. 301 : " The celestial preexistence of Messiah, as
stated in the Similitudes of Enoch and in 2 [4] Esdr 13, 14, excluding —
so at least it seems — an earthly origin, implies, apart from the incen-
:ive contributed by Dan 7 13 , his miraculous superhuman appearance."
Cf. p. 257 et seq.

5 Cf. Dalman, pp. 257 et seq.

40 The Designations of Our Lord

expressions themselves, and the connections in which
they are employed; and it is supported by the even
more direct language of some of the parallels. 6 In
themselves these expressions may not necessarily in-
volve the idea of preexistence (cf. 9 11 and Jno i 7 of
John the Baptist) ; but they fall readily in with it,
and so far suggest it that when supported by other
forms of statement implying it, they cannot well be
taken in any other sense. 7

6 Cf . Swete, on Mk i 38 : " ' For to this end came I forth' (Mark),
is interpreted for us by Luke, ' Because to this end was I sent.' ' Came
I forth' does not refer to His departure from Capernaum (*>. 35), but
to His mission from the Father (Jno 8 42 13 20 )"; and on Mk io 45 :
" For %kdov in reference to our Lord's entrance into the world, cf. i 38
2 17 ; it is used also of the Baptist (911 seq., j no j7) regarded as a
divine messenger " — whence we observe that it does not of itself imply
preexistence. Meyer, on i 38 , notes that this view is held by Euthym-
ius Zigabenus, Maldonatus, Grotius, Bengel, Lange and others, —
conf. Baumgarten-Crusius; he himself does not hold it. Cf. Meyer,
on Mt 3 11 : "His coming as such is always brought forward with great
emphasis by Mark and Luke." Holtzmann on i 38 thinks the reference
is to the departure from Capernaum, while Luke's phrase (4 43 ) is a
transition to the Johannine form of expression (e.g. 8 42 ).

7 Cf. G. S. Streatfeild, The Self-Interpretation of Jesus Christ, 1906,
pp. 81-83. Mr. Streatfeild connects these sayings with those in which
our Lord refers to His return in glory. " Thus to describe Himself as
coming into the world," he remarks, " suggests, if it does no more, a
consciousness of personal vocation, a conviction, if not a consciousness,
of preexistence." " The word ' come,' " he adds, " is never, so far as the
present writer recollects, used of or by the prophets in the sense in
which our Lord applies it to Himself. Apparent exceptions are shown
to be only apparent by the context. On the other hand, the term is
constantly used in the O. T. of God and the Messianic theophany."
Perhaps Mr. Streatfeild slightly overstates the matter, but what he says
is essentially true. His use of these phrases certainly testifies to our
Lord's deep consciousness of being intrusted with a great mission which
He had come into the world to fulfil — as the use of them of John the
Baptist testifies to his mission: and the pregnancy of the use He makes
of them, and the connections in which He uses them, strongly suggest a

Mark's Conception of Our Lord 41

It is, however, above all in the picture which Jesus

mself draws for us of the * Son of Man ' that we

Jesus' see His superhuman nature portrayed.

Functions For the figure thus brought before us
Divine j s distinctly a superhuman one; one

tich is not only in the future to be seen sitting at the
[ht hand of power and coming with the clouds of
iven (14 62 ) — in clouds with great power and glory
3 26 ) , even in the glory of His Father with the holy
£*els (8 38 ) who do His bidding as the Judge of all
; earth, gathering His elect for Him (13 26 ) while
; punishes His enemies (8 38 ) ; but which in the pres-
t world itself exercises functions which are truly
^ine, — for who is Lord of the Sabbath but the God
lo instituted it in commemoration of His own rest
28 ), and who can forgive sins but God only (2 10, cf.
*se 7) ? The assignment to the Son of Man

the function of Judge of the world and the
:ription to Him of the right to forgive sins
;, in each case, but another way of saying that
: is a divine person; for these are divine acts. 8

fiction on His part of preexistence, though they do not in themselves
ipportedly avail to prove it. The language might be employed
iistently of a divine mission without preexistence; but it seems to
:mployed here with deeper implications.
On the forgiveness of sins as a divine act, cf. Dalman, Words, 262

314, 315. As against J. Weiss, Dalman notes that it is a fact
at Judaism never from O. T. times to the present day, has ventured
lake any such assertion in regard to the Messiah " as that the " Lord
l power to forgive sins." Cf. Briggs, The Messiah of the Gospels,
84. On the judgment of the world as a divine act, cf. Bousset, Jesus,
205. Dr. Stanton, Jewish and Christian Messiah, 291, says: "The
ge in that last judgment is on Jewish ground nowhere the Messiah.

assignment of this office to Him is the most significant new feature
:he Christian doctrine of the Messiah." But this is because Dr.
lton considers the Similitudes of Enoch post-Christian (cf. pp. 6x,

42 The Designations of Our Lord

We have already had occasion to point out the
uniqueness and closeness of the relation to God which
The Uniqueness ls indicated by the designation ' Son of
of God ' as ascribed to Jesus. In the

Jesus' Sonship para bl e of Mark 12 not only is it em-
phasized that God has but one such son (verse 6),
but He is as such expressly contrasted with all God's
" servants " (verses 2 and 4) and expressly signalized
as God's "heir" (verse 7). As we read this parable

140). There, but apparently there only, in pre-Christian Jewish litera-
ture the Messiah appears as Judge of the world to whom all judgment
has been committed (see Charles, The Book of Enoch, 128, 129).
Hence Dr. Stanton in Hastings' B. D. in. 356 et seq. says more exactly:
"In this document, . . . He is to be the Judge in the universal judg-
ment, ... a function never assigned to the Messiah, but always
ascribed to the Most High in other Jewish writings." Cf. Salmond
(Hastings' B. D., 1, 751) : " In the O. T. the final arbitrament of men's
lives is not committed to the Messiah . . . Only in the late section of
the Book of Enoch does the Messiah appear in any certain or definite
form as the Judge at the last day." Perhaps, however, it is not perfectly
accurate with respect to this particular point to sum up as Dr. Salmond
does, thus: "Christ's doctrine of a universal, individual judgment, at
the end of things, in which judgment He Himself is arbiter of human
destinies, carried the O. T. conception to its proper issue, while it gave
a new certainty, consistency and spirituality to the developed idea which
had arisen in Judaism in the period following the last of the Jewish
prophets." Though Jesus had a forerunner in Enoch in conceiving the
Messiah as the Judge of the world, He does not seem at all dependent
on Enoch in this conception, any more than in others connected with it
and growing out of the common reference of both to Dan 7 13 » 14 . Sal-
mond, Christian Doct. of Immortality, 4 ed., 282-284, treats the whole
subject judiciously: cf. further Charles, Encyc. Biblica, 1362, §66, and
Expositor, vi. v. 251, 258; also Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, 154, 487.
What is to be noted is that in the Similitudes of Enoch, where alone in
pre-Christian sources the judgment is attributed to the Messiah, the
Messiah is conceived as a superhuman Being, the Revealer of all things,
and the Messianic Lord of the earth, i.e. the attribution of judgment to
Him is connected with the attribution of other divine prerogatives to
Him also, so that the implication of divinity inherent in this attribu-
tion is not obscured.

Mark's Conception of Our Lord 43

the mind inevitably reverts again to the representation
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which in its doctrine
of the Son (cf. Heb I 4 3° etc.), might almost appear
a thetical exposition of it. And in the immediate
recognition of Jesus as the * Son of God ' by the evil
spirits — " as soon as ever they caught sight of Him " 9
— we can scarcely fail to see a testimony from the
spiritual world to a sonship in Jesus surpassing that
of mere appointment to an earthly office and function
and rooted in what lies beyond this temporal sphere.
It is noteworthy also that when responding to the ad-
juration of the high priest to declare whether He were
4 the Christ, the Son of the Blessed,' Jesus points ap-
parently to His exaltation at the right hand of power
and His coming with the clouds of heaven, which they
were to see, as the warranty for His acceptance of the
designation : as much as to say that to be ' the Christ,
the Son of the Blessed,' involves session at the right
hand of God and the eternal dominion promised in
Daniel (Mk I4 G2 ). And it is noticeable farther that
immediately upon our Lord's acceptance of the ascrip-
tion the high priest accused Him of blasphemy (14 63 ),
which appears to be an open indication that to claim
to be ' the Son of the Blessed ' was all one with claim-
ing to be a divine person. 10 Even the heathen cen-

9 Cf. Meyer and Swete on Mk 3 11 .

10 W. C. Allen, on Mt 26 63 , remarks: " Wellhausen argues that the
claim to be the Messiah could not, according to Jewish conceptions,
have been regarded as a blasphemous claim. But quite apart from the
exact meaning of the relationship of the Messiah to God which is im-
plied in such terms as ' Son of God,' ' Son of the Blessed,' the nature of
the Messiah as depicted in the literature of the period as of earthly and
heavenly origin (cf. Volz, Jiid. Eschat., pp. 214 f.) is such that claims
to be the Messiah might quite well be regarded as blasphemous, if they
were untrue." This, however, seems scarcely well founded. Zahn

44 The Designations of Our Lord

turion's enforced conviction, as he witnessed the cir-
cumstances of Jesus' death, that this man certainly
was ' a Son of God/ appears to be recorded for no
other reason (15 39 ) than to make plain that the super-
naturalness of Jesus' person was such as necessarily to
impress any observer. No doubt a heathen centurion
is but a poor witness to Jesus' essential nature; and no
doubt his designation of Him as " a son of God "
must needs be taken in a sense consonant with his stand-
point as a heathen. 11 But it manifests how from his
own standpoint Jesus' death impressed him — as the
death, to wit, of one of superhuman dignity. And its
record seems to round out the total impression which
Mark appears to wish to make in his use of the phrase,
viz., that the superhuman dignity of Jesus was per-
force recognized and testified to by all classes and by
every variety of witness. The spiritual denizens of
another world (i 24 i 34 3 11 5 7 ), the appointed guardians
of the spiritual life of Israel (14 61 ), Jesus Himself
(12 6 13 32 14 62 ), God in Heaven (i 11 9 7 ), and even the
heathen man who gazed upon Him as He hung on
the cross, alike certify to His elevation, as the Son

(on Mt, pp. 694-5) is better: "The high priest demands an answer not
to the simple question whether Jesus gave Himself out for the Messiah,
but whether He was the Messiah, the Son of God. . . . The mere
affirmative of the question whether He were the Messiah, could not be
understood by the whole Sanhedrin as an unambiguous blasphemy. It
was only a liar or a fanatic that Jesus could have been called on that
ground by those who did not believe in Him. Jesus affirmed, however,
also the other question, whether He was the Son of God; and indeed
on oath, since he was sworn by the Living God (I Kings 2 24 ) . . ."
11 Wellhausen's remark need not be disputed: "The centurion uses
the expression 'Son of God' not, like the high priest (14 61 ), as an
epithet of the Jewish Messiah, but in the heathen sense; he says also
not 'the Son' but 'a son' of God" (on 15 39 ).

Mark's Conception of Our Lord 45

i>f God, in the supernatural dignity of His person,
ibove all that is earthly, all " servants " and " min-
sters " of God whatever, including the very angels.
Certainly this designation, ' Son of God,' is colored so
deeply with supernatural implications that even apart
from such a passage as 13 32 where the superangelic
lature of the Son is openly expressed, we cannot avoid
including (cf. especially 12 6 14 62 15 39 ) that a super-
latural personality as well as a supernatural office is
ntended to be understood by it. And if so, in view
)f the nature of the term itself, it is difficult to doubt
:hat this supernaturalness of personality is intended
o be taken at the height of the Divine. What can
he Son, the unique and " beloved " Son of God, who
ilso is God's heir, in contradistinction from all His
ervants, even the angels, be — but God Himself?

It has already been suggested that something of this
mplication is embedded in the employment of the
Jesus designation 'Bridegroom' (2 19,20 ) of

Assimilated to our Lord. For there is certainly in-
Jehovah volved in it not merely the representa-
ion, afterwards copiously developed in the New Tes-
ament, of our Lord as the Bridegroom of the people
)f God, by virtue of which His Church is His bride
(Mt 22 2 25 1 , Jno 3 29 , Rom f, 2 Cor n 2 , Eph 5 29 , Rev
9 7 2 1 2,9 ), but also a reminiscence of those Old Tes-
ament passages, of which Hos 2 19 may be taken as the
ype (cf. Ex 20 5 , Jer 2 20 , Ezek i6 38 ' 60 - 63 ), in which
lehovah's relation to His people is set forth under the
igure of that of a loving husband to his wife. In
>ther words, the use of ' the Bridegroom ' as a designa-
ion of our Lord assimilates His relation to the people
)f God to that which in the Old Testament is exclu-

46 The Designations of Our Lord

sively, even jealously, occupied by Jehovah Himself,
and raises the question whether Jesus is not thereby,
in some sense, at any rate, identified with Jehovah. 12
This question once clearly raised, other phenomena
robtrude themselves at once upon our attention. We
are impelled, for example, to ask afresh what sense
our Lord put upon the words of the 110th Psalm,
" The Lord said unto my Lord, ' Sit Thou on my right
hand till I make Thine enemies the footstool of Thy
feet,"' when (Mk i 2 35etseq ) He adduced them to
rebuke the Jews for conceiving the Christ as only the
son of David, whereas David himself in this passage,
and that speaking in the Spirit, expressly calls Him
his Lord? It is not merely the term c Lord ' which
comes into consideration here ; but the exaltation which
the application of the term in this connection to Him
assipns to the Messiah. The scribes would have had
no difficulty in understanding that the Messiah should
be David's " greater son," who should — nay, must —
because Messiah, occupy a higher place in the King-
dom of God than even His great father. 13 The point
of the argument turns on the supreme exaltation of
the Lordship ascribed to Him, implying something su-
perhuman in the Messiah's personality and therefore
in His origin. Who is this ' Lord ' who is to sit at

12 Cf. Streatfeild, The Self -Interpretation of Jesus Christ, pp. 92, 93:
" What that term meant to the mind of the Jew may be gathered from
a study of the prophetic writings, which frequently portray God as
the Husband of His people, and denounce the disobedience and idolatry
of Israel as spiritual adultery. For any one to speak of Himself as the
Bridegroom of the Kingdom was little short of a claim to Deity: the
title was an impossible one for man."

13 Dalman, p. 285: "There would indeed be nothing remarkable in
the fact that a son should attain a higher rank than his father, and for
the scribes it would not in the least be strange that the Messiah should
be greater than David."

Mark's Conception of Our Lord 47

:he right hand of the ' Lord ' who is Jehovah, and
:o whom David himself therefore does reverence? It
s hard to believe that our Lord intended — or was
mderstood by Mark to intend — by such a designation
)f the Messiah, who He Himself was, to attribute to
Tim less than a superhuman — or shall we not even
ay a divine — dignity, by virtue of which He should
)e recognized as rightfully occupying the throne of
jfod. 14 To sit at the right hand of God is to partici-
>ate in the divine dominion, 15 which, as it is a greater
han human dignity, would seem to require a greater
han human nature. To be in this sense David's Lord
alls little if anything short of being David's God. 19
In estimating the significance of such a passage, we
nust not permit to fall out of sight the constant use
Jesus °f the term l Lord ' in the lxx version

Identified with of the Old Testament for God. 17 There
Jehovah j t j g " p ract [ C ally equivalent to God
[dsoz) and is the rendering of the solemn name of
lehovah." 18 The writers of the New Testament, and

14 So Dalman (Words, 214) says shortly: "He whom David called
Lord' was no mere man" (cf. pp. 385-7). Dalman thinks there is
o hint of "the two natures" in the passage: this may be doubted (cf.
/Teyer on Mt 22 45 , and Alexander in loc, also Delitzsch on Ps no, p.
85) ; but this need not be pressed here.

15 Cf. Delitzsch, Psalms, III. p. 189. Stanton, Jewish and Christian
lessiah, 101-2, points out that there is no difficulty in supposing that
>avid himself may have anticipated a greater son: "Knowing how far
e had himself fallen below the standard of the true covenant king,
nd how the glory and prosperity of his reign had been marred through
le consequences of his own sins, he might thus in spirit pay homage
) a greater descendant."

16 Cf. Swete's note on Mk 12 37 .

17 Cf. D. Somerville, St. Paul's Conception of Christ, pp. 295 et seq.

18 Somerville, p. 143. The supplanting of Jehovah by ' Lord ' in the
xx of course rests upon the K c ri perpetuum by which Adhonai was
jbstituted for the "ineffable name" in the reading of the Hebrew

48 The Designations of Our Lord

Mark among them, must be understood to have been
thoroughly familiar with this use of the term, and could
scarcely fail to see in its appellative application to
Christ a suggestion of His deity, when the implications
of the context were, as we have seen them repeatedly
to be, of His superhuman dignity and nature. Par-
ticularly when they apply to Him Old Testament
passages in which the term ' Lord ' refers to God, we
can scarcely suppose they do so without a consciousness
of the implications involved, and without a distinct
intention to convey them. 19 When, for example, in the
opening verses of Mark, we read: " Even as it is writ-
ten in Isaiah the prophet, Behold I send my messenger
before thy face, who shall prepare thy way; The voice
of one crying in the wilderness, make ye ready the way
of the Lord, make His paths straight, — [so] John
came," etc., we cannot easily rid ourselves of the im-
pression that the term ' Lord ' is applied to Jesus. The
former of the two prophetic citations here brought

text. This in turn, however, rests upon the connection of the idea of
'Lord' with 'Jehovah.' "Jehovah," says Oehler (Theology of the
O. T., E. T., ed. Day, 1883, p. 101), " is the Lord . . . That the idea
of , J*1X is immediately connected with the idea of Jehovah is clear
from the fact that the two names are frequently associated, and that
"OIK would in later times be substituted in reading for HIPP . . ."
When our Lord is called ' Lord,' therefore, in the divine sense, it is
to Jehovah specifically that the suggestion points.

19 Cf. Stanton, Jewish and Christian Messiah, 197, 198 and Note on
the latter page. Speaking of passages like these he says: " Deut 33 2
appears to be alluded to in various places in the Synoptists. It is a
passage which speaks in the clearest terms of Jehovah coming to judg-
ment, and the attribution of the language in the Synoptists to the
second coming of the Christ is an indication of the existence, even in
the body of tradition which they record, of a belief in the oneness of
Christ with God." Mutatis mutandis, this remark applies to the passage
immediately to be adduced.

' Mark's Conception of Our Lord 49

together is distinctly made to refer to Christ, by a
change in the pronouns from the form they bear in
the original — though the reference in the original is
to Jehovah: and this by an inevitable consequence
carries with it the reference of the latter also to
Christ. 20 But in the original of Isaiah 40 3 again
the reference of the term * Lord ' is to Jehovah.
Here we see Jesus then identified by means of
the common term ' Lord ' with Jehovah. 21 Of
course it may be said that it is not Jesus who
is identified with Jehovah, but the coming of Jesus
which is identified with the " advent of Jehovah "
to redeem His people predicted so frequently in
the Old Testament. 22 And this explanation might

20 So Sven Herner (op. cit., pp. 7 et seq., cf. pp. 4, 5) solidly argues.

21 Cf. A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the O. T., p. 262: "That
splendid passage, Is 40 1 - 11 , which speaks of Jehovah coming in
strength, that is, in His fulness, and feeding His flock like a shepherd,
s interpreted in the Gospels of the Son. It was in the Son, or as the
Son, that Jehovah so manifested Himself. By the Old Testament
Drophet a distinction in the Godhead was not thought of; but subse-
quent revelation casts light on the preceding. The Lord, the Re-
deemer and Judge, is God in the Son."

22 According to Dr. A. B. Davidson's representation this is as far
is the Old Testament writers themselves go with regard to the Mes-
siah. They came to look upon the coming of the Messianic King as
he coming of Jehovah; but not as if the Messiah were Jehovah, but
mly as if in the Messiah Jehovah came to His people. Cf. e.g. The
Theology of the O. T., p. 385: "It may be doubtful if the O. T. went
so far as to identify the Messiah with Jehovah or to represent the Mes-
siah as divine. It went the length of saying, however, that Jehovah
would be present in His fulness in the Messiah, so that the Messiah
night fitly be named 'God with us* and 'Mighty God.'" He adds:
' It was not a difficult step to take, to infer that the Messiah was Him-
self God, and that because He was God He was Saviour; and then
apply even those passages which speak of Jehovah's coming in per-
son to His coming as Messiah." It was this step that (if it remained
to be taken) was taken by our Lord and the evangelists.

50 The Designations of Our Lord

serve very well in the absence of other indications in
this Gospel that Jesus was viewed as a superhuman
being. In the presence of such indications, however, —
especially so clear an instance as is afforded by the
saying of Jesus in 13 32 — and in the presence of other sug-
gestions of the identification of Jesus with the Jehovah
of the Old Testament, — such as is afforded by His adop-
tion of the title of ' Bridegroom,' — the natural im-
plication of joining this prediction to its fellow in which
we hear of the " messenger " coming " before the
face" of Jesus ("thy") and "preparing His way"
("thy"), must be permitted to determine the ques-
tion in favor of the application of the term ' Lord '
to Jesus Himself. And in that case it is the person
of Jesus which is identified with Jehovah.

It cannot be doubted, therefore, that Mark sees in

Jesus a supernatural person, — not merely a person

endowed with supernatural powers, but

Mark's a person j n His own personality supe-

Method . r . ^ ^ r J'

nor to angels and therefore standing
outside the category of creatures. He does not, how-
ever, dwell upon this. It emerges in his narrative, al-
most, we may say, by accident. This is in accordance
with the character of his undertaking, which is illus-
trated by many kindred phenomena. His is not the
Gospel of reflection: it is the Gospel of action. This
evangelist is not accustomed to stop to muse upon the
events he records or to develop all their significance.
He does not attempt to give even a full record of the
teaching of Jesus. He has set himself to exhibit " the
beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ"; and he
exhibits this " beginning " in a vivid picture of the
wonderful career of the divine Messiah, preserving

Mark's Conception of Our Lord 51

mly casually certain of our Lord's sayings as sub-

tantial elements in his presentation of His career and

»nly incidentally suggesting what our Lord was in de-

cribing what He did. His concern is to portray fully

he supernatural life which Jesus lived, at the begin-

ling of the Gospel, as the fountain from which has

lowed the great movement in which he was himself

n actor. In doing this his method is of a piece

hroughout. He does not record for us, for example,

he great saying in which Jesus declares : " All au-

hority has been given unto me in heaven and in earth "

Mt 28 18 ). He simply exhibits the exercise of this

uthority by Jesus in detail ( i 22 ' 27 2 10 ' 28 f 1 4 41 5 42 , etc.) ;

eaving it to the reader to infer the gift. Similarly he

loes not stop in his rapidly moving narrative to say,

; Lo, here is a supernatural person " : much less does

ie pause to develop that conception into its implica-

ions. He does not even charge himself to cite from

esus' lips His own claims to divine origin and His

»wn conception of His unique relations with the Father.

/Vhat he gives us on these themes is incidental to the

tarrative and falls out in it almost by accident.

What he gives us is ample, nevertheless, to make it

lear that Mark was not ignorant of these things.

How can it be said that Mark knows

Marks nothing of the preexistence of Christ
Silence , f , T , v

when he records Jesus constant appli-

ation to Himself of the title ' Son of Man ' ? How

an it be said that he knows nothing of the supernat-

iral birth of Jesus when he records Jesus' assertion of

superangelic nature for Himself? How should one

bove angels enter into the sphere of human life ex-

ept by a supernatural birth? Unless we consider it

52 The Designations of Our Lord

more credible that Mark claimed for Him an even
more supernatural descent as an adult from heaven?
Mark, in a word, leaves the exposition of these things
to others. It is Matthew and Luke who complete the
story by the record of the supernatural birth. It is
John who develops all the implications of Jesus' pre-

, existence. But all that these bring to expression in
their fuller accounts is implied in Mark's narrative, in
which he incidentally tells us of the dignity of that
person's nature whose wonderful career he has under-
taken to describe. And there is no reason why we
should suppose him ignorant of the implications of his
own facts, especially when his purpose in writing did
not call for the explication of these implications. In
a word, it seems clear enough that there lies behind

' the narrative of Mark not an undeveloped christology,
but only an unexpressed one. To give expression to
his christology did not lie within the limits of the
task he had undertaken. 23

23 Cf. a careful precis of Mark's Conception of the Person and Office
of Christ in a section of Dr. Swete's Introduction to his commentary on
Mark: pp. xc-xcv. If we should put together, simply, the elements of
Mark's christology, perhaps it might be expressed as follows: Jesus
was a man, appointed by God Messiah, and endowed for His Messianic
tasks; but not a mere man, but a superhuman being, in rank and dig-
nity above angels (13 35 ), who "came" to earth for a mission. This
mission was not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and accordingly
involved humiliation and suffering: but a humiliation and suffering
not for Himself but vicarious (io 45 , cf. 2 17 ). He prosecuted this min-

( istry by a career of preaching (i 38 ), and in the end died and rose
again that He might give His life a ransom for many (io 45 ). Mean-
time, being God's beloved Son, the heavenly King of God's own King-
dom predicted in Daniel, the Lord of the House (13 35 , cf. n 3 ) and
no servant (12 6 , cf. i 11 9 7 ), not merely David's son but David's Lord
(12 35 ) who is Jehovah Himself (i 3 ), He had in His hands all author-

- ity (i 22 i 27 2 10 2 28 4 41 5 43 , cf. 1 41 2 11 9 25 ), and exercised all divine
prerogatives — controlling evil spirits, the laws of nature, death itself, —

Mark's Conception of Our Lord 53

We must guard ourselves especially from imagining
lat the recognition found in Mark of the deity of
Mark's Jesus is in any way clouded by the em-
Conception of phasis he places on the Messiahship of
ie Messiahship j esus as the fundamental fact of His
lission. We have already had occasion to point out
lat the Messiahship and the deity of Jesus are not
mtually exclusive conceptions. Even on the purely
ewish plane it was possible to conceive the Messiah

supernatural person: and He is so conceived, for
cample, in the Similitudes of Enoch and the Visions
f 4 Esdras. The recognition of the deity of Jesus
y Mark — and by Jesus as reported by Mark — in no
'■ay interferes with the central place taken in Mark's
arrative — and in Jesus' thought of Himself as re-
orted by Mark, — by our Lord's Messianic claims. It
nly deepens the conception of the Messiahship which
i presented as the conception which Jesus fulfilled,
"he result is merely that the Christian movement be-
omes, from the point of view of the history of the
lessianic ideal, an attempt to work a change in the
urrent conception of the Messianic office — a change
'hich involved its broadening to cover a wider area
f Old Testament prophecy and its deepening to em-
ody spiritual rather than prevailingly external aspira-
ons. 24 We have already noted that our Lord's

ading the heart and the future (9 31 io 33 ), and forgiving sin on
irth, and after His dying rose again and in His own proper time will
turn in the clouds of heaven with the angels to establish the King-
mi and judge the world.

24 Cf. Wellhausen, Mark, p. 71 : "I can find this at least not incred-
le, that Jesus was pleased with the name of the Jewish ideal, and
;t changed its contents, and that not merely with respect to the Mes-
ah, but analogously also with respect to the Kingdom of God." How

54 The Designations of Our Lord

preference for His self-designation of the title * Son
of Man ' over other more current titles is indicatory
of His enlarged and enriched conception of the Mes-
siahship : and we have already hinted that even the
title ' Son of Man ' only partly suggests the contents
of His conception, elements of which found their
adumbration in yet other portions of Old Testament
prediction. Among these further elements of Old
Testament prophecy taken up into and given validity
in His conception, there are especially notable those
that portray the Righteous Servant of Jehovah, cul-
minating in the 53d chapter of Isaiah, and those that
set forth what has appropriately been called the " Ad-
vent of Jehovah," — the promises, in a word, of the
intervention of Jehovah Himself to redeem His people.

Wellhausen would have such a remark understood, however, may be
•Icommodiously learned from his section on "the Jewish and the Chris-
tian Messiah " in the closing pages of his Einleitung in die drei ersten
Evangelien (1905). The Christian conception of the Messiah, such as
lies on the pages of Mark, for example — that paradoxical contradiction
of the gallows-Messiah, formed on the basis of the actual crucifixion of
Jesus — is of course the product of the time subsequent to the death of
Jesus; but its existence would be inexplicable without the assumption
that Jesus was supposed by His followers to be the Messiah, although
of course in His life-time it was not this Christian conception but the
ordinary Jewish conception of the Messiah which they attributed to
Him. The attitude of Jesus Himself to this ascription of Messiahship
to Him Wellhausen finds it somewhat difficult to determine (p. 92).
He is certain that Jesus did not follow the method of the Pseudochrists
and openly proclaim Himself Messiah; but he thinks that there are
indications that He did not repel the notion when applied to Him —
though, of course, this involved an " accommodation," as He was by
no means prepared to meet the expectations connected with the title.
It was no doubt, then, as a religious regenerator, not as a political
restorer, that He accepted the title; but this remained at least so far
within Jewish limits as not to involve that complete renunciation of
Judaism which " lies in the conception of the gallows-Messiah, of the
Messiah rejected by the Jews," of the writers of the New Testament.

Mark's Conception of Our Lord 55

It may be very easy to do less than justice to the Mes-
sianic ideal current among the Jewish people at the
time of our Lord, centering as it did in the hope of
the establishment of an external kingdom endowed
with the irresistible might of God. Of course this
Kingdom of God was conceived as a kingdom of
righteousness; and it may be possible to show that
most of the items that enter into the Old Testament
predictions, including that of redemption from sin,
were not wholly neglected in one or another form
of its expression. The difference between it and the
Messianic conception developed by Jesus and His fol-
lowers may thus almost be represented as merely a
difference of emphasis. 25 But a difference of emphasis
may be far from a small difference; and the effect
of the difference in this case certainly amounted to a
difference in kind. This new Messianic ideal is un-
mistakably apparent in Mark's conception and in the
conception of Jesus as represented by Mark's record
of His sayings. We can trace in Mark's record
the influence of factors recalling the Righteous Serv-
ant (io 45 9 12 14 21 i 24 ) and the Divine Redeemer (i 3 )
as well as the Danielic Son of Man. 26 But these fac-

25 On this general subject see two or three very strong pages in
Dalman, Words, pp. 295-299: cf. Stanton, 134.

26 Speaking of the conception embodied in the title ' Son of Man ' by
)ur Lord as reported in the Gospels, Charles {The Book of Enoch, pp.
312-317) argues that it included in it all the ideas suggested by the
Servant of Jehovah of Isaiah, and therefore so far commends Bartlet's
instruction {Expositor, Dec. 1892). Says Charles (p. 316): "This
:ransformed conception of the Son of Man is thus permeated through-
Hit by the Isaian conception of the Servant of Jehovah; but though
he Enochic conception is fundamentally transformed, the transcendent
:laims underlying it are not for a moment forgotten." If we may be
permitted to find the preadumbration of the " transcendent " element of

$6 The Designations of Our Lord

tors attain fuller expression in the records of the other
evangelists. So that here too we find them bringing
out into clearness what already lies in Mark rather
than adding anything really new to his presentation.

this conception, not in Enoch but in the O. T. representation of the
Advent of Jehovah, Charles' conception of the Messianic ideal of our
Lord, for the expression of which He chose the term ' Son of Man,'
seems to us generally just. It is — for whatever reason — essentially a
synthesis of the three lines of prediction embodied in the Isaianic
" Seryapt of Jehovah/' the Danielic " Son of Man," and the general
O- T. "Advent of Jeho vah," along with which the other lines of
prophecy — such as those embodied in the " Davidic King " — also find
their place.

THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD IN
MATTHEW

When we turn to Matthew's Gospel, and observe
the designations applied in it to our Lord, what chiefly
strikes us is that it runs in this matter on precisely the
same lines with Mark, with only this difference, that
what is more or less latent in Mark becomes fully
patent in Matthew.

The narrative name of our Lord is in Matthew

(as in Mark) the simple ' Jesus'; which (as in Mark)

The Narrative never occurs as other than the narra-

Name, and tive name, with the single exception

Exceptions ( w hich is no exception) that in an-
nouncing His birth the Angel of the Lord is reported
as commanding, " Thou shalt call His name Jesus "
(i 21 ). And not only does Matthew, like Mark, re-
serve the simple c Jesus ' for his narrative name, but,
also like Mark, he practically confines himself to it.
The only outstanding exceptions to this are that Mat-
thew sets (like Mark) the solemn Messianic designa-
tion 'Jesus Christ' in the heading of his Gospel (i 1 ),
and follows this up (unlike Mark) by repeating it both
at the opening of his formal narrative (i 18 ), and at
an important new starting point in his narrative
( 16 21 v - r -) ; x and that he employs a certain fulness of des-

1 In all these three places 'Iytrous Xpt<TTo$ seems to be used as a proper
name. Meyer (i 1 , p. 51) says: "In the Gospels Xptards stands as a
proper name only in Mt ii.i6,iT,i8 Mk i 1 , Jno i 1T , . . . here also

58 The Designations of Our Lord

ignation throughout the formal genealogy with which
the Gospel begins, by which he places the ' Jesus ' of
whom he is to speak clearly before the readers and
clearly as the Messiah. " The book of the generation
of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abra-
ham " (i 1 ) is the phraseology with which he opens
this genealogy: he closes it with the words, " Mary
of whom was born Jesus surnamed Christ" (i 16 );
and in the summary which he adjoins he calculates the
generations " unto Christ " (i 17 ) — a designation which
meets us again at n 2 . Thus Matthew in beginning
his Gospel leaves no room for doubting that he pur-
poses to present the story of Jesus' life as the life of
the Messiah; but as soon as he has given that formal
emphatic enunciation, he takes up the narrative with
the simple ' Jesus ' and with only the two breaks at
11 2 and i6 21vr - carries it on with the simple 'Jesus'
to the end. 2 The simple ' Jesus ' occurs thus in his

(cf. Mk i 1 ), in the superscription, the whole of the great name 'Itjgovs
XpHTTO? is highly appropriate, nay, necessary."

2 The name 'Jesus' occurs in Matthew about 149 times. Of these,
on nine occasions it is used in combination with additional designa-
tions ('Jesus Christ,' i 1 i 18 16 21 ; 'Jesus surnamed Christ,' i 16 27 17 > 22 ;
'Jesus the Nazarene,' 26 71 ; 'Jesus the Galilean,' 26 69 ; 'the prophet
Jesus who is from Nazareth of Galilee,' 21 11 ; 'Jesus the King of the
Jews,' 27 s7 ). The simple 'Jesus' occurs therefore about 140 times;
and always is Matthew's own except i 21 . It is according to Moulton
and Geden anarthrous in the following passages: (i 1 ) ii«.*i»M 14 1
(16 21 ) 17 8 20 17 ' 30 2I 1 ' 12 26 51 > 69 > 71 ' 75 2717.22,37 2 gs,9 (x8[2o] in all).
Two of these instances (17 8 and 20 17 ) may, however, be eliminated as
probably false readings. 'Jesus Christ,' i 1 , is properly without the
article, both because that is the regular usage with proper names in
headings, and because that is the regular usage with the first mention
of a proper name; 16 21 is to be looked upon in accordance with this
as a new beginning; while at i 18 the article is present because it takes
up the 'Jesus Christ' of i 1 again, further explained at i 16 as the
"Jesus surnamed Christ," and hence is almost equivalent to "this Jesus
Christ." In i 16 27 17 - 22 26 68 « 71 27 s7 , the article is properly absent on

The Designations in Matthew 59

narrative about 139 times, and is replaced only by the
compound ' Jesus Christ ' ( i 1,18 16 21 v - % cf. i 16 ) , and by
the simple 'Christ' (i 17 n 2 , cf. I 16 ), each, at most
three times.

In this sparing use of * Jesus Christ ' and c Christ '
by Matthew himself, the term ' Christ ' appears to be
'Christ* employed not as an appellative but
as a Proper as a proper name. In 2 4 , no doubt,
Name « fa Christ " is used in the general

sense of "the Messiah": Herod did not inquire of
" the chief priests and scribes of the people " where
Jesus was born, but where, according to prophecy, " the
~ Messiah should be born " : but just on that account
there is no direct reference to Jesus at all here. The
commentators are very generally inclined to look upon
the use of " the Christ " in 1 1 2 as a similar instance,
as if what John had heard in the prison was that " the
works of the Messiah " — such works, that is, as were
expected of the Messiah, — were occurring abroad; and
accordingly sent and asked Jesus whether He was in-
deed " the Coming One." 3 Attractive as this explana-

the general rule that it is always omitted as superfluous in the presence
of a defining appositional phrase with the article (Blass, p. 152; Moul-
ton-Winer, 140-1). Perhaps even 28 s may be classed here. Blass
(152) supposes the omission of the article at 28 9 regular, on the ground
that no anaphora is conceivable there. In 20 30 the article seems want-
ing because (present, ' passeth') the clause is a quotation from the
popular mouth, and the use of ' Jesus ' does not range anaphorically
with preceding instances; possibly 28 s may be so explained. In i 21 » 25
certainly an article would be out of place. There remain 14 1 2I 1 - 12
26 51 ' 75 , an explanation of which does not readily present itself. The
use of the article with personal names seems to have been capricious in
the Greek of all ages (cf. J. H. Moulton, Grammar, p. 83 ; Moulton's
Winer, 140; Schmiedel-Winer, 153; Blass, 152).

3 "John the Baptist," says Holtzmann {Hand-Corn., 133), "was
almost persuaded that Jesus could fulfil the Messianic purpose, that
His works were therefore of the Messianic variety (epya too Xpurrou)"

60 The Designations of Our Lord

tion is, however, it scarcely seems to fit in with the
connection. Jesus' exhibition of His works to the mes-
sengers would hardly in these circumstances have been
an answer to John's inquiry, so much as rather a refusal
to give an answer. And the connection of the pronoun
" Him " in verse 3 with its antecedent " Christ " of
verse 2 appears to require us to take that term not as
a general but as a particular one: John surely is not
said to have sent to " the Messiah " and inquired of
" Him " whether He was the Messiah. In other words
if "the Christ" (o XpeaTos) can be taken as a proper
name, designating Jesus, surely it must be so taken here.
And that it can be so taken and is so taken by Matthew,
its use in i 17 appears to show.

" The Christ " in I 17 also has sometimes, to be

" The works which Jesus does," says Wellhausen in loc, " rouse doubts
in John whether He is really the Christ; for he had expected from the
Christ something wholly different. Just on this account Matthew calls
them the works of the Christ; ... the Baptist turns, however,
with his doubts to Jesus Himself and leaves the decision to Him."
" The works" comments J. A. Alexander, "i.e. the miracles (Lk 7 18 )
of Christ, not of Jesus as a private person, but of the Messiah, which
He claimed to be, . . . The meaning then is that John heard in
prison of miraculous performances appearing and purporting to be
wrought by the Messiah." These commentators seem to suppose that
Mt 11 2 is to be rendered somewhat like this: "But John, because he
heard in his prison through the medium of his disciples of [talk about]
the works of the Messiah, sent through the medium of his disciples to
ask Him, Art thou the Coming One, or are we to look for another?"
The query arises, however, to whom John sent this inquiry? To "the
Messiah " ? Or to Jesus ? What, then, is the antecedent of the avra> ?
As the aura> is Jesus, so its antecedent too Xpiarob is Jesus: and the
concrete rather than the abstract seems more natural. Why not then
translate: "Having heard of the works of Christ he sent and asked
Him " ? The solution seems to depend on whether 6 Xpiards is used
always as a pure appellative in Mat., or sometimes as a nomen pro-
prium, or at least as a quasi nomen proprium. But the answer to that
is scarcely doubtful (e.g. i 17 ).

The Designations in Matthew 61

sure, been understood as the general term, " the Mes-
siah." 4 But this throws it out of range not only with
the other names in this simple summary, wherein the
corresponding terms in the accounting are most simply
given — Abraham, David, the Babylonian deportation;
but also with the precedent phrase, ' Jesus, surnamed
Christ,' of verse 16 to which it refers back and which
it takes up and repeats. For that the * Christ ' in this
phrase is a simple proper name is not only suggested
by the absence of the article with it, but is indicated
by the currency of a similar mode of speech in the
case of like instances of double names. 6 It appears
then that the addition, " surnamed Christ," is intended
in this passage as a formal identification of the par-

*So, for example, Weiss, in his reworking of Meyer. He supposes
that the summary here is not merely a mnemonic device, but rests on a
deeply-laid symbolism. There were fourteen generations from Abra-
ham to the establishment of the kingdom; and fourteen more from its
establishment to its loss: should there not be just fourteen more from
its destruction to its re-establishment in the Messiah ? " It is accord-
ingly," he says, " also beyond dispute that we should translate — ' up to
the Messiah.' " Similarly (he says) Kubel and Nosgen. This carries
with it the appellative sense in i 17 and 27 17 .

5 Cf. Dalman {Words, 303): "In Mt 27 17 . 22 Pilate uses the ex-
pression 'Iytrou? 6 Xsydfxsvo? Jptffros. That is not intended to mean
' Jesus, who is supposed to be the Messiah,' but with the usual sense of
this idiom, ' Jesus surnamed Christ.' " The same form is seen in Mt
i 16 , and in Ziixiov 6 Xeydfievo? IHrpos 4 18 io 2 . Cf. Meyer's note on
i 16 , where he remarks that 6 Aeydfisvos expresses neither doubt, nor
assurance, but means simply " who bears the name of Christ (4 18 io 2
27 17 ) ; for this name, which became His from the official designation,
was the distinctive name of this Jesus." Exact parallels to " Jesus sur-
named Christ" (Mt i 16 27 17 ' 22 ) occur in N. T. only at Mt 4 18 io 2 , " Si-
mon surnamed Peter"; Jno u 16 20 24 21 2 , "Thomas surnamed Didy-
mus " ; Col 4 11 , " Jesus surnamed Justus." Its equivalent in such forms
as "a man named" (Mt 9 9 26 3 . 14 27 16 , Mk 15 7 , Lk 22 47 ), or a "city
called" (Mt 2 23 , Jno 4 5 n 54 19 13 ), or "a place called" (Mt 26 36 27 s3 ,
Jno 5 2 , Acts 3 2 6 9 ) are not infrequent.

62 The Designations of Our Lord

ticular Jesus in question; 6 and the employment of
" Christ " instead of " Jesus " in the subsequent sum-
mary (verse 17) is perhaps best explained in the in-
terests of this clearness of designation, the article
accompanying it having the force of " the aforesaid
Christ." *

Matthew thus notifies us at the beginning of his

narrative that the ' Jesus ' with whom he is to deal

has another name, to wit, * Christ '

Why so (i 16 ), and so prepares the way for an
Seldom Used . , , r , . 1

occasional employment of this other

name (i 17 n 2 ). Our only surprise is that he employs
it so seldom. The account to be given of this is prob-
ably that, after all, in the circles for which Matthew
wrote, this ' Jesus ' had become so unapproachably the
only ' Jesus ' who would come to mind on the mention
of the name, that the more distinctive surname ' Christ '
was not needed in speaking of Him to secure His
identification; it is employed, therefore, only when
some suggestion of His Messiahship was intruding
itself upon the mind, as is the case certainly at n 27
and no doubt also at i 17 ; and we may add equally so

6 So also Fritzsche, in loc, who translates: "Jesus, whose cognomen
is Christ." " Thus," he continues, " Jesus is by these words discrimi-
nated from other men of the same name, and Xpurros does not declare
Him Messiah, but as in verse i 1 is His name." According to this in-
terpretation, he would have passages of similar character explained,
e.g. Mt 27 17 f and 22] "Jesus quern Christi nomine ornant" — and so
Mk 15 7 , Mt 26 14 9 9 26 3 ' 36 27 33 , Jno 19 13 . 17 , Acts 3 2 , Eph 2 11 . Simi-
larly Keil, on i 16 .

7 Cf. Zahn, in loc: "That Matthew, who elsewhere in the narra-
tive statedly speaks of Jesus by His proper name, writes too Xpiaroo
here instead, is explained just as in i 18 from his purpose to give brief
and emphatic expression to the fact that the deeds which are spoken of
indicate Him as the Messiah."

The Designations in Matthew 63

in i 1 (cf. "the Son of David"), i 18 and 16 21 (cf. v.
20), where the compound ' Jesus Christ ' occurs. This
is to recognize, of course, that the surname * Christ '
was the name of dignity as distinguished from the
simple name of designation, and preserved, even when
employed as a proper name, its implications of Mes-
siahship; but this is in any event a matter of course
and should not be confounded with the question of its
appellative use. The employment of the term ' Christ '
as a proper name of Jesus so far from losing sight of
His claim to Messiahship, accordingly, bears witness to
so complete an acquiescence in that claim on the part of
the community in which this usage of the term was cur-
rent, that the very official designation was conceived as
His peculiar property and His proper designation (cf.
27 17 ' 22 ). 8 The sparingness of Matthew's employment
of it, on the other hand, manifests how little our Lord's
dignity as Messiah needed to be insisted on in the
circles for which Matthew wrote, and how fully the
simple name ' Jesus ' could convey to the readers all
that was wrapped up in His personality.

Besides this sparing use of ' Jesus Christ ' and

* Christ/ then, Matthew makes use in his own person

Jesus' °f no other designation in speaking of

Popular our Lord than the simple ' Jesus,' al-

Name though on three occasions he adduces

with reference to Him designations which he finds in

the prophets: ' Immanuer (i 23 ), * Lord ' (3 3 ), * the

Nazarene ' (2 23 ). The implications of the first two

8 The climax of this development was reached, of course, when the
followers of Jesus were called simply " Christians " — which occurred
first, we are told, at Antioch (Acts n 26 ). Cf. art. "Christian" in
Hastings' Diet, of the Bible.

64 The Designations of Our Lord

of these we may leave for later reference. The last
bears witness to the fact that Jesus was currently
known by His contemporaries as " a Nazarene," that
is to say, that His ordinary distinctive designation
among the people in the midst of whom His ministry
^ was passed would be, ' Jesus the Nazarene,' as the
maid, indeed, is recorded to have spoken of Him in
the court of the high priest (26 71 ). This exact desig-
nation, however, does not elsewhere occur in Matthew's
narrative, although its broader equivalent, from the
(standpoint of a Jerusalemite, ' Jesus the Galilean,' is
' represented as employed by the companion maid (26 69 ) ,
and the multitude seeking to do Him honor is rep-
resented as describing Him with great fulness as " the
prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee " (21 11 ). The
simple ' Jesus,' as has been already pointed out, He
is not represented as called, except by the angel an-
nouncing His birth (i 21 ), but Pilate is quoted as des-
ignating Him by His full name, " Jesus, surnamed
Christ" (27 17 ' 22 ), and we are told that there was set
over His head on the cross the legend, " This is Jesus,
the King of the Jews" (27 s7 ) . In both instances the
adjunct is, no doubt, scornful, though it is less ob-
viously so on Pilate's lips than in the inscription on
the cross.

The employment by Pilate of the full name, * Jesus,
surnamed Christ,' seems to bear witness that already
Early Use of before Jesus' death He had been so pre-
' Christ ' as a vailingly spoken of as the Messiah that
Proper Name fa\ s ffi c ; a i designation might seem to
have become part of His proper name. The alterna-
tives are to suppose that Matthew does not report the
exact words of Pilate, who may be thought rather to

The Designations in Matthew 6$

have used the phrase appearing in the parallel passage
in Mark — " the King of the Jews "; 9 or else that the
term Christ is employed here in its full official sense
as an appellative, — " Jesus who is commonly called
the Christ." 10 The former, however, is a purely gratui-
tous suggestion; (Mark and Matthew do not contra-
^dict but supplement one another. And the latter seems
^(not quite consonant with the language used. There
seems, moreover, really no reason why we may not
suppose Pilate to have caught the term " Christ " as
applied to Jesus, and to have understood it as a proper
name, especially when we are expressly told by Luke
(23 s ) that the accusation which was lodged against
Him took the form that He had proclaimed Himself
to be " Christ, a King." Nor, indeed, does there seem
any compelling reason why it may not already have
been employed of Jesus by His followers sufficiently
constantly to have begun to be attached to Him as at
least a quasi-proper name (cf. n 2 ). On heathen ears,
as we know, the term " Christ " was apt to strike as
a proper name; 11 and, in any event, the title * Christ'
began very early, at least in Christian circles, to be
^appropriated to Jesus in much the connotation of a
Cproper name, because men did not wait for His death
^before they began to hope it would be He who should
deliver Israel. 12 If we may suppose, as in any event
we must, that even as a proper name, or as a quasi-
proper name, there clung to the term ' Christ ' a sense
of its honorific character, it would appear quite possible

9 So Dalman.

10 So e.g. Alexander and Weiss.

11 Suetonius, " Chresto impulsore," and note Acts n 26 .

12 Lk 2 4 2 i.

66 The Designations of Our Lord

that Pilate, " knowing that it was from envy that they
had delivered Him up," meant by giving Jesus His
full and evidently honorific name, to play upon the
multitude, that they should demand " Jesus, surnamed
Christ," rather than Barabbas. 13

Like Mark, Matthew represents Jesus as customarily

- addressed by the simple current honorific titles. The
Simple actual Aramaic form, ' Rabbi,' how-
Honorific ever, oddly enough, is retained only in
Addresses repeating the only two remarks recorded
in Matthew's narrative as made to the Lord by Judas
Iscariot (26 25 * 49 ). 14 Its usual Greek rendering,

** 'Teacher' (dcddaxaAs) , also takes a relatively infe-
rior place in Matthew, being largely supplanted by

u the more Greek ' Lord ' ( xupte ) , perhaps as the
representative of the Aramaic Mdri. 15 A tendency
seems even observable to reserve ' Teacher ' (ScSda-
xate ) for the non-committal, respectful address of
those who were not followers of Jesus (12 38 22 16,24,36 ;
9 11 17 24 , cf. 19 16 ). It is employed, however, in

13 If the reading ' Jesus Barabbas ' in Mt 27 16 17 could be accepted,
it would supply a reason why Pilate should have employed the full
name ' Jesus surnamed Christ.' He would have wished to ascertain
which Jesus the people wanted. But see A. Plummer in Hastings'
Diet, of the Bible, art. 'Barabbas' (1. 245).

14 The contrast between the address of the other disciples, " Is it I,
Lord ( xupce ) ?" (verse 22), and that of Judas, "Is it I, Rabbi?" is
marked. It imports that Judas, though among our Lord's closest fol-
lowers, was not of them: they recognize Him as their Lord, he only as
his teacher. But it remains obscure why in the case of Judas only
Matthew uses the Aramaic " Rabbi," rather than, as in other cases
of similar contrast, the current Greek form, diddaxale.

15 Wellhausen on Mt 23 7 ' 10 (p. 117) remarks: "We observe that the
address paftj3t or diddaxaXe is claimed here for Jesus and for Him
alone, whereas elsewhere in Matthew and Luke it is too low for Him
and is replaced by xupie (mari)."

The Designations in Matthew 67

the case of a scribe who came to Jesus and declared
his purpose to become His constant follower (8 19 , cf.
19 16 ). And our Lord places it on His disciples' lips
when He instructs them to " go into the city to such
a man, and say unto him, The Teacher says, My time
is at hand; I keep the passover with my disciples at
thy house" (26 18 ). Similarly in didactic statements
He refers (io 24,25 ) to the relation between Him and
His followers as well under the terms of ' Teacher and
disciple ' as under those of ' servant and Lord,' ' the
. Householder and the household ' : and forbids His fol-
lowers to be called ' Rabbi,' because He alone is their
* Teacher,' as pointedly as He forbids them to be called
c guides,' because He, the Christ, alone is their * Guide '

(23™).

Two new terms are brought before us in these last-
quoted declarations, — ' House-master ' (ocxodeaTzoryc;, Mt
io 25 2 4 43 ; cf. Mk 13 25 ) and ' Guide ' (*«%^c,
23 10 only in N. T.) ; both of which seem to have higher
implications than * Teacher ' (dcddoxalos) , although
both are placed in the closest connection with it as
its practical synonyms (io 24,25 23 8 ' 10 ). 'Guide'
{mdrjr]T^) occurs indeed nowhere else: 16 and we
can say of it only that our Lord chose it as one of

16 The source of the terra xadriyqr-q<$ has been much discussed. It
seems to have been in use in the Greek philosophical schools in the
sense of Master, Teacher (see Wettstein in he). The Hebraists
(Wiinsche, Delitzsch, Salkinson) are inclined to seek for it an Aramaic
original, miD (cf. Holtzmann, Hand-Corn., 251): but on this see
Dalman, Words, pp. 335-340. It is a deeper question whether it may
not be a Messianic title in accordance with the preservation of such a
designation — ' Hathab,' 'the Guide' — among the Samaritans: see Stan-
ton, Jewish and Christian Messiah, 127. There is no rational ground
for simply casting the verse out of Matthew (Blass, Wellhausen, Holtz-
mann, even Dalman).

68 The Designations of Our Lord

the designations which expressed His exclusive rela-
tion to His disciples. He was their only Teacher,
Guide, Master and Lord. But ' House-master '
(owodeaTTorqt;) seems to have been rather a favorite
figurative expression with Him, to set

t^Houfe forth HIs relatIon t0 HIs disciples,
whether in didactic or in parabolic state-
ment. In one of His parables, indeed, it is not
He who is the * House-master ' (oixodeonbzyc;) , but
God, 17 while He is God's Son and Heir (21 33 et 8eq )
in distinction from the slaves which make up other-
wise the household; and the uniqueness of His rela-
tion to the Father as His Son is thrown up into the
strongest light, and is further emphasized in the
application, where Jesus speaks of Himself as the
chief cornerstone on which the Kingdom of God
is built (verse 42) and on their relation to which
the destinies of men hang (verse 44). In other
parables, however (13 24 etseq- ' 20 1 etse< J), the 'House-
master ' (ohodsGTtoTTjs) is Jesus Himself, and the func-
tions that are ascribed to Him as such have especial
reference to the destinies of men. As the ' House-
master ' (oixodeairoryz) He distributes to men the rewards
of their labors in accordance with His own will, doing
as He will with His own (20 15 ) : and bears with the
tares in the field in which He has sown good corn until
the time of harvest shall come, when He will send the
reapers — who are " His Angels " — to gather them out
and burn them with fire (13 24 et ■">•» 36 et seq ). In a
word, to the * House-master '(ocxodeanoryz) , who is ex-

17 In 13 52 the ohodeanoTrjS is "every scribe who has been made
a disciple in the kingdom of heaven." And in 24 43 the oixodeGTzoTTj?
is the watching follower on earth who waits for His coming.

The Designations in Matthew 69

pressly identified with ' the Son of Man' (13 38 ) the
inalienably divine function of Judge of the earth is
assigned, and it is with this high connotation in His
mind that He speaks of Himself as such, over against
His " domestics," when He warns them not to expect
better treatment at the hands of men than He has re-
ceived (io 25 ). The implications of sovereignty inherent
in the term run up in its application therefore into the
sovereignty of God : as ' House-master ' (ocxodsaxoTyz) ,
Jesus is pictured as our divine Lord. 18

If 'Teacher' (dcddaxals) somewhat sinks in value
as an honorific form of address in Matthew as
, , compared with Mark, its more Greek

an Address equivalent, 'Lord' (xupu), on the
other hand, is more frequently and va-
riously employed by Matthew than by Mark. 19 It

18 On the meaning of olxodsffTzorrjS see T. D. Woolsey, Bibliotheca
Sacra, July, 1861, p. 599. Asa-nory? means "the absolute owner of
things . . . as . . . de<T7r6rr)$ oixta?, the master of a house or
household; whence the olxodeaTtoTTjS of the sacred writers." Cf.
Trench, Synonyms of N. T., xxviii., p. 91.

19 On the use of xopie in Matthew and its relations to other forms of
address, cf. Zahn, on Mt. 7 21 (p. 315, note 235). Kvpie, he tells us,
is employed " as an address to Jesus on the part of people who still
stood at a distance from Jesus, commonly in seeking help from Him,
in Mt 8 2 ' 6 ' 8 9 28 (v. 27, Son of David), i5 22 > 27 (the first time along
with Son of David), 17 15 2o 30 > 33 , Jno 411,15,19,49 5 ? 6 34 9 36,38. on t h e
part of male and female disciples at Mt 8 21 < 25 14 28 ' 30 16 22 17* 18 21

26 22 , JnO 6 68 n3,12,21,27,32,34,39 ^6,9, 25,36 ^6,8,22. Although the

disciples of Jesus also address Him by diddaxale (Jno i3 13 "i 6 , cf. Mt
io 24 ; examples: Mk 4 38 9 38 13 1 ; paPftt, Mk 9 5 n 21 , Jno i 38 > 49 4 31 9 2
11 8 ), the distinction is, however, to be noted that this address is used
also by His opponents, and especially by the scribes (in Mt 8 19 no doubt
by a friendly scribe in approaching Him, but still one who did not
become a disciple, in clear distinction from 8 21 , cf. 12 38 19 16 22 16 ' 24 - 36
Jno 3 2 : and by Judas, Mt 26 25 > 49 ), while on the other hand xvpte is
never so used, since from the very nature of the case it is the address

70 The Designations of Our Lord

appears upon the lips alike of applicants for our Lord's
mercy, whether Jewish (8 2 9 28 17 15 20 30 ' 31 ' 33 ) or heathen

(g6,8 I5 22,25 I5 27) ? and Q f JJfc ^iscipleS ( 8 21 ' 25 1 4 28 ' 30

16 22 17 4 18 21 26 22 ) ; but never on the lips of one who
is not in some sense a follower of Jesus, either as
suitor for His grace or as His professed disciple.

1 Lord ' ( xbf>t£ ) is accordingly a higher mode of
designation in Matthew than 'Teacher' (Scddaxah),
and imports a closer bond of connection with Jesus
and a more profound and operative recognition of
His authority. It occurs some twenty-one times 20 as
a form of address to Jesus, and, besides once as an
address to God (n 25 ), only a single time (to Pilate,

2 7 63 ), outside of parables, as an address to anyone
else. Even in its parabolic use, indeed, its reference
is always (except 21 30 only) either to God (!8 25 ' [26] ' 27 ' 31
I g32,34 2I 42^ c f 524^ or t0 j esus pictured in positions of
supreme authority ([13 27 ] 20 8 2 4 45 ' 46 ' 48 - 50 2 5 [11] ' [11] ' 18 ' 19 '

of the servant to his master and ruler, among the Orientals and later
the Hellenists and after Domitian also the Romans the address of
subjects to governors, occasionally also of the son to the father (e.g.
Berlin Aegypt. Urkund. 816, i. 28, 821, 1) and always an honorific
expression of subjection to those addressed (cf. Mt 22 44ss ^-), or at least
of dependence upon them at the moment. Thus Pilate is so addressed
by the Sanhedrin (Mt 27 s3 ), but also Philip by the Greeks (Jno 12 21 ),
the gardener by the Magdalen (Jno 20 15 ), in each case in preferring
a request." When Zahn says (on the same page) that " it was only
after Jesus' death " that xupte " took on in the Christian community a
more precise and richer content," he seems not to be bearing in mind
the implications of such passages as 21 3 24' 12 22 43 " 45 , and even 7 21
itself, though Zahn explains that passage otherwise. It is clear from
even 21 3 alone that Jesus was constantly called ' Lord ' and that in a
very high connotation.

20 g2,6,8,21,25 9 28 14 28,30 ^25,27 ^22 ^4,15 jg21 2 O 30 > 33 26 22 , cf.
25 37,44 7 21,21. Also I5 22 20 31 .

The Designations in Matthew 71

t 20],21,21,[22],23,23,[24],26 j cf IQ 24,25) > fc cannot be sa J d> of

course, that this supreme authority is explicit in every
case of the actual use of the term: in a number of
instances the term may express no more than high
respect and a general recognition of authority, and in
several instances it is represented in parallel passages in
the other evangelists by one or another of its lower
synonyms. 21 But its tendency is distinctly upwards;
and no reader can fail to catch a very high note in its
repeated use, or can feel surprise when it is observed

.. to be connected usually with at least Messianic impli-
cations (15 22 20 30 ' 31 7 21 ' 21 ) and is found occasionally
to be suggestive of something even higher (25 s7,44 ).
Nor will he be surprised to perceive that in its highest
connotation it appears characteristically upon the lips
of our Lord Himself, who represents men as seeking
to enter the Kingdom of Heaven by crying to Him
* Lord, Lord' (7 21 ), and as addressing Him on the
Day of Judgment as He sits King on the throne of
His glory by the appropriate title of ' Lord ' (25 s7 ' 44 ) .
In the latter case, of course, nothing is lacking of rec-

f ognition of divine majesty itself: this 'Lord' is not
only " the Son of Man " come in His glory with all

Xthe angels with Llim (verse 31), 'the King' (verses
34, 40) seated on the throne of His majesty (verse
31), but 'the Judge of all the earth,' distributing to
each man his eternal destiny, according to the relation
in which each stands to His own person.

It is clear enough from passages like these that

21 pafiPzi Mk 9 5 (17 4 ) ; fiafifiovi Mk io 51 ( 2 o 31 - 33 ) ; dtddaxale Lk

4 38 ( g 25) ) Mk 9 17 } Lk 9 38 ( I7 15) ; l TU<JT dra Lk 8 2 * (825) 988 (,7*).

72 The Designations of Our Lord

our Lord is represented by Matthew as conceiving
t t His relation to His followers as very

an Appellation properly expressed by the term ' Lord/
But the appellative use of the term of
Jesus is nevertheless not common in Matthew. No
:\more in Matthew than in Mark is Jesus spoken of by the
evangelist himself or represented as freely spoken of by
others as ' the Lord.' Even in the words of the angel
at the tomb, " Come, see the place where the Lord
lay" (28 6 ), the words "the Lord" are probably
not genuine. Nevertheless, on the lips of our Lord
Himself the appellative use of the term does occur,
and that in no low significance. He declares Himself
as ' the Son of Man ' to be ' Lord of the Sabbath '
(12 8 ). He instructs His disciples in requisitioning
the ass and her colt for His formal entry into Jeru-
salem to reply to all challengers with the simple words,
"The Lord has need of them" (21 3 ), — and the nar-
rator connects this instruction with the fulfillment of
the prophecy that the King of Zion shall enter it " rid-
ing upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass "
(verse 5). He warns His followers that as they know
not on what day * their Lord' cometh (24 42 ), — that
'Lord who is the Son of Man, who is to come in glory
for the judgment of the world (verse 44), — they are
to preserve a constant attitude of watchfulness. And
in accordance with these declarations He explains that
though David's son, He, the Christ, is much more than
David's son, — as David himself in the Spirit recog-
nized, — even David's 'Lord' (22 4345 ), and that, a
Lord who sits on the right hand of the Lord who is
Jehovah. It is in full harmony with these definitions
of His Lordship cited from the Lord's own lips that

The Designations in Matthew 73

the evangelist himself (3 s ) applies to Him the term
1 Lord ' in that prophecy of Isaiah, in which there is
promised " a voice of one crying in the wilderness,
Make ye ready the way of the Lord," Jehovah; thus
identifying His coming with the promised advent of
Jehovah and His person with Jehovah who was to
come. However little therefore the mere form of
address ' Lord ' as applied to Christ may necessarily
imply in Him a superhuman dignity, it is clear that
the actual Lordship accredited to Him by Matthew,
and by Himself as reported by Matthew, stretches
above all human claims.

We cannot fail to have observed, as we have con-
templated these honorific addresses and titles accorded

to our Lord, that it is His Messianic
Titles 10 dignity which proximately underlies

them all. And we shall be prepared by
this observation to note that with Matthew as with
Mark, the presentation of Him as the promised Mes-
siah belongs among the primary ends of the evan-
gelist, and that in the process of this presentation a
considerable number of Messianic titles are ascribed
to Him. Matthew bears witness, like Mark, to be
sure, that the people recognized in Him a prophet
(2 1 46 2 1 11 16 14 ) and that Jesus Himself was far from
repelling this attribution (13 57 ); but little stress is
laid upon this and it may be easily understood that
prophetic powers were conceived by Matthew, as by
Mark, to be included in His Messianic endowment. We
have seen that he himself calls Jesus in the formal
opening of his Gospel (i 1 ), at the beginning of the
narrative proper (i 18 ), and at the new beginning
marked by His open proclamation of His dignity

74 The Designations of Our Lord

(16 21 ), by the solemn compound name of * Jesus
Christ,' thus carefully announcing His Messianic
claims as governing the very frame-work of his Gos-
pel. And we have seen him following up this cere-
monious use of the full name ' Jesus Christ ' in the
opening of the Gospel, by explaining the term * Christ/
which forms a part of it, as a surname of Jesus due to
the recognition of Him as the Messiah (i 16 ), on which
account He forms the natural termination of the gen-
ealogy begun in Abraham (i 17 ); and by implying
that His works marked Him out as the Messiah ( 1 1 2 ) ,
so that the imprisoned John, hearing of them, was
impelled to inquire into their meaning. How wide-
spread the knowledge of His Messianic claims was is
witnessed by the adjuration of the high priest at His
trial, " I adjure thee by the living God, that thou
tell us whether thou be the Christ" (26 93 ), and the
bitter sport His judges made of Him (26 s8 ) as they
smote Him and demanded, " Tell us, Christ, who
smote thee."

Evidently our Lord's claim to the Messianic dig-
nity is intended to be represented as having been
Our Lord's /clear, constant and emphatic: so a part

Own Messianic of Himself in the popular understand-
Claims j n g t j iat j^- is heathen judge already con-
ceived the title ' Christ' as only His surname (27 17 ' 22 ,
cf. 11 2 ). And indeed Matthew's narrative leaves us
in no uncertainty that Jesus had claimed this title for
Himself from His earliest ministry. When the Bap-
tist, having heard of the works He did, sent from his
prison to ask Him whether He was ' the Coming One '
( 1 1 3 ) , He replied with no doubtful indication that Pie
was indeed 'the Christ' When Peter (16 16 ) in his

The Designations in Matthew 75

great confession declared Him " the Christ, the Son
of the living God," Jesus pronounced the declaration
a revelation from heaven (16 17 ), and only charged
His disciples not as yet to reveal the fact that He was
"the Christ'' (16 20 ). It was evidently to elevate the
conception current as to the Christ whom He repre-
sented Himself as being that He put to His opponents
the searching question, how could the Christ be merely
'David's son, when David himself, in the Spirit, spoke
of Him as his Lord — a Lord seated on the right hand
of God (22 41 " 46 ). Because He was, as 'the Christ,'
the sole ' Guide ' to His followers, He would not have
them be called guides, even as they should put no
earthly person in the place of their one Father in
heaven (23 10 ). The name 'the Christ,' He explained
K24 5 ), was exclusively His own, and it would be a
usurpation, therefore, which could only lead astray, if
others should come " in the strength of His name, say-
ing " — therefore falsely, — " I am the Christ." When
the high priest adjured Him to tell whether He were
>-" the Christ, the Son of God " (2 6 63 ) He, accordingly,
>„ solemnly accepted the title and explained that in ac-
cepting it He took it in its highest connotation (i6 M )
■ — in so high a connotation indeed that His judges
promptly pronounced what He had spoken blasphemy.
It is, therefore, only in imitation of Jesus Himself that
Matthew treats the designation of ' the Christ ' as
Jesus' peculiar property and — though of course with-
out emptying it of its lofty connotation — deals with it as
His proper name by which He might be currently des-
ignated.

The ascription of the title ' Christ ' to Jesus carries
with it naturally certain other Messianic titles which

76 The Designations of Our Lord

are involved in it. The simplest of these is ' the
The Simple Coming One,' based apparently on
Messianic Mai 3 1 or Ps 40 7 or 1 1 8 26 , and itself the
Designations Das i s of a customary method of pregnant
speech of the Messiah as " coming." 22 This designa-
tion is applied to Jesus in the question of the Baptist —
" Art thou the Coming One, or do we look for an-
other? " ( 1 1 3 ) , which Matthew records as having been
called out by the report brought the Baptist of the
" works of Christ " — using the name of i Christ ' here
instead of ' Jesus,' contrary to his custom, apparently
under the influence of this train of thought. And the
evangelist records in accordance with this designation
a series of sayings of our Lord in which He speaks
pregnantly of having "come" (5 17 9 13 io 34 20 28 , cf.

22 See the passages carefully enumerated in Thayer-Grimm, sub e voc.
ep%0[JLCU) I. 1 a. ft. (pp. 250-1 near top). Dr. Edersheim, Life, etc., I.
668, says: "The designation, 'the Coming One' (habba) y though a
most truthful expression of Jewish expectations, was not one ordinarily
used of the Messiah. But it was invariably used with reference to
the Messianic age . . ." Dr. Edersheim is speaking, of course, of
what is to be garnered from extant Jewish writings. The employment
of the phrase in Mt n 3 and Lk 7 19 is sufficient proof that it bore
among the Jews of the day " a technical sense " as a title of the Mes-
siah (cf. Westcott on Jno i 11 ). With reference to the appearance of
this designation precisely here, Zahn (in loc.) remarks: "While Mat-
thew expresses the dignity, as the possessor of which Jesus has mani-
fested Himself by means of His works heretofore described, by the
long established title of 6 Xpurro? (cf. esp. 2 4 ), he makes the Baptist
(who also in his public preaching seems to have avoided this title)
give expression to the same conception, consonantly with the manner in
which he had spoken of the future founder and King of the Kingdom
of Heaven (3 11 , Mk i 7 , Lk 3 16 , Jno i 27 ) by the term 6 ip^6/j.£vo^
the Coming One, the Great Expected. No doubt other expected per-
sonalities might be similarly spoken of (Mt n 14 17 10 se ^-, Jno 6 14 ), but
in the mouth of the Baptist the expression was without ambiguity: for
he had spoken of One only who was already on the way, which John
was to prepare for Him."

The Designations in Matthew 77

io 40 ), as well as certain popular ascriptions to the same
effect (2 1 9 23 s9 ). 23

Even more directly connected with the title, ' Christ/
however, is that of ' King ' : and we find Matthew
accordingly recording the ascription of that title to
Him in the heathen form of ' the King of the Jews,'
alike by the wise men of the east who came to
worship Him in His cradle (2 2 ) and by the Roman
governor at His trial (27 11 , cf. 27 s7 ) and the mocking
soldiery (2f 9 ). Jesus accepts it at Pilate's hands,
despite the heathen form which he gives it, and which
the priests (27 42 ) correct to the more acceptable ' King
of Israel/ Of more significance is Matthew's appli-
cation to Him, when He entered Jerusalem in triumph,
of the prophecy of Zechariah, " Behold thy King com-
eth unto thee," etc. (21 5 ). But, of course, the deepest
significance of all attaches to our Lord's own use of
the title ' King ' with reference to Himself in the great
judgment scene of Mt 25 31seq - (verses 34 and 40).
Here, calling Himself the ' Son of Man,' He ascends
the throne of His glory, and as King, not of Israel, but
of all flesh, dispenses their final awards to* all, accord-
ing to their several relations to Himself. Such a King
certainly was something more than a ' Son of David '
(2 2 43seq -). But that designation also belongs to Him
as the t Christ,' God's Anointed, who was to occupy
the Davidic throne, and accordingly it is represented
that the sight of His Messianic works led Him to be
recognized no more as * the Coming One ' (n 3 ) than

23 Cf. W. C. Allen on Mt n 27 . Commenting on the aorist, napedodr)^
he remarks : " The idea involved is of a pre-temporal act, and carries
with it the conception of the preexistence of the Messiah. The same
thought probably underlies rjXdov of 5 17 io 34 , and the aTzoare lavra
of io 40 ."

78 The Designations of Our Lord

as 'the Son of David' (12 23 9 27 15 22 20 30 - 31 21 9 ' 15 , cf.
1 1 ) — and that He by no means refused the ascription
(esp. 2 1 9 ' 15 ).

Obviously, however, no lower title would suit the
state of this Messianic King than that highest con-
Meaning ceivable one, ' the Son of God.' It is
of the likely that there were supernatural im-
'Son of God* pli ca tions in the mind of the evangelist
even when he applied to the persecuted infant Jesus
the prophetic summary of Israelitish history, " Out
of Egypt did I call my Son" (2 15 ), although at first
sight we might seem to be moving here in the atmos-
phere of a merely official sonship. 24 In every other
instance of the adduction of this designation in Mat-
thew these supernatural implications are thrust promi-
nently forward. The very point of Satan's temptation
of our Lord was that He should exercise the super-
natural powers which necessarily belonged to Him —
if He were indeed really 'a Son of God' (4 s ' 6 , cf.
8 29 ) . 25 Similarly the confession wrung from the dis-

24 Cf. Zahn in loc: " According to the connection of the narrative
up to this point, Jesus can be called the Son of God for no other reason
than that He was born of the Virgin apart from any aid of man (cf.
Lk i 35 ). The divine sonship of Israel, which was grounded in God's
calling this people into being for a particular purpose, and, as it were,
begetting it (Deut 32 18 ) — an idea which was so vividly conceived
that God's fatherhood is set excludingly over against that of Abraham
and Jacob (Is 63 16 ) — appears as a type of the divine Sonship of Jesus,
which actually excludes the bodily fatherhood of the son of David."

25 Cf. Zahn, in loc. (p. 152): "He is by a word of power to create
for Himself the food for which He hungers. This is an echo out of

V the abyss corresponding to the voice from heaven (3 17 ). What God
declares of Jesus, the devil brings into question (Gen 3 1 , Job i8seq.) f
demanding from Jesus that He should offer him proof of it. We must
not overlook, however, that he does not say, as might have been ex-
pected from the undeniable connection with 3 17 , el 6 ulu$ but e^ ulu$

The Designations in Matthew 79

clples by the spectacle of His control of the forces of
nature, emphasizes as strongly as possible the super-
naturalness of the Being who is capable of such works
(14 33 ). 26 In Peter's great confession (16 16 ) 27 the ad-
junction of ' the Son of the Living God ' to the simple
1 Christ ' is no more without its high significance than
the similar adjunction in the high priest's adjuration
(26 68 ) 88 of ' the Son of God' to the simple ' Christ'

eT rod deob. He is to prove not that He is the unique Son of
God whom God just on that account has chosen as the Messiah, but
that He is a being more closely related than other men to God (cf. Mt
14.33 27 40 ). If it cannot be unknown to the evil spirit, who is ac-
quainted with the voice from heaven, that Jesus has been chosen to be
the Messiah, nevertheless what he demands of Him has nothing di-
rectly to do with this vocation. It is, however, surely to be expected
of One who as a Son of God must have power over nature, that He
should rescue Himself from the unsuitable condition of a hungry man
by the use of His power."

26 Cf. Zahn, in loc. (p. 513): "Neither the absence of the article
from the predicate (cf. on the other hand, 3 17 16 16 even n 27 ), nor the
position of Oeou before vlo$ is to be overlooked. Even if divine
Sonship and Messianic dignity were synonyms (see to the contrary
p. 145 seq.), and what had cast the disciples into adoring wonder had
had anything to do with the office of the Messiah, the absence of the
article nevertheless would forbid us to think of that here (cf. on the
contrary, 12 23 16 16 21 9 26 63 ). What is said and what there was occa-
sion to say is not who but what kind of a man Jesus was. The ques-
tion elicited by a similar occasion, no-ano? iartv ouroy (8 27 ) is here
answered ; though, naturally, not after the fashion of a scholastic
dictum, but in the direct expression of an overwhelming experience.
Not a son of man, but a Son of God He is, who exhibits such super-
natural power over the elements, and shows Himself so exalted over
the hesitancies between the power of faith and the feebleness of the
flesh which accompany human weakness even when the spirit is willing,
— as was to be seen in Peter."

27 Cf. Zahn in loc. pp. 534-5: goes above 14 33 in confessing Jesus as
the Son of God, and of the living God; that is, Jesus had manifested
the works of the Son of a God who exists and acts, etc.

28 Cf. Zahn in loc, pp. 694-5.

8o The Designations of Our Lord

In both instances the intention is to go beyond the
mere designation of our Lord as the Messiah, and to
bring into relief the supernaturalness of His person.
Even when the Jews railed at Him as He hung on the
cross that He had proclaimed Himself c the Son of
God' (27 4043 ), the point of their scoff was that He
had laid claim to a supernatural relationship which
implied supernatural powers. Nevertheless, the deepest
connotations of the Sonship to God come out most
plainly in connection with the less technical forms of
this designation. At the apex of these stands, of course,
the double attestation which, it is recorded, was given
to Jesus from heaven itself as God's ' Son,' who be-
cause His ' Son ' was also His ' Beloved,' His chosen,
in whom He was well pleased (3 17 17 5 ). 29 But quite
worthy of a place by the side of these supreme attesta-
tions is the allusion which our Lord makes to Himself
in one or two of His parables, as the ' Son,' in dif-
ferentiation from all "servants" of God whatsoever;
as God's Son and unique Heir, who, despite what those
to whom He was sent should do unto Him, shall be
constituted by God's marvelous working the stone

29 Cf. Zahn in loc, pp. 145 seq., where the question is fully discussed
and solidly argued: "As at 2 15 so here the divine Sonship is to be
explained from i* 8 - 25 . It expresses not an official, but a personal rela-
tion; it is not identical with the Messianic office, but its presupposi-
tion." One of the arguments on which Zahn lays stress, however,
scarcely serves: "The idea that God, out of the many sons which He
has, has chosen one and that for the Messiahship, is excluded by the
attribute dyanyrds; for in this connection dyaTcrjrd^ bears the es-
tablished sense of only son= [lovoyevrjs" It appears to be probable,
on the contrary, that, as W. C. Allen, in loc, puts it " 6 dya7tT)r6?
is not an attribute of 6 ulos ;xou, but an independent title — 'the
Beloved ' — the Messiah." The matter is discussed by Dr. J. Armitage
Robinson in Hastings' Diet. Bib. II. 501, and in his commentary on
Ephesians, pp. 229ff.

The Designations in Matthew 81

which is the head of the corner (21 3738 ) ; 30 and as the
King's Son, all those unworthy of a place at whose
marriage feast should have their part in the outer dark-
ness where is the weeping and the gnashing of teeth
(2 2 2 ). This ' Son ' obviously is no less in origin and
nature divine than in His working in the earth the Lord
of the destinies of men.

But perhaps the most illuminating passages in this

reference remain yet to be adduced. These are those

. three remarkable utterances of our Lord

Assertions which are recorded at 24 s6 , n 27 and
28 18 " 20 . The first of these we have al-
ready met with in Mark. It is that difficult saying
in which our Lord declares that " concerning the day
and hour " of His coming " no one knows, not even
the angels of heaven, nor yet the Son, but the Father
only " — which differs from the parallel in Mark sig-
nificantly only in the added emphasis placed on the
exclusion of all others whatsoever from this knowledge
by the adjunction to the exception of the Father of
the emphatic word " only." The elevation of the Son
here to superangelic dignity, as the climax of the
enumeration of those excluded from the knowledge
in question is reached in His name — no one at all, not
even the angels of heaven, nor yet even the Son — is
what it particularly concerns us to note, implying as
it does the exaltation of the Son above the highest of
creatures, " the angels of heaven." 31 The second of

30 Cf. Zahn, in loc, pp. 620, 621.

31 The words " nor yet the Son " are, to be sure, lacking in a few
somewhat unimportant witnesses to the text, but can scarcely be ad-
judged of doubtful genuineness. W. C. Allen rejects them in sequence
to a theory of his own of the relation of Matthew to Mark, and Mat-
thew's habit of dealing with Mark's christological statements. Zahn

82 The Designations of Our Lord

the utterances in question (n 27 ) is in some respects
the most remarkable in the whole compass of the four
Gospels. , Even the Gospel of John contains nothing
which penetrates more deeply into the essential rela-
tion of the Son to the Father. Indeed, as Dr. Sanday
suggests, " we might describe the teaching of the
Fourth Gospel " as only " a series of variations upon
the one theme, which has its classical expression in "
this "verse of the Synoptics": 32 "All things were de-
livered unto me by my Father; and no one knoweth
the Son save the Father; neither doth any know the
Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son
willeth to reveal Him." The point of the utterance,
it will be seen, is that in it our Lord asserts for Himself
a relation of practical equality with the Father, here
described in most elevated terms as the " Lord of
heaven and earth" (v. 25 ). 33 As the Father only can
know the Son, so the Son only can know the Father:
and others may know the Father only as He is revealed
by the Son. That is, not merely is the Son the ex-
clusive revealer of God, but the mutual knowledge of
Father and Son is put on what seems very much a par.
The Son can be known only by the Father in all that
He is, as if His being were infinite and as such in-
more wisely retains them, as do all the editors. "The documentary
evidence in their favor," says Hort justly, " is overwhelming."

32 Criticism of the New Testament, — by a company of scholars, —
p. 17.

33 Cf. Zahn on Mt u 2 5-so ( p . 440): "As Jesus here names Him
whom He has just called ' His Father,' in the second and third clauses
simply 'the Father ' — which is not to be paralleled with the address of
vv. 25, 26 — so He names Himself three times simply ' the Son,' in
order to designate Himself as the only one who stood to God in the
full sense of that name in the relation of a Son to a Father."

The Designations in Matthew 83

scrutable to the finite intelligence; and His knowledge
alone — again as if He were infinite in His attributes —
is competent to compass the depths of the Father's
infinite being. He who holds this relation to the
Father cannot conceivably be a creature, and we ought
not to be surprised, therefore, to find in the third of
these great utterances (28 1820 ) the Son made openly a
sharer with the Father (and with the Holy Spirit) in
the single Name of God: "All authority was given
me 34 in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and
make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into
the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things what-
soever I commanded you; and lo, I am with you alway,
even unto the end of the world." Having in the
former passage (n 27 ) declared His intercommunion
with the Father, who is the Lord of heaven and earth,
Jesus here asserts that all authority in heaven and
earth has been given Him, and asserts a place for Him-
self in the precincts of the ineffable Name. Here is
a claim not merely to a deity in some sense equivalent
to and as it were alongside of the deity of the Father,
but to a deity in some high sense one with the deity
of the Father.

Alongside of these more usual Messianic titles, there
are found in Matthew, as in Mark, traces of the use
Less Common of others of our Lord, apparently less
Messianic current among the people. In Mat-
Tltles thew, too, for example, we find Jesus

represented as designated from heaven * the Be-
loved,' who has been chosen out by God as His rep-

34 Note the aorist, which as in n2? ( c f. W. C. Allen, in loc.) appears
to refer to a pre-temporal act.

84 The Designations of Our Lord

resentative (3 17 17 5 ), 85 and as identifying Himself
with the mysterious Shepherd of Zechariah who is
Jehovah's fellow (26 31 ). And we find Him here also
not only designating Himself the ' Bridegroom '
(9 15 ), but elucidating the designation in a couple of
striking parables (the parable of the Ten Virgins,
2 ,iseq.,5,6,io : anc | t ^ e p ara ble f tne Marriage of the

King's Son, 22 lseq- ), the suggestion of which is that
the fate of men hangs on their relation to Him; that
men all live with reference to Him; and it is He that
opens and shuts the door of life for them. The high
significance of these designations as applied to Jesus
has already been pointed out when we met with them
in Mark. It is more important, therefore, to observe
here that the implicit reference in Mark to the ' Serv-
ant of Jehovah ' as a designation of Jesus is made
explicit in Matthew by the formal application to Him
of the prophecy in Isaiah 40 1 seq - (i2 18seq ) as a divine
prediction of the unostentatiousness of His ministry,
in its striking contrast with the expectations which had
been formed of the Messiah's work on the basis of the
predictions centering around the Anointed King, the
Son of David.

This unostentatiousness entered also into the concep-
tion of the Messiah expressed in our Lord's favorite

self-designation of ' Son of Man,' —
'Son of Man' wmcn * n Matthew's representation, too,

appears as the standing Messianic des-
ignation which our Lord employs of Himself, occur-
ring as such about thirty times. The Messianic
character of this designation is placed beyond all doubt

35 Cf. W. C. Allen on 3 17 and J. A. Robinson, Ephesians 229 seq. and
Hastings' Diet, of the Bible, II., p. 501; also Charles, Ascension of
Isaiah, p. 3 et passim, and E. Daplyn sub voc. Hastings' D. C. G,

The Designations in Matthew 85

by its interchange with other Messianic titles (16 18 ,
cf. verses 16, 20; 17 9 , cf. verse 10 [the forerunner of
Messiah]; 24 27 , cf. verse 23; 26 64 , cf. verse 63) : and
the conception suggested by it of the Messiah, as
judged by the substance of the passages in which it
occurs, differs in nothing from that derived from the
passages in Mark except that it is illuminated by more
details. Here, too, we learn that the ' Son of Man '
came to minister, — or more specifically for the pur-
pose of redemption: " the Son of Man came not to
be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His
life a ransom for many" (20 28 ). Suffering and death
were, therefore, His appointed portion (17 12 17 22 20 18
26 2 - 24 - 45 ), as indeed Scripture had foretold (12 40 ). But
after death is the resurrection (17 9 ' 22 20 19 12 40 ), and
after the resurrection the " coming " in great glory to
judge the world ( io 23 24 27 ' 30 ' 39 ' 44 26 64 ) . There is noth-
ing here which we had not already in Mark, but every-
where details are filled in. The fortunes of the earthly
life of the * Son of Man ' are traced. We learn that
He lived like other men, without asceticism, — " eating
and drinking" (n 19 ) ; but lived a hard and suffering
life, — He had not where to lay His head (8 20 ). His
task was to sow the good seed of the word (13 37 ).
As part of His lowliness, it emerges that blasphemy
against Him is forgivable, as it is not against the Holy
Ghost (12 32 ). And the suffering He is called on to
endure runs out into death (i7 12,22 ). It would not
be easy to give a more itemized account of the suffer-
ings He endured at the end than Mark gives, but
they are all set down here, too (20 18 ), as also is the
promise of the resurrection ( 12 40 17 9 * 23 20 18 ) . When He
shall come again is left here, too, in the indefinite future

§6 The Designations of Our Lord

(24 06 , cf. io 23 ), but the suddenness of its eventuation
is emphasized (24 27,37 ' 39 ' 44 ) .

The details become notably numerous again, how-
ever, when the purpose and accompaniment of this
coming are adverted to (13 41 16 27 19 28 24 31 25 31 26 64 ).
The ' Son of Man ' is " henceforth to be seen sitting
at the right hand of power and coming in the clouds
of heaven" (26 G4 24 30 ). He is to come in the glory
of His Father with His angels (16 27 ), for all the
angels are to be with Him (25 31 ). The end of His
coming is to pass judgment on men and to consummate
the Kingdom. " For the Son of Man shall come in
the glory of His Father with His angels, and then
shall He render unto every man according to his deeds "
(16 27 ) — and this is "to come in His kingdom"
(16 28 ). There is naturally a punitive side to this
judgment and a side of reward. Of the punitive side
we are told that " when the sign of the Son of Man
coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great
glory shall appear," " all the tribes of the earth shall
mourn" (24'°'°) ; and that He "shall send forth His
angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all
things that cause stumbling and them that do iniquity,
and shall cast them into the furnace of fire : there shall
be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth" (13 41 ).
On the side of reward we are told that " those who
have followed Him, in the regeneration when the ' Son
of Man ' shall sit on the throne of His glory " " also
shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes
of Israel" (19 28 ). For "He shall send forth His
angels with a great sound of trumpets, and they shall
gather together His elect from the four winds; from
one end of heaven to the other" (24 31 ), and "then

^ 1 — 11 j-L~ — !~U it«. M .,« „U!—^ £.-<>— +-U ^ <-. 4-V-ka 011*1 iti 4-t-io If tnnr.

The Designations in Matthew 87

dom of their Father " (13 43 ). It is obviously the
universal judgment that is here brought before us;
and the consummation of the Kingdom, when by this
judgment all that is impure is drafted out of it and the
chosen are made sharers in the universal regeneration.
The whole scene of the judgment is pictured for us
with great vividness in the remarkable passage, 25 31 " 46 ,
where all the nations are depicted as summoned before
the throne of the ' Son of Man's ' glory and separated
according to their deeds done in the body — interpreted
as relating to Him — to the eternal inheritance of the
kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of
the world or to the eternal fire prepared for the devil
and his angels. The ' Son of Man ' appears here ac-
cordingly as the King on His throne apportioning to
men their eternal destinies.

Clearly, according to Matthew's account of our
Lord's declarations, the * Son of Man ' has His period

The High °f humiliation on earth, living as other
Meaning of men (n 19 ), sowing the seed (13 37 ),
'Son of Man' having not where to lay His head (8 20 )
as He ministers to men (20 2S ), forgiving even blas-
phemy against Himself (12 32 ) and all indignities
(17 12 ' 22 ), down to death itself (17 22 20 18 ) — and yet
even while on earth having authority to forgive sins
(9°) and to regulate religious ordinances (12 8 ), and
dying only that He may ransom others (20 28 ). And
He has also His period of exaltation, when having
risen from the dead (12 40 17 9,23 20 18 ) He in due time
comes in His glory, surrounded by His servants the
angels (16 27 25 31 24 31 ), and gathers to Himself His
chosen ones whom He has ransomed by His death
(24 31 13 43 ) and, cleansing His Kingdom of all that
is nnrlesn. sets it nn in its destined nerfection (16 28 ).

88 The Designations of Our Lord

The picture that is drawn is clearly, then, a picture of
voluntary humiliation for a high end, with the ac-
complishment of the end and return to the original
glory. In order to bring all its implications out in
their completeness we have only to recall what Mat-
thew tells us, on the one hand, of the ' Son ' who is
superior to angels (24 s6 ), who is God's adequate and
exclusive Revelation, knowing Him even as He is
known (n 27 ), who is sharer with the Father in the
one ineffable Name (28 1820 ) ; and, on the other, in
the opening chapter of his Gospel, of the supernatural
birth of this heavenly Being, breaking His way to earth
through a virgin's womb in fulfillment of the prophecy
that He should be called " Immanuel," " God with
us," For it can scarcely be doubted that Matthew
means this name ' Immanuel ' (i 23 ) to be interpreted
metaphysically of Jesus, and therefore adduces the
prophecy as a testimony to the essential deity of the
virgin-born child, — and indeed the angel messenger
himself is recorded as not obscurely indicating this
when he explains that the child whose birth he an-
nounces shall be called Jesus " because it is He that
shall save His people from their sins " — thus applying
to the promised infant the words spoken in Ps 130 8
of Jehovah Himself: "And He shall redeem Israel
from all his iniquities." 36 The very name ' Jesus '
for Matthew, as truly as that of ' Immanuel ' itself, is
thus freighted with an implication of the deity of its
bearer: and this is only a symbol of the saturation of
his Gospel with the sense of the supreme majesty of the
great personality whose life-history as the promised
Messiah he has undertaken to portray.

36 So Dalman, strikingly, Words, 297.

MATTHEW'S CONCEPTION OF OUR LORD

In seeking to form an estimate of the significance
of this list of designations ascribed to Jesus in Mat-
Profundity of thew, it does not seem necessary to
Matthew's attempt to draw out separately, as we
Suggestiveness attempted to do J n the case Q f Mark>

the evidence they supply to the primary emphasis
laid in Matthew upon the Messianic dignity of Jesus
and that they supply to the recognition of the divine
majesty of His person. It lies on the very face of
these designations that by Matthew, as truly as by
Mark, Jesus is conceived in the first instance as the
promised Messiah, and His career and work as funda-
mentally the career and work of the Messiah, at last
come to introduce the promised Kingdom. And it lies
equally on their very face that this Messiah whom
Jesus is represented as being is conceived by Mat-
thew, and is represented by Matthew as having been
conceived by Jesus Himself, as a " transcendent "
figure, as the current mode of speech puts it, i. e., as
far transcending in His nature and dignity human
conditions.

So clear is this in fact that our interest as we read
instinctively takes hold in Matthew of matters quite
other than those which naturally occupy it in Mark.
In Mark the attention of the reader is attracted par-
ticularly to the implications of the superangelic dignity
ascribed to the Messiah; and he finds himself unpre-

90 The Designations of Our Lord

meditatingly noting the evidence of the presupposition
of His heavenly origin and relations, of His pre-
existence, of His more than human majesty, of His
divine powers and functions. These things are so
much a matter of course with Matthew that the at-
tention of the reader is drawn insensibly off from them
to profounder problems. This Gospel opens with an
account of the supernatural birth of Jesus, which is
so told as to imply that the birth is supernatural only
because the person so born is not of this world, but
in descending to it fulfills the prophecies that Jehovah
shall come to His people to dwell among them and to
save them from their sins. From the very outset,
therefore, there can be no question in the mind of the
reader that he has to deal not merely with a super-
natural life but with a supernatural person, all whose
life on earth is a concession to a necessity arising solely
from His purpose to save. 1 No wonder rises in him,
therefore, when he reads of the supramundane powers
of this person, of His superhuman insight, of His
supernatural deeds. That He is superior to the angels,
who appear constantly as His servants, and is in some
profound sense divine, clothed with all divine qualities,
strikes him as in no sense strange. The matters on
which he finds his mind keenly alert rise above these

*Cf . W. C. Allen, Hastings' D. C. G., I., 308 : " In the thought of
the evangelist, Jesus, born of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit, was the
preexistent Messiah (= the Beloved) or Son (n 27 ), who had been
forechosen by God (3 17 17 5 ), and who, when born into the world as
Jesus, was ' God-with-us ' (i 23 ). In this respect the writer of the
First Gospel shows himself to be under the influence of the same con-
ception of the Person of Christ that dominates the Johannine theology,
though this conception under the categories of the Logos and the Divine
Son is worked out much more fully in the Fourth than in the First
Gospel."

Matthew* s Conception of Our Lord 91

things, and concern the precise relations in which this
superangelic, and therefore uncreated, Being is con-
ceived to stand to the Deity Himself.

It is not possible to avoid noting that all the desig-
nations applied to Jesus in this narrative tend to run
Richness U P at once on being applied to Him
of His into their highest implications. Even

Implications t h e s | m pl e name < Jesus ' is no exception
to this. For here it is represented as itself a gift from
heaven, designed to indicate that in this person is ful-
filled the promise that Jehovah shall visit His people,
— for it is He who, in accordance with the prediction
of the Psalmist (130 8 ), shall save His people — His
people, although, in accordance with that prediction,
they are Jehovah's people — from their sins (i 21 ).
Similarly the simple honorifics ' Master ' and * Lord '
rise in Matthew's hands to their highest value; ' Mas-
ter ' becomes transformed into the more absolute

\" Master of the House " with His despotic power,
governing all things in accordance with His will (20 15 )
and disposing of the destinies of men in supreme sov-
ereignty (io 25 ^seq.seseq.) . and < L or( j > becomes the
proper designation of the universal King and Judge
(25 37,i4 ) whose coming is the coming of Jehovah (3 s ).

/As the ' Christ ' He is pictured as sitting less on David's
throne than on God's (2 2 43,44 ) ; as ' King,' less as the
ruler of the nation for Israel than as Judge of all
the world for God (25 31seq ); as 'Bridegroom' as
holding in His own hands the issues of life (22 1 25 1 ) ;
as ' the Son of Man ' as passing through humiliation
only to His own proper glory (16 27 24 30 26 64 ) ; as
' the Son of God ' less as God's representative and the
vehicle of His grace than as God's fellow (n 27 ) and

92 The Designations of Our Lord

the sharer with the Father in the one ineffable Name
(28 1820 ). Thus the reader is brought steadily upwards
to the great passages in which Matthew records Jesus'
supreme self-testimony to His essential relations with
His Father, and his attention is quite insistently focused
upon them.

" All things were delivered unto me of my Father,"
says Jesus, as reported in one of them (n 27 ) : "and
Assimilation no one knoweth the Son save the
of Jesus Father; neither doth any know the
With God Father save the Son, and he to whom-
soever the Son willeth to reveal Him. Come unto
me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will
give you rest." Thus our Lord solemnly presents Him-
self to men as the exclusive source of all knowledge of
God, and the exclusive channel of divine grace. No
one can know the Father save through Him, and
through Him alone can rest be found for weary souls.
And this His exclusive mediation of saving knowledge
He makes to rest upon His unique relation to the
Father, by virtue of which the Father and Son, and
all that is in the Father and Son, lie mutually open to
each other's gaze. Attention has been called to the
fact, and it is important to observe it, that the whole
passage is cast in the present tense, and the relation
announced to exist between the Father and Son is,
therefore, represented not as a past relation but as a
continuous and unbroken one. What our Lord asserts
is thus not that He once was with the Father and knew
His mind, and is therefore fitted to mediate it as His
representative on earth: it is that He, though on
earth, still is with the Father and knows His mind —
yea, and will know it unchangeably forever. The rela-

Matthew's Conception of Our Lord 93

tions of time do not enter into the representation. Our
Lord presents Himself as the sole source of the knowl-
edge of God and of the divine grace, because this is
the relation in which He stands essentially to the
Father, — a relation of complete and perfect intercom-
munion. The assertion of the reciprocal knowledge
of the Father and Son, in other words, rises far above
the merely mediatorial function of the Son, although it
underlies His mediatorial mission: it carries us back
into the region of metaphysical relations. The Son
is a fit and perfect mediator of the divine knowledge
and grace because the Son and the Father are mutually
intercommunicative. The depths of the Son's being,
we are told, can be fathomed by none but a divine
knowledge, while the knowledge of the Son compasses
all that God is; from both points of view, the Son
appears thus as " equal with God."

But even this is far from the whole story. The
perfect reciprocal knowledge of each by the other
Identification which is affirmed goes far towards sug-
of Jesus gesting that even equality with God
With God f a ri s short of fully expressing the rela-
tion in which the Son actually stands to the Father.
Equality is an external relation : here there is indicated
an internal relation which suggests rather the term
interpenetration. There is a relation with the Father
here suggested which transcends all creaturely possi-
bilities, and in which there is no place even for sub-
ordination. The man Jesus does indeed represent
Himself as exercising a mediatorial function; what
He does is to reveal the Father and to mediate His
grace; and that because of a delivery over to Him
by the Father. But this mediatorial function is rooted

94 The Designations of Our Lord

in a metaphysical relation in which is suggested no
hint of subordination. Rather in this region what
the Father is that the Son seems to be also. There
is mystery here, no doubt, and nothing is done to re-
lieve the mystery. All that is done is to enunciate
in plain words the conception of the relation actually
existing between the Father and Son which supplies
their suitable account to all those passages in Matthew
in which there seems to be suggested a confusion of
Jesus with God, whether in function or in person. If
this be the relation of Son and Father — if there is a
certain mysterious interpenetration to be recognized
between them — then it is no longer strange that to
Jesus is attributed all the functions of God, including
the forgiveness of sins and the universal judgment of
men, nor that in Him is seen the coming of Jehovah
to save His people, in His presence with men the
fulfillment of the prophecy of ' Immanuel,' God-
with-us, in the coming of John the Baptist to prepare
His way the fulfillment of the prophecy of the mes-
senger to make the way of Jehovah straight, and the
like. All things were delivered to Him, in short, be-
cause He is none else than God on earth.

Of quite similar import is the great declaration with
which the Gospel closes. In this our Lord, announcing
Participation that all authority was given to Him
of Jesus in the in heaven and earth — that is, that uni-
Name versal dominion was committed to Him

— commands His disciples to advance to the actual con-
quest of the world, baptizing all the nations into the
Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit, and promises to be Himself with them unto
the end of the world (28 1820 ). In the absence of the

Matthew's Conception of Our Lord 95

former passage, it might conceivably be possible to
look upon the dominion here claimed and the con-
junction here asserted of the Son with the Father in the
future government of the Kingdom as having no root-
ing in His essential nature but as constituting merely
a reward consequent upon our Lord's work. In
the presence of that passage we cannot void this, how-
ever, of its testimony to essential relations. And the
relation here assigned to the Son with respect to deity
is the same as was suggested there. The significant
point of this passage is the singular " Name." It does
not read, " Into the names " — as of many, but of one,
— " Into the Name " of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit. The Father, the Son and the
Spirit are therefore in some ineffable sense one, sharers
in the single Name. Of course it is what we know as
the Christian doctrine of the Trinity which is sug-
gested here, as it was less clearly suggested in the
former passage, and as this doctrine is needed in order

(jfco give consistency and solidity to the pervasive sug-
gestion of Matthew's entire narrative that Jesus, whose
career he is recounting, is in some higher sense than
mere delegation or representation not merely a super-
human or superangelic or supercreaturely person, but
an actually Divine Person, possessed of divine preroga-
tives, active in divine power, and in multiform ways
manifesting a divine nature. It were impossible for

' Matthew to paint Jesus as he has painted Him, and to
attribute to Him what we have seen him attributing
to Him, without some such conception as is enunciated
in these two great passages in his mind to support, sus-
tain and give its justification to his representation. So
far from these passages offending the reader as they

g6 The Designations of Our Lord

stand in Matthew's Gospel, therefore, and raising
doubts of their genuineness, we should have had to
postulate something like them for Matthew, had they
not stood in his Gospel. Matthew's portrait of Jesus
and the self-witness he quotes from Jesus' lips to His
estate and dignity, in other words, themselves necessi-
tate a doctrine of His nature and relations with God
very much such as is set forth in these passages: and
we can feel perfectly assured, therefore, that these
passages represent wl:h great exactness what Matthew
would tell us of Jesus' deity and what he would report
as Jesus' own conception of His divine relations. And
what they tell us — we must not balk at it — is just that
Jesus is all that God is, and shares in God's nature as
truly as in God's majesty and power.

THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD IN
LUKE AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS

We meet very much the same series of designations
applied to our Lord in Luke as in the other Synoptists.
But they are applied with some characteristic dif-
ferences.

In Luke, too, the ordinary narrative designation of
our Lord is the simple ' Jesus,' which occurs about sev-
enty-seven times. 1 This simplest of all des-
The Narrative ... . . , . .

Designations ignitions is not so exclusively employed

in the narrative of Luke, however, as in
those of Matthew and Mark. There is an occasional
variation in Luke to the more descriptive designa-
tion of 'the Lord' (7 13 - 19 i 139 - 41 n 39 12 42 13 15 I7 5 - 6
18 6 19 s 22 61 ' 61 , fourteen times). No other designation
than these two, however, occurs as a narrative desig-
nation in Luke, although in three instances Luke makes
use of another in his narrative. In two of these in-
stances he is apparently repeating words from the lips
of others: he tells us that it had been revealed to
Simeon that he should not die until he had seen ' the
Lord's Christ' (2 26 ) and that Bartimseus was told
that 'Jesus of Nazareth' was passing (i8 3T ). In the
remaining instance he remarks that the evil spirits
knew that Jesus was 'the Christ' (4 41 ) ; where 'the
Christ ' is not strictly a designation of Jesus, but the

14 Jesus' is anarthrous: i 31 2 21 '* 3 ' 52 s 21 ' 23 4 1 5 8,10 8 41 9 36 - 50 i8 37 .*°

22*8,52 23 = 8 24 15 ' 19 .

98 The Designations of Our Lord

general term ' the Messiah.' These instances exhibit
Luke's willingness to speak of Jesus as the Messiah
indeed; but are scarcely exceptions to the general fact
that he himself designates Jesus in the course of his
narrative only as ' Jesus ' and as ' the Lord.' 2 As in
the other Synoptists, the simple ' Jesus ' in Luke is
also practically reserved for the narrative designation.
Only in the two instances of the annunciation of His
name by the angel (i 31 ), which is no exception, and
in the address to Jesus on the cross by the dying thief
(23 42 ) 3 is this rule broken. But, as in the other Syn-
optists, the name ' Jesus ' occurs in compound forms
of address to Him recorded by the evangelist, —
4 Jesus, Thou Son of God' (8 28 ), * Jesus, Thou Son
of David" (18 38 ), ' Jesus, Master' (17 13 ); and at
the hands of the evil spirits (4 s4 ), the people (18 37 )
and His disciples (24 19 ) alike, 'Jesus the Nazarene '

2 In 24 s the general transmission gives "the Lord Jesus": but this is
one of the instances in which it is scarcely possible not to follow a
few " Western " witnesses in omitting a very strongly attested reading.
This combination of designations occurs also in the spurious ending of
Mark (16 19 ), but not elsewhere in the Gospels. It becomes, however,
quite frequent in Acts: i 21 4 33 7 59 8 16 n 17 > 20 15 26 16 31 19 5 ' 13 ' 17
20 2i, 24,35 2I i3 2 g3i # i t m i g ht thus have very well been used by Luke
in his Gospel also. It is common in the Epistles.

3 The text is not quite certain here, and there are three ways of ren-
dering it: (1) "And he said to Jesus, Remember me"; (2) "And he
said, Jesus, remember me"; (3) "And he said, Lord, remember me."
The reading 'Jesus' seems the preferable one; but it is not altogether
clear that anarthrous 'It)(Tou here may not be the dative after ekeyev.
The uniqueness of the ascription of the simple ' Jesus ' as a form of
address, to a speaker in the evangelist's narrative, is, of course, favor-
able to taking it as a dative. In that case xupte would be an instinc-
tive correction of "Irjffob mistaken for a vocative; as in the other case
it would be an instinctive insertion of a vocative "because 'I-qaoo here
was mistaken for the dative" (Plummer).

The Designations in Luke 99

— whence it emerges that it was by this name that He
was popularly identified. 4

The ordinary forms of address applied to Jesus in

Luke are the simple honorifics, ' Teacher/ ' Master,'

Ordinary * Lord,' employed, however, with a cer-

Forms of tain discrimination. 5 The Aramaic
Address f orm < R aD bi ' does not occur in Luke
at all. Its common Greek rendering, * Teacher '
(dcddaxaAe) , seems to be treated as the current non-
committal honorific, especially appropriate on the lips
of those who were not, or at least not yet, His dis-
ciples (7 40 io 25 ii 45 12 13 18 18 19 39 20 21 ' 28 * 39 ; 8 49 9 3S ).
The only exception to its employment by this rule is
supplied by 21 7 , where we are told that certain of
His disciples " asked Him saying, ' Teacher/ " etc.
That it was not thought inappropriate as a form of ad-
dress from His disciples to Him is also evinced, how-
ever, by the report of His own employment of it on
two occasions. He instructs His followers, in prepar-
ing the last passover meal for Him, to say to the good-
man of the house, " The Teacher saith unto thee,
where is the guest-chamber, where I shall eat the pass-
over with my disciples" (22 11 ) ; and He tells them,
broadly indeed, but no doubt with some, though cer-
tainly remote, reference to Himself and them, that

*In 4 34 24 19 , the form is 6 NaZaprjvo^ as it is in Mark: in 18 37
6 NaZapatos as in Mt, Jno and Acts. Cf. Plummer on 4 s4 .

5 There is a tendency, of course, to refer to Jesus where He was
present in fact or thought by the simple demonstrative ouzo? (i 32 8 28
p35 23 41 [20 14 23 2 - 4 ' 14 ' 23 ], and this is sometimes contemptuous ([5 21 ]
7 39,49 I5 2 I9 i4 [24 14 ] 23t 4 » 14 ' 22 ^ 25 ' 38 23 18 ). So in the other evan-
gelists: Mt 3 17 8 27 12 22 17 5 2i 10 ' n '[ 38 3 27 s4 , and contemptuously, 9 3
12 24 [ I3 54,55,56] 2 6 61 [27 s7 ] 27 47 , Mk 4 41 9 7 I2 7 15 39 and contemptu-
ously, 2 7 [6 2 ' 2 ' 3 ]. On this depreciatory ovto$ see Meyer on 7 s9 . 49 .

ioo The Designations of Our Lord

"the disciple is not above his teacher; but every one
when he is perfected shall be as his teacher " (6 40 ) . The
choice of the term 'Teacher' (dtddaxaXoz ) in these
two passages appears to be due to the correlative
"disciples" occurring in each; and it remains true
that ' Teacher ' ( deddaxaXe ) as a form of address is
characteristic in Luke, of non-followers of our Lord. 6
The place of ' Teacher ' on the lips of His followers
is partly taken by a new term for * Master,' peculiar

to Luke ( kTtcor&TTjs ) , 7 which however
'Master' occurs only six times (5 s 8 24 ' 45 9 33 ' 49

17 13 ), only one of which (17 13 ) forms
an exception or quasi-exception to the rule that the
term indicates that the user of it stands in the closest
relation to Jesus, and acknowledges Him as his Su-
perior Officer — Chief, Commander, Master, Leader.
This quasi-exception occurs in the case of the ten
lepers who, we are told, lifted up their voices and
said, " Jesus, Leader, have mercy on us." Perhaps
there is an intention to convey the impression that
these lepers, formally at least, recognized the authority
of Jesus completely. We cannot account 5 s another
such exception, since the whole tone of the narrative
indicates that this was not the first call of Peter to
become Jesus' disciple (cf. Jno i 42 ), but his call to
become Jesus' constant companion. There is no such
direct use of Jesus in Luke (or in Mk) as in Matthew
of the figurative expression ' Master of the House '

6 'Teacher' is in 3 12 employed as an address to John the Baptist;
and the Jewish Rabbis in the temple are called ' Teachers ' in 2 46 .

7 When Wellhausen on 5 4 > 5 says uy Eictardra (and xvpte) is used
in Luke by the disciples; SiddaxaXe by others," he is thus substan-
tially right. Cf. Plummer on 5 5 , where the meaning of the word is
discussed.

The Designations in Luke 101

' (olxodeonoTTjs) , although the term occurs in parables
with reference to Him (13 25 14 21 ).

The prevailing form of address to Jesus in Luke is,
however, the ordinary Greek honorific ' Lord ' ( xupce ) ,
( , used, however, obviously as an honor-

Address ^ c °f es P ec i a % high connotation. It
is put upon the lips, indeed, of out-
siders, suitors for mercy (5 12 7 6 18 41 19 8 ) and possibly
others (9 59 ' 61 13 23 ) ; and our Lord's own remark to
the effect that some called Him * Lord, Lord,' who
did not do the things He said (6 46 ) shows that it
might be insincerely used of Him. But this very
passage also indicates that to address Him as ' Lord '
was to acknowledge His authority and involved sub-
jection to His commandments, and accordingly the
term is represented as employed chiefly by His pro-
fessed followers (5 s io 17 ' 40 n 1 12 41 17 37 22 33 ' 38 < 49 ).
Something of its high implication, when so used, may
be caught from 5 s in comparison with 5 s . When our
Lord, having used Simon's boat for a pulpit, com-
manded him to let down his nets for a draught, Simon
responded with the respectful address which implied
that he recognized Jesus as his ' Superior Officer '
(i^<rrar^c), "Master, we toiled all night, and took
nothing: but at Thy word I will let down the nets.'*
But when he saw the resultant miraculous draught, he
fell at Jesus' knees and said: " Depart from me; for
I am a sinful man, O Lord " — using now the higher
honorific, ' Lord ' ( xupie ) . 8 Obviously the address

8 Streatfeild, Self-Interpretation of Jesus Christ, p. 99 note, is clearly
in the wrong in supposing that the change from iTtiaxaxa of v. 5 to
xupie of v. 8 has no significance; and the occasional interchange of
the terms, noted by Dalman as appealed to by Streatfeild, does not

102 The Designations of Our Lord

1 Lord ' on the lips of Jesus' followers was charged

with very high significance, and this is borne out in

its entire use.

Such a constant mode of address as ' Lord ' by His

followers, naturally would beget the habit of speaking

,, of Jesus among themselves as * the

Lord as an T , , , c .

Appellative Lord ; and we can reel no surprise

therefore that Jesus, in giving them
instructions how to reply to possible objections to their
taking the ass He sent them for as He was about to
enter Jerusalem, placed this designation on their lips.
" Say," He said, " the Lord hath need of him " ( 19 31 ) ;
and accordingly they said (v. 34), " The Lord hath
need of him" (cf. 1 2 36,42 ' 43 seq - ) . This instruction is
recorded by all the Synoptists, and the usage which
it involves of the term ' Lord ' of Jesus as an appella-
tive designation might very well, therefore, have been
illustrated in the narratives of them all. The copious
designatory employment of the title ' Lord ' of Christ,
however, is characteristic of Luke. 9 It is placed on the

interpose an obstacle. Cf . Godet on verse 8 : " Peter here employs the
more religious expression, Lord, which answers to his actual feelings " ;
and Plummer, verse 8: "The change from iruffrdra (see on verse 5)
is remarkable and quite in harmony with the change of circumstances.
It is the ' Master ' whose orders must be obeyed, the ' Lord ' whose
holiness causes moral agony to the sinner (Dan io 16 )."

9 Cf. Sven Herner, Die Anivendung des Wortes xupto? im N. T.,
pp. 12, 13: "In contrast with Matthew and Mark, Luke speaks of Jesus
by the designation xupio§ comparatively often. Even if 7 19 . 31 io 41
22 31 24 s be neglected as more or less uncertain in the reading, and 19 31
as a parallel to Mt 21 3 , Mk n 3 , there remain nevertheless fourteen
passages peculiar to Luke (7 13 io 1 ' 40 n 39 12 12 13 15 17 s - 6 18 6 19 s ' 34
2261,61 24 s4 ) which speak of Jesus by the designation of 'Lord': and
to these may be added the expressions 'the mother of my Lord' (i 43 )
and 'the Lord Christ' (2 11 )." "It may be further remarked that
although one of the uncertain passages enumerated (24 s ) belongs to

The Designations in Luke 103

lips of the disciples themselves in this designatory form
at 24 34 , and it occurs in two passages in the opening
chapters of the Gospel — in the elevated language of
the angelic announcement in the combination, c Christ
the Lord' or 'the anointed Lord' (2 11 ), and in the
response of Elisabeth (i 45 ) in which she expresses her
wondering awe that " the mother of her Lord " should
come to her. Obviously in such usages the term con-
notes a very high dignity, certainly Messianic at the least.
It is also employed of Himself by our Lord in the
question He is recorded by all the Synoptists as putting
to the scribes as to the significance of David's predic-
tion of the Messiah as his 'Lord' (20 41seq -) — again,
obviously with a high connotation. But the particu-
larly significant fact in this connection is its current
employment by Luke himself as an alternative narra-
tive designation to the simple ' Jesus ' (7 13 ' 19 10 1 ' 39 ' 41 1 1 89
I2 42 j^is j ^5,6 jge j^s 22 61 ' 61 ). It does not seem easy
to detect any special significance in the interchange of
these designations; the reason for the passage from
one to the other seems either purely literary or at least
obscure. The meaning of the appearance of this nar-
rative employment of the term in Luke seems, there-
fore, to be merely that in the usage of Luke in his
own person there emerges a reflection of a usage evi-
dently common among the disciples of Jesus from the
beginning, but not chancing to be copiously illustrated

the time when Christ was, though resurrected, not yet manifested to
His disciples, and one of the certain ones (24 s4 ) is a word of the dis-
ciples to whom the risen Lord had manifested Himself, yet all the
others fall in the time before the resurrection. Although Luke men-
tions Jesus, however, comparatively often by the designation 'Lord,'
this is nevertheless far from his current designation of Him, as the
names of 'Jesus' and 'Christ' meet us 112 times."

104 The Designations of Our Lord

in the personal literary manner of Mark and Matthew:
the usage, namely, of currently speaking of Jesus as
1 the Lord.'

This implies, naturally, that Jesus stood to His dis-
ciples for whatever the title ' Lord , meant to them.

_. .„ There is involved in it certainly the

Significance . . , u . u . . ,. .

of* Lord* recognition ot His Messianic dignity,

and there is included, therefore, the rec-
ognition in Him of all that they saw in His Messianic
dignity. So far, we suppose, we may be sure that, as
has been suggested, He was thought of as 'Lord' in
contrast to the earthly potentates who were claiming
lordship of men, and especially in contrast with the
emperor in Rome, the ' Lord ' by way of eminence in
all men's minds. 10 To Jesus, rather than to the em-
peror, was allegiance due. But we must not forget
that the allegiance expressed to Jesus rested on a spir-
itual basis, while, perhaps, it is going too far to sup-
pose that the divine claims of the imperial monarch
were held clearly in mind. 11 The simplest thing to say
is that the term ' Lord ' was applied to Jesus by Luke
obviously with the deepest reverence and obviously as
the expression of that reverence.

10 Cf. Dalman, Words, 330: "When the Christians called Jesus
6 xupto$, they will have meant that He is the true ' divine Lord '
in opposition to the ' God and Lord ' on the imperial throne of Rome.
Luke's frequent use of 6 xupto? is certainly intended in this sense.
The phrase Xptffro? xupto$ used in his Gospel 2 11 (cf. Acts 2 36 ) de-
fines the term Xpiaros in that sense for the reader." Dalman is prob-
ably thinking of " Luke " as representing a Gentile Christian usage.
It is clear, on the contrary, that his is simply an aboriginal Christian
usage — possibly with slightly changing— or enlarging — content, but
with no essential alteration of meaning.

11 On the employment of xupto? of the emperor and its signifi-
cance see T. D. Woolsey in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1861, pp. 595-608.

The Designations in Luke 105

The full height of this reverence may be suggested
to us by certain passages in which the term * Lord
occurs in citations from the Old Testament, where its
reference is to Jehovah, though in the citations it seems
to be applied to Jesus. Like the other Synoptists, Luke
cites, for instance, from Isaiah the promise of a voice
crying in the wilderness, " Make ye ready the way of
the Lord, make His paths straight" (3 4 ), and applies
it to the coming of John the Baptist whom he rep-
resents as preparing the way for Jesus 1 manifestation.
As in the case of the other evangelists, the inference
lies close that by ' the Lord ' here Luke means Jesus,
whose coming he thus identifies with the advent of
Jehovah and whose person he seems to identify with
Jehovah. 12 On the other hand, in passages like i 17,76 ,
although the language is similar, it seems more natural
to understand the term * Lord ' as referring to God
Himself, and to conceive the speaker to be thinking of
the coming of Jehovah to redemption in Jesus without
necessary identification of the person of Jesus with
Jehovah. 13 The mere circumstance, however, that the

12 Cf. Sven Herner, as cited, p. 11: "With a reference to our discus-
sion of the citation in the passages in Matthew and Mark we hold it
most probable that Christ is meant, and this view is more easily main-
tained in the case of Luke than of Matthew because Luke compara-
tively frequently uses the designation ' Lord ' of Jesus." Proceeding to
discuss the parallel passage, i 76 , he decides that there ' Lord ' probably
V refers to God the Father; which appears just. It does not follow,
however, that Godet's remark may not also be accepted : " In saying
the Lord Zacharias can only be thinking of the Messiah: but he could
not designate Him by this name, unless, with Malachi, he recognized in
His coming the appearing of Jehovah (cf. i 17 > 43 2 11 )"— if this can be
read of the advent of Jehovah in His Representative.

13 Hahn says, rightly as we think, at i 16 : "Not to be understood of
the Messiah (Ambr., Beda, Euthym., Beng., Cast., Bisp., Schegg,
Schanz) but of God"; and at i 76 : "Not to be understood of the

to6 The Deslgnatw?is of Our Lord

reader is led to pause over such passages and to con-
sider whether they may not intend by their * Lord ' —
who is Jehovah — to identify the person of Jesus with
Jehovah, is significant. We should never lose from
sight the outstanding fact that to men familiar with
the lxx and the usage of ' Lord ' as the personal
name of the Deity there illustrated, the term * Lord '
was charged with associations of deity, so that a habit
of speaking of Jesus as ' the Lord,' by way of emi-
nence, such as is illustrated by Luke and certainly was
current from the beginning of the Christian proclama-
tion (19 31 ), was apt to carry with it implications of
deity which, if not rebuked or in some way guarded
against, must be considered as receiving the sanction
of Jesus Himself.

The leading designations of Jesus in Luke, as in the
other Synoptists, however, are, broadly speaking, Mes-

sianic. In other words, it is distinc-
' Prophet' tively as the Messiah that Luke sets

forth Jesus and represents Him as hav-
ing conceived of Himself and as having been revered
by His followers. We find in Luke, as in the other
Synoptists, to be sure, traces of a widespread recogni-
tion of Him as a prophet (7 1G - 39 9 8 ' 19 ). His followers
set their hopes upon Him in that office (24 19 ) ; and
indeed with no uncertainty He Himself assumed the

Messiah (Kiin., Ols., Bisp., Schanz), but of God"; but, we think,
wrongly at 3 4 : "By the xupio? there is here, just as in the Old Test,
passage, to be understood, not the Messiah (Kiin., Bl., Haupt) but
God, for Luke wishes to say that in the Messiah God would hold His
own advent." So far as the mere language goes, that might be ac-
cepted: but the passage seems to mean otherwise (see Plummer per
contra). Meyer has an excellent note on i 16 - 17 and decides rightly
also at i 76 : whom Weiss properly follows; so also Plummer.

The Designations in Luke 107

role of a prophet (4 24 I3 33,34 ). But no more in Luke
than in the other Synoptists is this particularly empha-
sized, and in Luke, too, the prophetic character is, no
doubt, conceived as part of the Messianic function, —
as indeed the collocation of His prophetic calling and
His redemption of Israel in the thought of the dis-
ciples going to Emmaus not obscurely suggests
(24 19 ' 21 , cf. also 7 16 ). 14

Luke also records from the mouth of the angel
announcing the birth of Jesus the new designation of

4 Saviour ' — if we can call a designa-
' Saviour* tion new which is so plainly adumbrated

in a passage like Mt i 21 (cf. also Lk
19 10 ). 15 But this is so little un-Messianic that it is
not only connected with the Messianic prophecies by
adjacent references (i 47 , cf. 2 30 3°), but is expressly
defined as Messianic in the annunciation itself: "a
Saviour, which is Christ the Lord" (2 11 ). Like Mt
I 21 , this passage clearly indicates that to the circle in
which Jesus moved His coming as the Messiah was
connected with the great series of prophecies which
promised the advent of Jehovah for the redemption of
His people, as truly as with those which predicted the
coming of the Davidic King. The terms, " a Saviour,
which is Christ the Lord," are, indeed, an express
combination of the two lines of prophecy, and import

14 Cf. Meyer on 7 16 : "They saw In this miracle a fftjfieiov of a
great prophet, and in His appearance they saw the beginning of the
Messianic deliverance (comp. 168-79) # » On the whole subject, cf.
Stanton, Jewish and Christian Messiah, 126 seq.

15 Cf. Plummer in loc: " Here first in N. T. is trwr-qp used of Christ,
and here only in Luke. Not in Matthew or Mark, and only once in
John (4 42 ) : twice in Acts (5 31 13 23 ) ; and frequently in Titus and
2 Peter."

108 The Designations of Our Lord

that the Child who was born in the city of David was
both the promised Redeemer of Israel and the
Anointed King that was to come. Question may arise,
indeed, as to how we are to construe these collocated
designations. Some 16 would wish us to take each sepa-
rately, with an indefinite article to each: "There is
born to you a Saviour, who is an Anointed One, a
Lord." Others 17 suggest that at least • Messiah ' and
'Lord' be kept separate: "There is born to you a
Deliverer, who is Messiah, Lord." In either of these
constructions we have three separate designations which
so far explain one another: this Child is at once a
Saviour, the promised Messiah, and Sovereign Lord
of men and angels — for it is an angel who speaks these
words. The essential meaning cannot be far from this
in any case. 18 Even if we should read " who is Mes-
siah, the Lord, " or even " who is an anointed Lord," 19
we have got but little away from this general sense:
in either case what is said is that the Saviour is the
promised Messiah and therefore entitled to our obe-
dience as our Lord. Nor is much more said if we
give the phrase the utmost definiteness possible, and
translate, " There is born to you this day in the city
of David that Deliverer who is the Messiah, the
Lord," 20 — as, on the whole, we think we ought to read

16 E.g. Holtzmann, Weiss.

17 E.g. Meyer.

18 " In any event," says Weiss, " it is meant that this Deliverer is an
Anointed Lord, and therefore destined to be the King of Israel." But
Weiss, who wishes to read only, " a Deliverer who is an Anointed
One, a Lord," takes too low a view.

19 E.g. Paulus.

20 So Hahn: "<rioT7Jp t not 'a Deliverer* (Paulus, Meyer, Bleek,
Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann, Keil, Nosgen, Holtzmann), but ' the Deliv-

The Designations in Luke 109

it, in the light of the distinction made between the two
designations ' Messiah ' and ' Lord ' in such a passage
as Acts 2 36 , where Peter declares to the house of Israel
that God has made Jesus both ' Lord ' and * Christ.'
The precise distinction intended to be signalized be-
tween ' Christ ' and ' Lord ' is, no doubt, difficult to
trace : perhaps there lies in it a testimony to the wider
content of the idea of Messiahship than that of mere
sovereign power; perhaps a testimony to a higher con-
notation of the term * Lord ' than that of mere Mes-
sianic dignity. In any event there is here a declaration
that in this Child born in the city of David, the func-
tions of Redemption, Messiahship and Supreme Lord-
ship are united.

Almost immediately afterward we are told that it
had been revealed to Simeon that " he should not see
death before he had seen the Lord's
T Chrfet' dS Christ" (2 26 )— an Old Testament ex-
pression (Ps 2 2 , cf. Lk 9 20 , Acts 4 26 )
here applied to the infant Jesus, who is by it identified
as the promised Messiah. 21 Accordingly in announcing
the birth of this Child, who is thus so emphatically
presented as the Messiah, the angel is represented as

erer' (Luther, De Wette). The article is wanting not from inadver-
tence (De Wette), but because it is made superfluous by the succeeding
relative clause. The sense is: 'the particular Deliverer, who' . . .
This Deliverer is characterized by the Xptards xbpio$ as the prom-
ised Messiah. We are not to explain: ' a Messiah, a Lord ' (Holtzmann) ;
and not: 'one anointed to Lordship' (Paulus) ; but the two expres-
sions are two separate designations of the expected Messiah (cf. Acts
a 36 ) :XptfTTo? the then popularly current name of the Messiah; xupio?,
the designation of His Sovereign dignity."

21 Hahn, "God's chosen and appointed Messiah"; Meyer, "God's
destined and sent Messiah " ; Weiss, " God's anointed and sent
Messiah."

Iio The Designations of Our Lord

describing Him as ' the Son of the Most High God,'
to whom should be given the throne of His father
David, for an everlasting dominion (i 32 ) ; and as ex-
plaining the Divine Sonship of this Holy Child 22 as
due to, or rather as evidenced by, His supernatural
birth (i 35 ). The latter of these two declarations is
clearly the explanation of the former. The angel had
promised Mary that she should bring forth a son who
should rightly bear the great name of the ' Son of the
Most High God,' and he now explains that this Holy
Son of hers shall be a supernatural product, and should
by His supernatural advent be witnessed as rightly
bearing the name of ' Son of God.' That the title
* Son of God ' bears in it a Messianic implication is
clear from the functions ascribed in verses 33, 34 to the
child so designated, but that this Messiah was con-
ceived as something more than human appears to be
implied in the connection of His claim upon the title
of ' Son of God ' with the supernaturalness of His birth.
Perhaps it is not reading too much into the passage
to say that His preexistence and heavenly descent are
asserted, — certainly His heavenly, or supernatural,
origin is asserted. This ' Son ' is not merely to be at-
tended with supernatural assistance and so to exhibit
supernatural gifts: He is of supernatural origin, and
therefore so far of supernatural nature. Already in
the opening chapters of his Gospel, devoted to an ac-
count of the birth and infancy of Jesus, therefore, Luke
makes it plain that the Jesus whose history he is to
recount was first of all the Messiah of God, and as

22 So {not, that which is begotten shall be called holy, the Son of
God) Bengel, Bleek, Meyer, Weiss, Holtzmann, Godet, Hahn.

The Designations in Luke in

such was of supernatural origin and therefore holy, was
to establish the throne of David in perpetuity, and was
to be recognized as Lord of men and angels.

In accordance with these declarations, recorded in
the opening of the Gospel, Luke tells us that the evil
spirits knew Jesus to be ' the Christ ' and greeted Him
by the title 'Son of God' (4 41 ), and records Peter's
great confession in the form of " Thou art the Christ
of God" (9 20 ), and Jesus' ready acceptance of it, as
also His acquiescence in the ascription of the title of
Messiah, 'Christ,' to Him by His enemies ('the
Christ,' 22 67 , cf. 23 39 ; 'Christ a King,' 2 3 2 ). ^ Such
an ascription of the title ' Christ ' to Him by His ene-
mies (22 G7 23 2 ' 35,39 ) is the best of all proofs that it was
commonly employed of Him by His followers. But
the significant fact for us is that in accepting it at their
hands Jesus claims it for Himself (22 67 23 2 ). We are
not surprised, therefore, to find Him using it of Him-
self when, after His resurrection, He expounded from
Scripture to His followers the doctrine of the Suffering
Messiah and applied it to Himself (24 26 ' 46 ), even as
He had at an earlier point expounded to the scribes
(20 41 ) the doctrine of the Reigning Messiah with an
equally clear application of it to Himself. He who
was David's ' Lord ' as truly as his ' Son ' was to
enter upon His Lordship only through suffering, a suf-
fering which should lay the basis of a preachment in
His name of repentance and remission of sins (24 46 ).
Here again is the Saviour, who is the Messiah, the
Lord: and the Gospel ends much on the same note
on which it began.

The royal dignity of this 'Anointed King' (2 3 2 ) is

H2 The Designations of Our Lord

of course dwelt upon in Luke as in the other Synoptics.
But the precise term * King ' is not of
'The King' frequent occurrence. His disciples as
He entered Jerusalem on the ass's colt
acclaimed Him as " the King that cometh in the name
of the Lord " (19 38 ), and when the Pharisees appealed
to Him to rebuke them therefor — employing the sim-
ple formula of respect, * Teacher,' in addressing Him
and thereby repudiating His Messianic claim by the
contrast of this address with the title of ' King ' —
Jesus was so far from yielding to their request that
He declared that if His disciples held their peace the
very stones would cry out and recognize Him as the
Messianic sovereign (cf. Lk 3 s , Mt 3 9 ). Similarly,
when the Jews accused Him to Pilate as representing
Himself to be "Christ, a King " (23 2 ), 23 and that
governor accordingly demanded of Him whether He
was * the King of the Jews/ our Lord was so far from
denying the ascription that He expressly accepted the
designation (23 3 ), and thus brought it about that He
was mocked on the cross by this title, and had it set
over His head (23 s7 ' 38 ). The equivalent title * Son
of David ' also is recorded as having been given Him
by an applicant for His mercy as a recognition of His
authority to heal (i8 38,39 , cf. i 3269 ), and by no means
repudiated when (20 41seq ) Jesus explained that He
was something much more than David's son.

23 So Holtzmann, Weiss and others. Weiss : " ' King Messiah,' or
more naturally, 'Messiah, a King' (cf. on 2 11 ), so that the political
significance of the Messianic title expressly explained is made to tell."
That is to say, Jesus has declared Himself to be ' Christ,' which is the
same as to say ' King.' The term ' Christ ' is employed appellatively,
but so that it might easily be taken as a proper name, as it was taken
(see Matthew) by Pilate. Hahn less naturally wishes to read "an
anointed Kine." It would be more natural to take 'Christ' as a

The Designations in Luke 113

In the midst of the designations we have somewhat
rapidly adduced, clustering around the central title
* Christ/ there is one which we should
' God's Elect ■ not pass over unnoticed because it has
not met us heretofore. The mocking
Jews, scoffing at Jesus as He hung on the cross, are
represented as flinging in His face His claim to be
' the Christ of God, His Chosen' (23 s5 ). The same
designation occurs in the account of the transfiguration,
where the voice from heaven is represented by Luke
as declaring of Jesus, " This is my Son, my Chosen "
(9 s5 ). No doubt the Greek is not quite the same in
each instance : 6 ixAexroc; of the one is replaced by
6 ixXsley pivot; in the other. 24 But doubtless the under-
lying Messianic title is the same in both instances. It
is rooted in Isaiah 42 1 , " Behold my servant whom I
uphold; my chosen in whom my soul delighteth," etc.
(where the parallel terms are 7za~t; and bixtexroz),
and emerges into view even in pre-Christian Jewish
usage (Enoch 40 5 45 s 53 s 39 s , etc.). 25 The conception
seems to be not essentially different from a designation
which has already met us in Mark (i 24 ) and which
occurs also in the parallel passage of Luke (4 s4 ), but
elsewhere in the New Testament only at Jno 6 69 — ' the
Holy One of God.' For it does not seem likely that
t t this epithet, in the first instance at least,

\ Holy°One' re ^ er s to the moral purity of the Mes-
siah, 26 but rather probable that it des-
ignates Him as One whom God has " separated out,

24 Cf. on these terras and on the general matter, W. C. Allen, Hast-
ings' D. C. G., 1. 308.

25 Cf. Charles, Book of Enoch, p. 112; Bousset, Die Religion des
Judentums, p. 249; Schurer, Jewish People, etc., II. 2. p. 158.

23 So Keil on Lk 4 34 .

ii4 The Designations of Our Lord

equipped and dedicated to His service," 27 in a word
as * the Consecrated One.' In this understanding of
it, it stands in close relation to the epithet, ' the Elect
One,' and unites with it in emphasizing the unique
loftiness of the Messianic office. At the same time it
seems difficult to believe that there is no implication of
moral purity, or perhaps we would better say moral
exaltation, in the epithet, as used whether by Peter
(Jno 6 G9 ) or by the demoniacs (Mk i 24 , Lk 4 34 ), al-
though this reference may be secondary. It is scarcely
conceivable that the demons could recognize a mere
official-standing on sight (Mk 3 11 ), while the contrast
between the moral perfection or exalted nature of

27 This language is borrowed from Holtzmann, Hand-Corn., p. 76:
" The demon recognizes in Him the Holy One of God, i.e., Him whom
God has separated out, equipped and dedicated to His service (cf. Jno
^69 io 36 — t h e 'Elect One' of the Book of Enoch), whom the demoniacs
(Mk 3 11 ) immediately recognize and fear as such: for the Messiah's
task is to judge and destroy the demons (the evil spirit speaks in the
name of his fellows, too, 'us'). They divine, therefore, at once Jesus'
greatness and their own fate." In this view it is not the moral purity
>of Jesus over against their wickedness that the demons divine; but
the official task of Jesus which they are aware of. Similarly Ernst
Issel, Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im N. T., 1887, p. 67 seq.: " In Mk
i 24 , cf. Lk 4 34 , we have the most original application of the notion [of
holiness] to Jesus. The title 'the Holy One of God' is clearly a
well known one, on hearing which no one could be in doubt who was
meant. The same evangelist [Mk], at 3 11 , opens the way to under-
standing it by recording that the demons cried out ' Thou art the Son
of God.' That, however, is the title of the theocratic King . . .
In the title of the theocratic ruler, the eye is just as little directed by
the ' holy ' to ethical perfection as in the expression ' Son of God.'
The Messiah is 'the Holy One of God,' as He whom the Father has
sanctified, Jno io 36 , that is, as He whom God has chosen and endowed
for His special possession and service. There speaks for this also the
designation 'the Chosen One,' Lk 23 s5 9 35 . To this election to God's
possession and service limits itself also the designation in Lk i 35 . . .
and the representation of Jesus in the Temple, Lk 2 23 . . ."

The Designations in Luke 115

Jesus and their uncleanness may be presumed to have
obtruded itself upon their consciousness, whenever they
were brought into His presence. 28 Along with these
titles we must note also that Luke, too, makes use of
the title ' the Beloved,' though only at the baptism of
our Lord (3 22 ), replacing it at the transfiguration by
' the Chosen One ' (9 s5 ), and thus exhibiting the essen-
tial synonymy of the two. 29

It may be profitable to recall at this point that the epi-
thet ' holy ' is applied to our Lord also at the annun-
ciation of His birth by the angel, when
Meaning of 1 • 1 1 • 1 •

'Holy' lt was ex pl aine d that it was the circum-
stance that Llis birth was not according
to nature, but due to the coming down upon Mary of
the Holy Ghost and the overshadowing of her by the
power of the Most High, which justified the Holy
Thing which was being begotten in being called ' the
Son of God' (i 35 ). The epithet is not elsewhere
applied to Jesus in this Gospel, except in 2 23 , where
the precept of the law is quoted in reference to Him,
that " every male that openeth the womb shall be
called holy to the Lord" — where it is obviously the
\ conception of consecration which is prominent. In the
present passage, however, it seems equally plain that it
is not the notion of being set apart for God so much
-as that of being in Himself worthy of reverence and
calling out veneration which is prominent. He who
is thus supernaturally born is " holy " in the sense that
He brings with Him something of the superhuman

28 On the title 'Holy One of God' see J. B. Bristow, Hastings'
D. C. G., 1. 730-31. He thinks it connects Jesus with God the Holy
One; but in these passages refers particularly to Christ's dedication to
a mission.

29 Cf. J. A. Robinson, as cited, esp. Eph., pp. 229 seq.

1 1 6 The Designations of Our Lord

character belonging to His origin, and is thus not set
apart among men, but is by nature distinguished from
men — shall we not say, "separate from sinners "? 30
Nevertheless, the title ' Son of God ' as applied to our
Lord in Luke is closely connected with His Messianic
office : though, of course, it is not limited to that office
in its implications. It occurs in this precise form but
seldom. Besides the declaration of the announcing
angel that He shall be called the ' Son of the Most
High' (i 32 ) — evidently with a Messianic connotation,
as the subsequent context shows, but by no means
equally evidently with none but a human connotation,
as also the subsequent context assures us (i 35 ), — it
occurs only in the narrative of the Temptation, on the
lips of Satan (4 3,9 ), 31 and elsewhere on the lips of
evil spirits (4 41 , 8 2S 'Son of the Most High God')
who knew He was the Christ, and in the mouth of
His judges when they adjured Him to tell whether
He were * the Christ,' and on His answering that they
should from thenceforth see Him, ' the Son of Man/
seated at the right hand of God, demanded afresh,
" Art thou, then, the Son of God? " (22 70 ). 32 It seems
clear, indeed, from these passages that the title ' Son
of God ' was conceived as a Messianic title, and so
far as the synonym of the simple ' Christ ' ; but it is

30 Knowling, The Testimony of St. Paul to Christ, 1905, p. 314,
thinks the epithet here means frankly " sinlessness " (cf. Plummer in
loc). Perhaps, however, while this implication of "holiness" cannot
be excluded, it is going too far to find it prominent here.

31 Cf. Plummer in loc: " The reference is to the relation to God
rather than to the office of the Messiah. The emphatic word is 0I6?"

32 Cf. Plummer in loc: "In the allusion to Daniel 7 13 they recognize
a claim to divinity, and they translate 6 ulo? zoo avOpibizou into 6 ulo$
too Oeob. But it is not clear whether by the latter they mean the
Messiah or something higher."

The Designations in Luke 117

difficult not to gather from them also that it gave
expression tu a higher Messianic conception than was
conveyed by the simple ' Christ.' The brief conversa-
tion recorded as taking place between our Lord and
His judges seems to have, in fact, the precise purport
that in accepting the designation of * the Christ ' He
does so in such a manner as to pour into it a higher
content than His judges were willing to accord to it
— a higher content which they felt was more appro-
priately expressed by another title, — the ' Son of God.'
Whence it seems to follow that ' Son of God/ while a
current Messianic designation, was a Messianic desig-
nation charged with a higher connotation than merely
that of the Messianic King — a conclusion we have al-
ready drawn from i 32 - 35 . 33

The higher connotation of Sonship to God is, how-
ever, in Luke, as in the other Synoptists, most clearly
expressed by the undefined term ' Son.'

'The Son' Luke, as well as the others, records
the divine proclamation of the Sonship
of Jesus from heaven, on the occasion as well of His
baptism as of His transfiguration : " Thou art my
Son, the Beloved; in thee I am well pleased" (3 22 ),
" This is my Son, the Chosen" (c/ 5 ) : and gives us
the parable in which Jesus, with evident reference to
Himself (20 1344 ), talks of the wicked husbandmen, to
whom, after they had evil-entreated his servants, the
lord of the vineyard sent in the end his * beloved son '
who was the heir. Luke also records a number of

33 This seems to be the truth in the view of such commentators as
Godet and Hahn, as over against those who, like Weiss, insist that
' Son of God ' is " only another Messianic designation." It is only
another Messianic designation ; but a Messianic designation charged
with a higher Messianic conception as its content.

1 1 8 The Designations of Our Lord

those pregnant sayings in which Jesus appeals to God
as in a unique sense His ' Father ' : and he begins this
series of pregnant sayings at so early a period as to
make it clear to us that it represents a unique filial con-
sciousness coeval with the dawn of our Lord's intelli-
gence. Already in His earliest youth He could speak
of being " in His Father's house " as His natural place
of abode (2 49 ), 34 even as in later life He lived in con-
stant communion with the Father ( io 21 ' 21,22 ' 27 23 s4,46 ),
and equally naturally spoke of " the kingdom His
Father had appointed Him" (22 29 ), and at the end
spoke of His readiness to send forth " the promise of
His Father " (24 49 ). The glory He expected to enter,
it is to be observed, was no less His own than His
Father's glory (22 29 ). But above all, Luke records
for us that remarkable passage (io 21 ' 22 ) in which our
Lord declares the perfect mutual knowledge which ex-
ists between the ' Father ' and ' Son,' by virtue of which
the ' Son ' is constituted the sole adequate revealer of
the * Father ' — that ' Son ' to whom all things were
declared by His ' Father ' : on the basis of which He
announces that the things seen and heard in Him are
the things which prophets and kings have desired to
see and hear and have not. The phraseology in which
Luke repeats this great saying differs slightly from that
found in Matthew. But the two evangelists agree in
all that is essential. In both it is unlimitedly " all
things " that are said to have been delivered by the
1 Father ' to the ' Son,' so that God is affirmed to hold
back nothing, but to share all that He has with the

34 Cf. Plummer in he: " It is notable that the first recorded words
of the Messiah are an expression of His Divine Sonship as man; and
His question implies that they knew it, or ought to know it."

The Designations in Luke 119

V«C — »35

1 Son.' 35 In both the intimate knowledge of the ' Father '
and ' Son ' of each other is affirmed to be alike com-
plete, exhaustive and unbrokenly continuous. In both
the * Son ' is represented to be the sole source of knowl-
edge of God. But in Luke it is said, not that the
1 Father ' and ' Son ' know each other, but that each
knows " what the other is," that is to say, all that each
is. It would be difficult to frame a statement which
could more sharply assert the essential deity of the
' Son.' 36

Our Lord's own favorite designation of Himself is,

however, in Luke as in the other Synoptists, ' the Son

of Man ' ; and as in the other Synop-

'Sonof Man' ^ sts tn ^ s designation is i n Luke exclu-
sively a self-designation of Jesus' own.
For obviously when the angel at the empty tomb is
represented as saying, " Remember how He spake unto

35 The emphasis is on the unlimited ndvra; cf. Hahn: "Jesus gives
expression accordingly primarily to the general idea, that God has
held back nothing for Himself, but has made the Son participant in all
that is peculiar to Himself. These first words form the ground for
what follows. The emphasis in them is not on the [xoi (Weiss), nor
on the U7cd rod rcarpo? (Hofmann), but on 7ravra."

36 Cf. Plummer in loc: "It is impossible upon any principles of
criticism to question its genuineness, or its right to be regarded as
among the earliest materials made use of by the Evangelists. And it
contains the whole of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel. It is like
'an aerolite from the Johannine heaven' (Hase, Gesch, Jesu, p. 527);
and for that very reason causes perplexity to those who deny the soli-
darity between the Johannine heaven and the Synoptic earth." It should
be compared with the following passages: Jno 3 s5 6 46 8 19 io 15 - 30 14 9
16 15 17 6 ' 10 , and cf. further, Sanday, Fourth Gospel, p. 109; Keim Jes.
of Naz., IV. 63 referred to by Plummer. Godet says strikingly that
Jesus' words here " become an echo of the joys of His eternal genera-
tion." He means doubtless that the continuous interchange of perfect
mutual knowledge here set forth is a reflection of the essential relation
of Father and Son to one another.

120 The Designations of Our Lord

you when He was yet in Galilee, saying that the Son of
Man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful
men, and be crucified and the third day rise again "
(24 7 ), — this is not an instance of the employment of
this title by another than Jesus, but only another at-
tribution of it to Jesus. The title occurs in Luke about
twenty-five times, 37 and in the same collocations and
with the same import as in the other Synoptists. If
we attempt, therefore, to derive from the substance
of the passages in which it is employed a notion of the
conception which was attached to it, we arrive at the
same conclusion as in the case of the other Synoptists.
In Luke, the purpose of the coming of the ' Son of
Man ' is declared in the form, " The Son of Man came
to seek and to save that which was lost " (19 10 ). Ac-
cordingly human destiny is connected absolutely with
the relations of men to Him. Those are blessed whom
men hate and ostracise and reproach, casting out their
name as evil, if it be for the ' Son of Man's ' sake
(6 22 ). For everyone who shall confess Him before
men, him shall the ' Son of Man ' confess before the
angels of God (12 8 ); and on the other hand every
one who denies the ' Son of Man ' in the presence of
men shall be denied in the presence of the angels of
God (12 9 ), and whosoever shall be ashamed of the
1 Son of Man ' and of His words, of him shall the
' Son of Man ' be ashamed when He comes in His
own glory and that of the Father and of the holy
angels (9 26 ). That nevertheless blasphemy against
the ' Son of Man ' may be forgiven as blasphemy
against the Spirit may not (12 10 ), doubtless belongs to

37 *24 55.22 «34 q22, 26,44,58 xl 30 I2 8,10,40 j-22,24,26,30 xg8,31 j^IO
2I 27,36 22 22,48,69 [24J],

The Designations in Luke 121

the humility of His earthly life before He has come
in His glory. For in this life He comports Himself
like other men, eating and drinking (7 34 ), passing a
hard and suffering existence (9 s8 ), and so fulfilling the
Scriptures (i8 31seq *). Meanwhile, however, He ex-
ercises even on earth the authority to regulate religious
observances (6 5 ) and to forgive sins (5 24 ). In other
words, the sufferings He endures (o/ 4 22 48 ) are not
the result of fate or chance, and do not belong to Him
by right, but are voluntarily undertaken as part of His
mission (i8 31,32 17 25 24 7 ). They issue in death in-
deed (9 22 18 33 22 22 24 7 ), but after death comes resur-
rection (9 22 ii 30 18 33 24 7 ) ; and after resurrection, in
its own good time, a return in His appropriate glory
(22 69 9 26 12 40 . 17 22 ' 24 18 8 21 27 22 69 ). The humiliation
over, at once the ' Son of Man ' is seated at the right
hand of the power of God (2 2 69 ), and when He comes
again He will come " in a cloud with great power and
glory" (2 1 27 ), — a glory described as " His own glory,
and the glory of His Father and of the holy angels "
(9 26 ). The suddenness of this coming is adverted to
(12 40 jy 22 - 24 ' 26 ' 30 ), and the main fact emphasized, that
it is in point of significance the day of judgment, when
the destinies of men shall be finally assigned them by
the * Son of Man ' (21 36 12 8 9 26 ) : destinies which shall
be determined according to the attitude which each has
occupied towards the ' Son of Man ' on earth ( 12 8 9 26 ) .
To all His enemies it is therefore a day of vengeance
(18 8 ), and only as one prevails to stand before the
' Son of Man ' can he hope to escape the dread which
His coming brings to the earth (12 36 ). The picture,
it will be seen, is the picture of a Redeemer and Ad-
juster who comes in humiliation to save, and returns

122 The Designations of Our Lord

m glory to gather up the results of His work and
finally to adjust the issues of the historical development
of the world. Whence does He come to save? There
is no plain declaration. We are left to infer it from
the obvious connection of the title with the oracle of
Daniel 7 13 , from the more narrative portions of the
Gospel, as e. g., the opening chapters where the super-
natural birth of Jesus is set forth in detail and with
all its implications, and from the very clear suggestion
that the whole career of the ' Son of Man,' in its
earthly manifestation and its subsequent glory alike,
is of a piece and is the outworking of a definite plan
of action held clearly in His own mind from the
first and carried firmly out in every detail of His
living.

The sense of His mission which is thus inherent in
the favorite Messianic designation He applied to Him-
self finds expression also in other forms
Tcsus
Mission °^ locution which Luke reports our

Lord as employing. Thus, for ex-
ample, He is reported as speaking of Himself repeat-
edly as " coming " with obvious pregnancy of meaning,
possibly with some reference to the expectation of the
Messianic coming which found embodiment in the des-
ignation of the Messiah as ' the One to Come,' — a des-
ignation in Luke also reported as applied to Jesus
hypothetically by John the Baptist (7 19 ' 20 ), — but cer-
tainly with its chief implication in a profound sense of
His mission ([3 16 ] 4 34 5 32 7 19 [cf. 7 33 of John the Bap-
tist], 19 10 ), and possibly with some contrast in
mind with His second coming (9 s6 [ I2 36seq ] 18 8 21 27 ).
Without essential difference of meaning this " coming "
is interchanged with " being sent " — the author of the

The Designations hi Luke 123

being thus more clearly indicated as God.
Thus Luke varies Mark's language (i 3S ) in recording
our Lord's declaration that " He had come forth " spe-
cifically to preach, by giving it rather: " for there-
fore was He sent" (4 43 ) — plainly indicating that
" came " and " was sent " alike refer to His divine
mission. 38 Possibly in this variation there is an allusion
to the passage from Isaiah which Jesus read in the
synagogue at Nazareth (cf. Lk 4 18 ), but in any event
the term is unambiguous, and is elsewhere repeated (9 48
io 16 ), and from it we may at least learn that according
to the representation in Luke also Jesus prosecuted His
work on earth under a sense of performing step by
step a task which had been given Him to do and which
He had come into the world to perform.

We need call attention only in passing to the record
by Luke also (5 s4 ' 35 ) of Jesus' employment of the fig-
ure of the ' Bridegroom ' with refer-'

<T3 ., e , ence to Himself and His relations to
Bridegroom

God's people, thus declared to be His
Bride, as they were currently represented as the Bride
of Jehovah in the Old Testament. In this remarkable
saying, preserved in all three of the Synoptics and as-
signed by all of them to the earlier portion of His
ministry, we have evidence not only that Jesus regarded
His ministry as a mission He had come to perform,
and already knew that it involved His death, but that
He conceived this mission as Messianic and the Mes-
siahship as a divine function, so that His coming was

38 Cf. Weiss on Lk 4 43 : " Luke therefore already interprets the
&7}A0ov of Mark incorrectly of His divine Mission." But perhaps
Weiss dees not know the true meaning of the expression in Mark as
well as Lake dial

124 The Designations of Our Lord

the coming of Jehovah, the faithful husband of His
people (Hos2^). 39

The general impression left on the mind by this
series of designations is that Luke was less interested
in the preexistence of our Lord than in His divine
quality and the divine nature of His mission. To him
Jesus was the authoritative Teacher, the God-appointed
Messiah, the heaven-sent Redeemer from sin and di-
vine Founder oi the Kingdom of righteousness, the
Judge of all the earth. Lord of men and angels, and
God's own Son. between whom and the Father there
persists unbroken and perfect communion. If there
is scarcely as full a witness to these things in his gen-
eral narrative as meets us in Matthew, there is an air
thrown over the whole of settled conviction which is
very striking; and the reader carries away with him
the impression that the engrossment of the evangelist
with his narrative represses much more testimony to the
divine dignity of the Messiah than actually finds ex-
pression in his pages.

n Ci. Godet in loc, E. T., p. 276: "This remarkable saying was
preserved with literal exactness in the tradition ; accordingly we find
it in identical words in the three Synoptists. It proves, first, that from
the earliest period of His ministry Jesus regarded Himself as the Mes-
siah ; next, that He identified His coming with that of Jehovah, the
husband of Israel and of mankind (Hos 2 19 , see Gess, Christi Zeugniss,
pp. 19, 20) ; lastly, that at that time He already foresaw and an-
nounced His violent death." Godet adds: ''It is an error, therefore, to
oppose on these three points, the fourth Gospel to the other three."

THE JESUS OF THE SYNOPTISTS

There has now passed under our observation the
whole series of designations applied to Jesus in the

Synoptic Gospels. They are somewhat
Titles Used numerous, but all to much the same

effect: and they unite to suggest a uni-
tary conception of His person of the highest exaltation.
Our Lord is called in these Gospels, ' Jesus,' 1 4 Jesus
of Nazareth,' 1 ' the Nazarene,' 2 ' Jesus the Galilean,' 3
4 Jesus the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee,' 3 ' Jesus
surnamed Christ.' 3 ' Jesus Christ,' 2 ' Jesus the Son of
David,' 1 ' Jesus King of the Jews,' 1 ' Jesus, Master,'*
1 Jesus the Son of the Most High God.' 5 He is ad-
dressed respectfully, passing up into reverently, by the
titles of ' Rabbi,' 2 ' Rabboni,' 6 ' Teacher n ( dtddexaXe),
4 Master' 4 (Iniozdra), 'Lord' (xdpee) i 1 and He is
spoken of by Himself or others by the correspond-
ing appellatives, ' Teacher,' 1 ' Guide ' ( xadrjrjrr^ ) , 3
1 House-Master ' {oixodeonorqs) , 7 ' Lord.' 1 obviously
with the highest implications these appellatives are
capable of bearing. More specifically He is described
as to His office and person by a long series of recog-
nized Messianic titles: ' ' the Coming One,' 7 ' the
Prophet, 1 ' the Christ,' 1 ' the King of the Jews,' 1 ' the
King of Israel,' 2 ' the King,' 7 ' the Son of David,' 1 ' the

1 Matthew, Mark, Luke. 3 Matthew. 5 Mark, Luke.

2 Matthew, Mark. *Luke. • Mark.

7 Matthew, Luke.
125

126 The Designations of Our Lord

Son of Abraham/ 3 ' God's Chosen One,' 4 ' the Holy
One of God,' 6 ' the Servant (™£c) of God,' 3 ' the Son
of God,' 1 ' the Son of the Blessed,' 6 ' the Son of the
Most High,' 4 ' the Son of the Most High God,' 5 ' the
Son of the Living God,' 3 ' God's Son,' 1 ' the Son,' 1
4 the Son of Man,' 1 ' the Saviour who is Christ the
Lord,' 4 ' Immanuel,' 3 ' the Shepherd who is God's Fel-
low,' 2 ' the Bridegroom,' 1 ' the Beloved.' 1

We have spoken of these designations as recognized

Messianic titles. They emerge as such on the pages

of the Gospel narrative. But it is nat-

Jewish Use ura * tnat ^ lv actua ^ use as sucn ^Y
the Jews contemporary with our Lord

admits of illustration from the very scanty remains of
their literature which has come down to us in very vary-
ing measures. Suffice it to say that those of them which
are most frequently found in the Gospel narrative and
which seem most significant for it, already occur in the
narrow compass of the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse
of Baruch, 4 Esra, and the Psalms of Solomon : ' the
Christ,' l the Son of David/ * the Chosen One of God,'
' the Son of God,' ' the Son of Man.' 8 The matter is
of no great importance and requires to be noted chiefly
that the richness of the Messianic vocabulary capable
of being intelligibly employed in Jesus' day may be
appreciated, and that therefore the varying designa-
tions assigned to Jesus in the Gospels may occasion no
surprise.

8 For a list of the Messianic titles in common use among the Jews
see Schiircr's The Jewish People in the Time of Christ, II. 2, 158;
Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, 214 seq., 248-9 ; Drummond,
The Jewish Messiah, II., x., pp. 283-289; and cf. Charles, Book of
Enoch, pp. 51, 112, 301.

The Jesus of the Synoptists 127

This rich body of designations is rooted, in all its

items, not in current Messianic speculation, but in Old

Testament prophecy; and is a witness

°FoI e dIt^n nt not so much t0 the Messianic thought
of Jesus' day as to the great variety
of the modes of representation adopted in Old Testa-
ment revelation to prepare the people of God for His
future intervention for their redemption. The focus-
ing of all these lines of prediction in Jesus, and their
satisfaction in His manifestation, is one of the phe-
nomena which marked His appearance, and differen-
tiates the movement inaugurated by Him from all other
Messianic movements in Judaism — whether movements
of thought merely or of action. He came forward and
was recognized as the embodiment of the whole Mes-
sianic preformation of the Old Testament, moderating
the current one-sided exaggeration of some elements
of it and emphasizing other elements of it which had
been neglected, transfiguring elements of it which had
been crassly apprehended and compacting the whole
into a unitary fulfillment unimagined before His ap-
pearance. What it particularly behooves us to take note
of at the moment is the emphasis with which Jesus
is presented, by means of this long series of designa-
tions, as the Messiah, and the exalted conception of
the Messianic dignity which accompanies this emphatic
attribution of it to Him. Nothing is left unsaid which
could be said in simple and straightforward narratives
to make it clear to the reader that Jesus is the Messiah :
and nothing is lacking in w T hat is said to make it clear
that this Messiah is more than a human, even a divine,
person.

128 The Designations of Our Lord

It belongs to the emphasis which is placed on His
Messianic character that no room is left for that de-
Jesus* velopment of Jesus' Messianic con-
Messianic sciousness which it has been the chief
Claims desire of many modern students of His
career to trace. Nor, indeed, is room left for justi-
fiable lagging of recognition of His Messiahship on
the part of His followers or of His contemporaries.
He is exhibited as already conscious of His unique rela-
tion to God as His Son, in the sole incident that is
recorded of His early youth (Lk 2 49 ). He is repre-
sented as beginning His ministry under the profound
impression necessarily made upon Him by His solemn
designation as the Messiah by John the Baptist (Mt
3 14 ) , confirmed as this was by a voice from the opened
heavens proclaiming Him God's Son, His Beloved, in
whom God was well pleased (Mt 3 17 , Mk i 11 , Lk 3 22 ),
and by His terrible experience of testing by Satan as
the Son of God (Mt 4 s ' 6 , Lk 4 8 - 9 ), and His succoring
by the angels (Mk i 13 ). Accordingly He is repre-
sented as opening His ministry by publicly applying to
Himself the prophecy of Isaiah 61 1 with its enumera-
tion of the works of the Messiah (Lk 4 1718se( i) , and
as entering at once upon the performance of those
works, not merely accepting the ascriptions of Mes-
sianic dignity to Him which they elicited (Lk 5 s 4 34 ' 41 ,
Mk i 24 ' 34 , Mt 8 17 , etc.), but Himself appealing to them
as the criteria of His Messiahship (Mt n 3 , Lk 7 19 ).
He is represented as, under the impulse of His sense of
His mission (Mk i 38 , Lk 4 43 ), preaching through-
out the land in accents of authority (Mk I 22 , Lk 4 s2 ),
asserting His power over the religious ordinances of
the people (Mk 2 28 , Mt 12 8 , Lk 6 5 ), and exercising

The Jesus of the Synoptists 129

His authority not only over unclean spirits (e. g., Mk
i 27 ) and the laws of nature (4 41 ), including even death
(5 43 ), but over the moral world itself, in the divine
prerogative of forgiving sins (2 10 ). Not only, how-
ever, is He represented as thus openly taking the posi-
tion of Messiah and assuming the authority and
functions of the Messiah (cf. Mt 7 21 ' 29 ) before the
people: He is represented as from the first speaking
of Himself as the Messiah in the use of His favorite
Messianic designation, as frequently as He could be
expected to do so in the circumstances in which He
was placed and with the purpose which governed His
entire course of life (Mt 8 20 || Lk 9 s8 ; Mt 9 6 || Mk 2 10
Lk 5 24 ; Mt io 23 ; Mt n 19 || Lk 7 34 ; Mt 12 8 || Mk 2 28
Lk 6 5 ; Mt 12 32 ; 12 40 ; Lk 6 22 ; Mt 13 41 ; before the con-
fession of Peter at Mt 16 16 1|). 9 When these instances
of self-expression are taken in connection with those of
reception of the Messianic ascription from others (e. g.,
Mk i 24 3 11 5 7 , Mt 4 3 - 6 8 29 14 33 , Lk 4 41 8 28 4 3 ' 9 , Mt 9 27
15 22 ), it will be seen that the early ministry of Jesus,
as represented by the Synoptists, was marked by prac-
tically continuous assertion or confession of His Mes-
siahship.

If, then, John the Baptist doubted in prison whether

He was 'the Coming One' (Mt n 3 ), or it was only

Divergence through a revelation from heaven that

From Current Peter attained to confess Him with firm

Expectations fa j th « the Chr j stj the Son Q £ the Living

God' (Mt i6 16,17 ), this was not because of any lack
of opportunity to learn of His Messiahship, but be-

9 Cf . Dalman, Words, p. 259: "As for the Evangelists themselves,
they take the view that Jesus called Himself the ' Son of Man ' at all
times and before all company."

130 The Designations of Onr Lord

cause they were foolish and slow of heart to believe
in all that the prophets had spoken and their eyes were
holden that they should not know Him as He walked
with them in the way (Lk 24 16,25 ). So little were they
left in ignorance of who it was to whom they listened
as their Teacher, and obeyed as their Master and rev-
erenced as their Lord, that it is represented that an-
gelic messengers descended from heaven to announce
Him as the promised Messiah before His birth (Lk
I 32 ' 35 2 11,26 ), that the predicted messenger who should
go before the Lord, coming to redeem His people,
pointed Him out as the One who should come after
Him (Mt 3 11 ||), that God Himself proclaimed Him
from heaven as His Son (Mt 3 17 ||), that Satan and his
subject spirits recognized Him on sight as the One who
had been appointed to destroy them (Mk i 34 5 7 || etc.),
and that His whole career and teaching alike were or-
dered to convey to every seeing eye the great intelligence.
The difficulty, according to the representation of the
evangelists, was not that there was not evidence enough
that here was the Messiah of God, the King come to
His Kingdom; but that the evidence was not of the
nature that had been expected and therefore puzzled
men's minds rather than convinced them. The gist
of our Lord's message to the Baptist (Mt n 3 ) was
not that John might see in His works such things as he
had been looking for in the Messiah, but that he might
see in them such things as he ought to be looking for.
" Go and tell John that these are the kinds of things
you see in me — the blind receive their sight, the lame
walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, and the
dead are raised up ; and the poor have the good tidings
preached to them: and blessed is he who shall find

The Jesus of the Synoptists 131

none occasion of stumbling in Me! " It is as much as
to say, " Go and tell John to revise his conception of
the Messiah, and to look and see if it is not these
things which, according to the Scriptures (Is 61 1 ),
should mark His work: go and tell John, I am indeed
He who is to come, but I am not the manner of Mes-
siah who is expected to come." 10

Accordingly the Synoptic narrative is marked no
more by the stress it lays on the Messiahship of Jesus
Transfigured than by the transfigured conception of
Conception of this Messiahship which it in every line
Messiah insists upon. This constantly vibrating
note is already struck in the supernatural announce-
ments of the birth of Jesus. It is the Son of David who
is to be born (Mt i 20 , Lk i 27 ' 32 ), the promised King
(Mt 2 2 , Lk i 33 ) ; but, above all else and before all
else, that Saviour who is Christ the Lord (Lk 2 11 ),
and whose name shall be called Jesus, because it is
He who in fulfillment of the ancient prophecy promis-
ing the coming of Jehovah to His people, shall save
His people from their sins (Mt i 21 ). It is not merely
a spiritual function which is here announced for this
Messiah: it h also a divine personality. Who is that
Saviour who us Christ " the Lord" and whose name
shall be called Jesus because He shall save from their
sins His people — " His " people, let us take good note,
Jesus' people, although it is clear it is Jehovah's peo-
ple who are meant? No wonder that it is immediately
added that in this birth there is, therefore, fulfilled the

10 Cf. the discussion by Shailer Mathews, The Messianic Hope in
the N. T., 1905, pp. 95-6; although Professor Mathews' treatment is
dominated by the idea that our Lord's followers saw in Jesus rather
one who was after a while to do Messianic works than one who was
already doing ther<>,

132 The Designations of Our Lord

prophecy of the issue from a virgin of one whose name
is to be called Immanuel, which is, being interpreted,
" God with us " (Mt i 23 ).

The note thus struck is sustained throughout the
Gospel narrative. This Messiah who Jesus is, is cer-
tainly the Son of David, the King of Israel. But the
Kingdom He has come to found is the kingdom of
righteousness, not merely a righteous kingdom: it is
the Kingdom of Heaven, not a kingdom of the earth:
the Kingdom of God, not of men. We may see its
nature in Daniel's splendid dream of the heaven-founded
kingdom of the saints of the Most High (Dan 7 13 ' 2227 ) ;
the method of its establishment in Isaiah's vision of the
Righteous Servant of Jehovah, who bears the sins of
His people and preaches the good tidings to the meek
(esp. Is 53 and 61) ; the person of its founder in that
most glorious of all prophecies of the Old Covenant:
" Lo, your God will come; He will come and save
you!" (Is 35 4 ) ; "the voice of one that crieth, Pre-
pare ye in the wilderness the way of the Lord, make
straight in the desert a highway for our God; . . .
the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh
shall see it together, . . . Behold your God! Be-
hold the Lord God will come ... He shall
feed His flock like a shepherd, He shall gather the
lambs in His arms, and carry them in His bosom, and
gently lead those that give suck" (Is 40 lseq ). n To
put it in one sentence, the Messianic ideal which is
presented in the Synoptics as fulfilled in Jesus finds

11 Cf. Reinhold Ziemssen, Christus der Herr, 1867, p. 28: "They
proclaim with one voice that the Lord (Jehovah) Himself will come,
that He Himself will protect His flock, that He Himself will be King
in Zion, that He Himself will be found of Israel."

The Jesus of the Synoptists 133

its Old Testament basis not merely in the prediction of
a Davidic King who reigns forever over the people
of God, but, interpreting that kingdom in the terms
of Daniel's dream of a heaven-founded kingdom of
saints, interweaves with it the portraitures of the Serv-
ant of Jehovah of Isaiah and the fundamental promise
that Jehovah shall visit His people for redemption.

The special vehicles of the exalted view of the per-
son of the Messiah embodied in this ideal are, so far
as the Messianic designations are con-

DeS'tions cerned ' first of a11 that ° f the ' Son ° f
Man/ then that of ' the Son of God,'

or rather, in the more pregnant simple form, of * the

Son ' ; and outside of the Messianic titles proper, the

high title of ' Lord.' The history of these designations

is somewhat obscure, and, although they all have their

roots set in the Old Testament, is illustrated by only

scanty usage of them in Jewish literature prior to our

Lord's time. * The Son of Man ' occurs only in the

Similitudes of Enoch and in 4 Ezra: 12 the exact title

* Son of God ' does not seem to occur at all, 13 though

12 Cf. Dalman, Words, p. 242: "From the first Christian century-
there are only two Jewish writings known which deal with Dan 7 13 ,
the Similitudes of the Book of Enoch and the Second [al. Fourth] Book
of Esdras. The two agree in regarding the one like to a Son of Man
as an individual person. And as they combine Dan 7 with Messianic
prophecies from the O. T. they clearly show that they regard this indi-
vidual as the Messiah." Cf. p. 248.

13 Cf. Stanton, The Jewish and Christian Messiah, p. 147, and esp.
288; and Dalman, Words, 269-71: also Shailer Mathews, The Mes-
sianic Hope in the N. T., 1905, p. 46 and note 4. Dr. Sanday on

•Rom i 4 writes as follows: "'Son of God,' like 'Son of Man,' was a
recognized title of the Messiah (cf. Enoch 105 2 ; 4 Ezra 728,29 I3 32, 37,52
14 9 , in all which places the Almighty speaks of the Messiah as ' My
Son,' though the exact phrase 'Son of God' does not occur). It is
remarkable that in the Gospels we very rarely find it used by our

134 The Designations of Our Lord

in an interpolated fragment of the Book of Enoch
(105 2 ) and in 4 Ezra the Messiah is represented as
spoken of by God as ' My Son.' 14 It is noteworthy that
in this rare Jewish usage both titles appear in connec-
tion with a transcendental doctrine of the Messiah, 15
and it may be that it is the unwontedness of a transcen-
dental doctrine of the Messiah in Judaism which ac-
counts for the little use made in Jewish speculation of
them, because these titles were felt to be implicative
of more than human qualities. Their emergence into
more frequent use in the Gospels would in that case
be connected with the emphasis laid, according to their

Lord Himself, though in the face of Mt 27 43 , Jno io 36 , cf. Mt 21 3T
et ah, it cannot be said that He did not use it. It is more often used
to describe the impression made upon others (e.g. the demonized, Mk
3 11 5 7 ||, the centurion, Mk 15 39 ||), and it is implied by the words of
the tempter (Mt 4 3 ' 6 ||), and the voice from heaven (Mk i 11 9 7 l|)-
The crowning instance is the confession of St. Peter . . . Mt 16 16 ."

14 Cf. Dalman, Word's, 269-70; Charles, Enoch, 301.

15 Cf . Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, etc., 248 : " But here and
there there springs up, now, in the Jewish Apocalyptics a new tran-
scendental Messiah-conception, that fits into these transcendental sur-
roundings. In the first line there comes here under consideration the
Similitudes of Enoch, springing from the pre-Herodian time. The
standing designation of this peculiar Messiah is the ' Son of Man ' . . .
Still more remarkable and unusual than, in part, the name is now the
figure of this Son of Man. He is in no respect an earthly phenom-
enon; he is not, like the Messiah of the stock of David, born on earth;
he is an angel-like being, whose dwelling place is in heaven under
the pinions of the Lord of spirits; He is preexistent . . . Emphasis
must be laid on the Son of Man in the great judgment upon the kings
of the earth and the evil angels; He takes His place by the side of
God and indeed supplants Him . . . This representation of the
Messiah, singular in the sphere of Judaism, has only one, though by no
means so far-going a, parallel in the vision of the Son of Man of 4
Ezra. . . . Here too the Son of Man ... is conceived as a
preexistent (heavenly?) being. Here too he holds the great judgment,
and, according to the original disposition of the apocalypse, seems also

The Jesus of the Synoptists 135

representation, upon the essential divinity of the Mes-
siah by Jesus and His followers.

Certainly the Messianic conception represented as
expressed by Jesus through His constant employment
of the title ' Son of Man ' of Himself,
'Son of Man* * s ^at °^ a supermundane Being enter-
ing the sphere of earthly life upon a high
and beneficent mission, upon the accomplishment of
which He returns to the heavenly sphere, whence He
shall once more come back to earth, now, however,
not in humiliation, but in His appropriate majesty, to
gather up the fruits of His work and consummate all
things. The characteristic note of ' the Son of Man '
on earth is therefore a lowliness which is not so much
a humility as a humiliation, a voluntary self-abnegation
for a purpose. He came under the conditions of hu-
man life (Mt 11 19 ||) on a mission of mercy (Lk 19 10 )
which involved His self-sacrifice (Mk io 45 ||), and there-
Ifore lives a life unbefitting His essential nature (Mt
8 20 ). For, when He tells the questioning scribe that
the * Son of Man ' is worse off than the very foxes,
who have holes, and the birds of the air, who have
nests, since He has not where to lay His head (Mt
8 20 ), the very point of the remark is the incongruity

to bring in the definitive end, and not merely a preliminary closing
. . ." So also p. 215: "The title Son of God, closely connected
though it is with the conception of the Son of David and the
Anointed, is comparatively very rare. It is found in the address in
Psalm 2, which also became typical for the title 'Messiah' (verse 7,
cf. Ps 89 27 ). In 4 Ezra 7 29 the filius is not textually assured; in 1.
Enoch 105 2 the words " and My Son," as perhaps also the whole clause,
is a later interpolation. Accordingly the apposition, ' My Son,' is found
only in 4 Ez 113.32,37,52^ — tnat j s t0 say) m t ^ e sect j on m w hich along
with the Similitudes, the transcendent conception of the Messiah comes
forward most vitally — and also in 4 Ezra 14 9 (Dalman, 219)."

136 The Designations of Our Lord

of the situation. Accordingly even on earth He exer-
cises an authority which does not belong to His condi-
tion: though destined to be set at naught by men, to
be evil-entreated and slain, yet He has power to regu-
late the religious observances of the people of God
(Mk 2 28 ) and even to forgive sins (2 10 ). And when
His lowly mission is accomplished He ascends the
throne of the universe (Mk 14 62 , Mt I9 2S ) ; and in
due time will return in His glory and render to every
man according to his works, seated as King on the
universal judgment seat (Mk 8 38 , Mt 25 31 ). The con-
nection of the title with the dream of Daniel 7 1314 is
obvious: the point of connection lying in the concep-
tion of the Kingdom of God, which Jesus came to in-
troduce, and which He finds particularly promised in
Daniel 7 13 ' 14 , apparently because it is there depicted,
specifically in contrast with the earthly kingdoms which
it supercedes, as a Kingdom of heaven. But there is
much more expressed by the title than is discernible in
the dream of Daniel, and that not least with reference
to the person of the founder, who is conceived, in Jesus'
idea, as represented by the Synoptic record, not merely
as a supermundane, perhaps angelic, figure, 16 but dis-
tinctly as superangelic, transcending all creaturely re-

16 Cf. Stanton, Jewish and Christian Messiah, 286-7: "I may remark
that the idea of the preexistence of Christ as an angel, is irreconcilable
with that of a true Incarnation. Those who have thought of Christ as
essentially an angel have never in fact conceived, and could not con-
ceive, His human life to be real. A whole and complete human nature
could not be united to another finite being, whether angel or man, as
it could be united to, and could become the perfect organ of, God.
Wherever, then, we find a belief in the real human nature of Jesus
Christ, there we may confidently say the idea formed of His super-
human preexistence and personality is not that of an angel. . . .
Hellwag fails altogether to see this when he attributes such a concep-

The Jesus of the Synoptists 137

lations, 17 and finding His appropriate place only by the
side of God Himself, whose functions He performs 18
and whose throne He occupies as King. 19

The conception attached in these Gospels to the des-
ignation ' Son of God ' is in no respect less exalted.
The title does occasionally occur, to be

• Sorf oMjod ' sure ' * n circumstances in which this ex-
alted significance seems more or less in
danger of being missed. For example, it is employed
by the Jewish officers at the trial of Christ as in some
sense a synonym of the general Messianic title * Christ '
(Mk 14 62 , Mt 26 63 , Lk 22 70 , cf. Mt 27 40 ' 43 ); it is
also employed, according to Matthew's account, by
Peter in his great confession alongside of the term
* Christ' (16 16 ) ; and on one occasion Jesus' disciples,
having witnessed a notable miracle, cried out as they
did Him reverence, " Of a truth Thou are the [or, a]
Son of God" (Mt 14 33 ). Such passages, no doubt,
illustrate the use of the term as a Messianic title. But
it seems clear enough that they illustrate its use as a
Messianic title of inherently higher connotation than,
say, the simple term ' the Christ * as a general synonym
of which it is employed. The very point of the Jews'
approaching Jesus with this particular Messianic title
appears to have been — as the form of the narrative
in Luke may suggest-- -to obtain a confession which
would enable them from their point of view to charge

Hellwag is the writer vsho has most insisted on the influence of a Jew-
ish doctrine of the Messiah's preexistence upon Christian belief." The
speculative element in this remark is perhaps too dogmatically put:
but there is food, for thought in it.

17 The angels are subject to Him and do His bidding: Mt 13 41 16 27
24 31 ; and also Mt 4 11 13 39 , Mk i 13 8 38 13 27 , Lk 9 26 .

18 Especially forgiveness of sins (Mk 2 5 ) and judgment of the
world (e.g. Mt 25 81 Be ««) — two inalienable divine functions.

19 P (r Mt ««81.

138 The Designations of Onr Lord

Him with blasphemy. That is to say, the implications
of this Messianic title in their minds seem to have been
such that its use by a mere man, or by one seemingly
a mere man, would involve him in claims for himself
which were tantamount to blasphemy. It seems equally
clear that Peter in acknowledging Jesus to be the Mes-
siah (Mt 16 16 ) intended by adjoining to the simple,
" Thou art the Christ " the defining phrase " the Son
of the Living God " to attach an exalted conception of
the Messiahship to Him. And it is fairly obvious that
the frightened disciples in the boat (Mt 14 33 ), — though
certainly they understood not and their heart was hard-
ened (Mk 6 51 ), — yet expressed out of their distracted
minds at least the sense of a supernatural presence when
they cried out, " Truly Thou art " — possibly " a," not
" the " — " Son of God." Their exclamation thus may
in its own degree be paralleled at least with that of
the centurion at the cross (Mk 15 39 , Mt 27 s4 ), " Truly
this man was a Son of God " — which surely is the
natural expression, from his own point of view, of his
awe in the presence of the supernatural.

This series of exceptional instances of the employ-
ment of the term ' Son of God ' will scarcely, there-
fore, avail to lessen the general impression we get from
the current use of the title, that it designates the Mes-
siah from a point of view which differentiates Him as
* the Son of God ' from the children of men, and throws
into emphasis a distinct implication of the supernatural-
ness of His person. It seems to be on this account that
it is characteristically employed by voices from the
unseen universe. It is by this term, for instance, that
Satan addresses Jesus in the temptation, seeking to
induce Him by this exploitation of His supernatural

The Jesus of the Synoptrsts 139

character to perform supernatural deeds (Mt 4 3,6 , Lk
4 3 ' 9 ). It is by this term (Lk 4 41 ) that the demons
greet Him when they recognize in Him the judge
and destroyer of all that is evil (Mk 3 11 5 7 , Mt 8 29 ,
Lk 8 2S ; 4 41 ). It is by this term that the angel of the
annunciation is represented as describing the nature
of her miraculous child to Mary: " He shall be great,"
he announced, " and shall be called the Son of the Most
High God." And in doing this, it must be noted, the
angel connects the title no more with His appointment
to a supernatural service than with the supernatural-
ness of His origin: because Mary's conception should
be supernatural, therefore, that holy thing which was
being begotten should bear the name of the ' Son of
God ' (Lk i 32 - 35 ). It is by the term ' My Son ' above
all that God Himself bore witness to Him on the two
occasions when He spoke from heaven to give Him
His testimony (Mk i 11 9 7 , Mt 3 17 17 5 , Lk 3 22 cl-
adding to it moreover epithets which emphasized the
uniqueness of the Sonship thus solemnly announced. It
would seem quite clear, therefore, that the title ' Son
of God ' stands in the pages of the Synoptics as the
supernatural Messianic designation by way of eminence,
and represents the Messiah in contradistinction from
children of men as of a supernatural origin and nature.
It is, however, from our Lord's own application of
the term ' the Son ' to Himself that we derive our
plainest insight into the loftiness of its implications.
Already in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen
(Mk 12 6 , Mt 2 1 37 , Lk 20 13 , cf. Mt 22 1 ), He sets
Himself as God's Son and Heir over against all His
servants, of whatever quality; which would seem to
withdraw Him out of the category of creatures alto-

140 The Designations of Our Lord

gether. And this tremendous inference is fully
supported by the remarkable utterance in which, in
declaring His ignorance of the time of His future
coming, He places Himself outside of the category
even of angels, that is of creatures of the highest rank,
and assimilates Himself as Son to the Father (Mk 13 32 ,
Mt 24 s6 ) . It is carried out of the region of inference
into that of assertion in the two remarkable passages
in which He gives didactic expression to His relation
as Son to the Father (Mt n 27 , Lk io 22 , Mt 28 19 ).
In these, He tells us He is co-sharer in the one Name
with the Father, and co-exists with the Father in a
complete, perfect and unbroken interpenetration of
mutual knowledge and being. The essential deity of
the Son could not receive more absolute expression.

The difficulty of forming a precise estimate of the
implications of the application of the term ' Lord '

to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels arises
'Lord* from the confluence of two diverse

streams of significance in that term. On
the one hand Jesus may be and is called ' Lord '
by the application to Him of a title expressive of
authority and sovereignty commonly in use among men :
above all others who have a right to rule He has a
right to rule. On the other hand, Jesus may be and
is called ' Lord ' by the application to Him of a current
Biblical title expressive of the divine majesty: much
that was said of the ' Lord ' in the Old Testament
Scriptures was carried over to Him and with it the
term itself. 20 When, then, we meet with an instance in

20 Cf. Reinhold Ziemssen, Christus der Herr, 1867, p. 22: "But
this is meant: that just as xupto? 'Lord,' occurs in the O. T. (1) as
the equivalent of Jehovah; (2) as the rendering of Adhonai ; and (3)
as a transference of the human honorific title to God, — so also in the

The Jesus of the Synoptists 141

which Jesus is called * Lord ' we are puzzled to de-
termine whether there is merely attributed to Him
supreme authority and jurisdiction, or there is given to
Him the Name that is above every name.

That the designation ' the Lord ' had attached itself
to Jesus during His lifetime so that He was thus fa-
miliarly spoken of among His followers is perfectly
clear from the Gospel narrative. It is indeed already
implied in the instruction given His disciples by Jesus
to bring Him the ass's colt on which He might make
His entry into Jerusalem. He could not have instructed
them to say to possible objectors, " The Lord hath need
of him" (Mk 11 3 , Mt 2 1 3 , Lk 19 31 ), unless He had
been accustomed to be spoken of as * the Lord.' That
He was accustomed to thinking of Himself as
their ' Lord ' follows also from such a passage
as Mt 24 42 (cf. Mk 13 35 ) : " Watch, therefore, for
ye know not on what day your Lord cometh"; and
indeed from the didactic use of the term of Himself

N. T. the Saviour is called xupto$, 'Lord,' (1) in the sense of Adho-
nai-Jehovah; (2) by a heightening of the human sense or an adapta-
tion from the relations of human sovereignty: and that the name 'Lord'
belongs to the Saviour according to the N. T. essentially and fundamen-
tally in the sense of Adhonai or Jehovah, not as the transference or
heightening of the human relation of sovereignty." The use of xupto$
in the N. T. of our Lord, he says again, " has in the first instance noth-
ing to do with glory, d6*a, and just as truly stands in the N. T. in
no essential connection with xupteuetv ruling" (p. 10). This is not
to contend that 6 xuptos in N. T. when applied to Christ always
means Jehovah. In almost all the passages in the Gospels where xuptog
appears as a formula of address it is a human honorific. In certain
others, as Lk 1931.3* Lk 6 46 , Mt 7 21 , something may be said for either
interpretation (p. 21). But there are passages where it must be taken
as the divine xupto^ viz., Lk 2 9 . V xupio? Zeimssen holds, is the
name of Jesus as the Son of God, just as Jesus is His name as the Son of
man, and Christ is His office-name (p. 30) ; and refers back to the
prophecies of Jehovah's advent, such as Ezek 34 11 (p. 20).

142 The Designatiofis of Our Lord

in encouraging or warning His followers (Mt io 24 ),
and its free employment in parabolic pictures, where
He represents Himself as the ' Lord ' over against His
servants (Lk 12 36 ' 43 ). In what sense the term is used
in such allusions is not, however, immediately obvious.
The opposition of it to " slaves " in such passages as
Mt io 24 , Lk 12 36 ' 43 leads to its instinctive interpretation
in the sense of ownership and sovereignty, and does not
appear to call for direct divine implications save as the
absoluteness of the sovereignty which is suggested may
surpass that enjoyed by men. Perhaps something to
the same effect may be said of Luke i 43 where Elisabeth,
under the influence of the Holy Spirit, expresses her
wondering joy that " the mother of her Lord " should
come to her. Clearly she intends to express by the
designation the height of at least Messianic glory: but
it does not seem obvious that her thought went beyond
the delegated glory of the divine representative. In
a passage like Luke 5 s , however, there seems to be
an ascription to Jesus of a majesty which is distinctly
recognized as supernatural: not only is the contrast
of ' Lord ' with ' Master' here express (cf. v. 5), but
the phrase " Depart from me; for I am a sinful man "
(v. 8) is the natural utterance of that sense of unworthi-
ness which overwhelms men in the presence of the
divine, and which is signalized in Scripture as the
mark of recognition of the divine presence. The
' Lord, Lord ' of Mt 7 21 ' 22 also obviously involves a
recognition of Jesus as the Lord of life, and in Mt
25 37,44 ' Lord ' is the appropriate address to the King
on the judgment throne of the whole earth. In these
instances the sense of the mere supernatural gives way
to the apprehension of that absolute sovereignty over

The Jesus of the Synoptists 143

the destinies of men which can belong to deity alone;
it is this ' Lord ' in whose name all the works of life
are done, by whose determination all the issues of life
are fixed.

If in such instances we appear to be employing the
word in its highest connotation of sovereignty, in such
instances as the discussion of David's words in the
110th Psalm we seem to rise into a region of actual
divine ascription. Here, with obvious reference to
Himself, our Lord argues that when David in the Spirit
represents the Lord as saying to his Lord, " Sit thou
on My right hand," he ascribes a dignity to the Mes-
siah very much greater than could belong to Him sim-
ply as David's son (Mk 12 36 ' 37 ). 21 That seems as much
as to say that sovereignty of the royal order, however
absolute, is too low a category under which to subsume
this Lordship : and therefore appears to point to a
connotation of ' Lord ' beyond illustration from hu-
man analogies. The question inevitably obtrudes itself
whether our Lord does not intend to suggest that David
applies the divine name itself to the Messiah. That
the evangelists may very readily have so understood
Him seems evident from their own application to
Jesus of the term ' Lord ' in Isaiah 40 3 , — representing
> the incommunicable name of Jehovah as it does, — in
their account of the mission of the Baptist, whom they
consentiently speak of as the forerunner of Jesus, ful-
filling the prophecy of the coming of the voice of one
crying, " Prepare ye in the wilderness the way of the
Lord, make His paths straight" (Mk i 3 , Mt 3 3 , Lk

21 Cf. Bengel on Mt 22 43 : signum subjectionis, dominatio, cujus sub-
ditus est ipse David, coelestem et Regis majestatetn et Regni indolent
ostendiU

144 The Designations of Our Lord

3 4 ). And there remains the remarkable passage in
the angelic annunciation to the shepherds of the birth
in the city of David of that " Saviour " who is " Christ
the Lord" (Lk 2 11 ). It seems impossible to suppose
that the term ' the Lord ' here adds nothing to the
term ' the Christ' — else why is it added? But what
can the term ' Lord ' add as a climax to ' Christ ' ? In
' Christ ' itself, the Anointed King, there is already
expressed the height of sovereignty and authority as
the delegate of Jehovah. The appearance is very
strong that the adjunction of ' Lord ' is intended to
convey the intelligence that the ' Christ ' now born is
a divine Christ. 22

This appearance is greatly strengthened by the con-
sideration that the appeal to prophecy in calling the
Messiah ' the Saviour ' is an appeal to the great series
of predictions of the advent of Jehovah for the re-
demption of His people (cf. Mt i 21 ) : and also by
the general context in which this annunciation is placed,
which contains a sustained attempt to make the super-
naturalism of this birth impressive, and includes the
declaration that the child here designated " the Saviour
who is Christ the Lord " is in His person the ' Son of
the Most High God ' (Lk i 32 ) and is marked out as such
by a supernatural birth (i 35 ). Nor should we permit
to fall out of our sight the circumstance that this
passage occurs in a context in which the term ' Lord '
appears unusually frequently, and always, with this ex-
ception and that of i 45 , of Jehovah. It would be very
difficult for the simple reader to read of the angel of

22 Cf. R. Ziemssen, Christus der Herr, 1867, p. 19: "In any event
its significance is gained by the angelic annunciation only if we take
it in this sense — Christ-Adhonai, that is, Christ-Jehovah."

The Jesus of the Synoptists 145

1 the Lord ' and of the glory of ' the Lord ' in Lk 2 9 ,
and of * the Lord ' making known in verse 15, and, in
the middle of these statements, of ' Christ the Lord '
in verse n, and not institute some connection between
it and its ever-repeated fellows: especially when he
would soon read in verse 26, of " the Christ of the
Lord." That at least a superhuman majesty is here
ascribed to Jesus seems scarcely disputable: and there
appears a strong likelihood that this supernaturalness
is meant to rise to the divine. In any event it is clear
that the term ' Lord ' is sometimes applied to Jesus
in the Synoptics in a height of connotation which im-
ports His deity. 23

It is not necessary to add further evidence, derived
from less frequently employed designations of our

Lord, that a true deity is ascribed to
Christ Divine ^is person in the Synoptic Gospels. On

the basis of the considerations already
presented it is abundantly clear that the Synoptists con-
ceived Jesus, whom they identify with the Messiah, as
a divine person; and represent Him as exercising di-
vine prerogatives and asserting for Himself a divine
personality and participation in the divine Name.

1 23 The nature of the xuptor-qs ascribed to Jesus in the Synoptics is
very interestingly expounded by Professor Erich Schaeder in two lec-
tures on "The Christology of the Creeds and the Modern Theology,"
printed in Schlatter and Lutgert's Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher
Theologie, ix. 5. (1905). That this Lord of spirits and of the world
is not conceived as of the world, he makes very obvious. " It is non-
sense to suggest that the world itself can produce its Lord. The world
can produce only what is like it, not one who stands above it" (p. 201).

THE JESUS OF THE SYNOPTISTS THE
PRIMITIVE JESUS

That wc may estimate the significance of the testi-
mony to the Divine Christ which we have seen to be

Significance borne by the Synoptists, we must bear
of Synoptical in mind that it cannot be taken as merely

Testimony t k e individual opinion of three writers.
It must be recognized as reflecting the consentient con-
viction of the community which these three writers rep-
resent and for which they wrote. And this is equiva-
lent to saying that we have here the conception of Jesus
which prevailed in the primitive age of the Christian
propaganda. 1

This might not be so obvious if we could follow
certain extremists who, largely in order to escape this

_ . very conclusion, have wished — formerly

Date of the . J , 11

Synoptics in mucn greater numbers than more re-
cently — to assign the composition of the
Synoptic Gospels to a period somewhat late in the
second century. It will be allowed by most reasonable
men to-day that these Gospels- were all written before
A. D. 80, and belong at latest to the seventh and eighth
decades of the first century. Our own conviction is
very clear that they were all written before A. D. 70,
and therefore belong to the seventh decade at the

1 Cf. O. Schmiedel, Die Hauptprobleme der Leben-Jesu Forsc/iun&>
1906, p. 35: "The early Church in whose circles the narratives of
the life of Jesus originated, . . . was at one in its acknowledg-
ment of Christ, its exalted Lord."

T Af\

The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 147

latest. In the seventh decade of the first century, there-
fore, it was of faith in the Christian community that
Jesus Christ was a divine person. And this evidence
is retrospective. What was with such firmness uni-
versally believed of the nature of the founder of the
Christian religion in the seventh decade of the first
century, had not first in that decade become the faith
of the Church. But only a short generation, as we
conventionally count generations — something like {ivq
and thirty years — intervened between the death of
Jesus and the composition of the Synoptic Gospels.
It is impossible to suppose that the conception of Jesus
had radically altered in this brief interval; that a primi-
tive humanitarianism for example had in the course of
thirty or forty years been transformed into a universal
conviction of the deity of Jesus, such as is expressed
with simplicity and unstudied emphasis in our Gospels.
The witness of the Synoptic Gospels is accordingly a
witness to the aboriginal faith of Christians.

Nor is the force of this conclusion weakened by at-
tempting to get behind our Gospels and appealing to
Earlier the yet earlier documents out of which
Documentary they may be thought to have been
Basis framed. Grant that our Gospels belong

to the second generation of documents; and that behind
them lie still earlier documents upon which they de-
pend. These earlier documents cannot be presumed
to have presented a portrait of Jesus radically different
from that which all three of their representatives have
derived from them. We have simply pushed back ten,
fifteen, or twenty years our literary testimony to the
deity of Jesus: and how can we suppose that the de-
terminative expression of the Church's faith in A. D.

148 The Designations of Our Lord

50 or A. D. 40 differed radically from the Church's
faith in A. D. 30 — the year in which Jesus died? The
assurance that our Gospels rest on earlier documentary
sources becomes thus an additional assurance that the
conception of the person of Jesus which they present
in concert is the conception which held the mind and
heart of the Church from the very beginning.

How fully justified this conclusion is may be illus-
trated by examining the conception of Jesus imbedded
The Sources in the hypothetical sources which the
of the several schools of criticism reconstruct
Synoptics for our Synoptics. In each and all of
them is found the same portrait of the supernatural
Christ. Probably the theory of the origin of the Syn-
optics most in vogue just now is still the so-called " two-
source " theory, in some one or other of its forms.
According to this theory, our three Synoptics in their
main substance are compounded out of two important
primitive documents, which may be conveniently called
4 the original Mark ' and * the Matthean sayings.'
The former of these is supposed to be substantially
and, in the view of many critics, very closely indeed, rep-
resented by our present Mark; while from the latter
a good portion of the material in Matthew and Luke
not also contained in Mark is thought to be derived,
- — certainly what is common to these two Gospels apart
from Mark, and doubtless also something not repro-
duced in both of them. According to the present most
fashionable form of this theory, then, we are reading
substantially a primitive evangelical document when
we read our present Mark. Some suppose the primi-
tive Mark to have been a longer document than our
present Mark, some suppose it to have been a shorter

The Syn op tic Jesus Prim itive 1 49

document, some suppose it to have differed from it
not more than one textual recension may differ from
another, — say a " Western " MS. of Luke from a
" Neutral " one. But few would care to contend that
the general portrait of Jesus drawn in it differed
markedly from that which lies on the pages of our
present Mark. The Jesus brought before us in our
present Mark, however, is, as we have seen, distinctly
and distinctively a supernatural person: and it must
have been this same distinctly and distinctively super-
natural Jesus, therefore, which was set forth in the
primitive Mark.

Indeed, we can demonstrate this without difficulty.
For it is easy to show that it is impossible to construct

Christology a primitive Mark which will not contain
of the this portrait of a supernatural Jesus.
Primitive Mark Take what } s pro bably the most irra-
tional hypothesis of the nature of the primitive Mark
which has ever been suggested, — that which would con-
fine its contents strictly to the matter common to all
three Synoptics, as if each Gospel must be supposed
to have transferred into its substance every word which
stood in this common source of them all. Even in the
broken sentences of the absurd " telegraphese " Gos-
pel, 2 which on this hypothesis is supposed to represent
the primitive evangelical document, the portrait of the
divine Christ is ineffaceably imbedded. In it, as in
the larger Mark, the stress of the presentation is laid

2 Cf. E. A. Abbott and W. G. Rushbrooke, The Common Tradition
of the Synoptic Gospels, etc., 1884, p. xi: "Is it not possible that the
condensed narrative which we can pick out of the three Synoptic rec-
ords represents the 'elliptical style' of the earliest Gospel notes or
Memoirs, which needed to be 'expanded' before they could be used
for the purpose of teaching ... ?"

150 The Designations of Our Lord

on the Messiahship of Jesus, which is copiously and
variously witnessed. Peter in his great confession de-
clares Him the 'Christ' (8 29 ) and the declaration is
accepted by Jesus Himself; as also, when adjured by
the High Priest at His trial to say whether He is the
1 Christ/ He acknowledges that He is, in the highest
sense (14 61 ' 62 ). The implied claim to kingly estate
He also expressly makes (15 2 ' 32 ) ; as also the involved
claim of being the promised ' Son of David ' ( io 47 * 48 ),
— although His conception of the Messiahship was so
little exhausted by this claim that He takes pains to
point out that the Messiah was acknowledged by David
himself to be his ' Lord,' using the term obviously in
a high sense. (12 35 ). That He was familiarly spoken
of by His disciples as ' Lord ' is also made evident
( 1 1 3 ) ; and He Himself asserts that His Lordship is
high enough to give Him authority over the religious
ordinances of Israel (2 2S ). The tradition applies, in-
deed, the term * Lord ' to Him in citations from the
Old Testament, where it stands for Jehovah Himself
(i 3 ). The evil spirits greet Him by the high title of
4 Son of God' (5 7 ), and the same title is suggested
to Him as a synonym of the Messiah in His accusa-
tion (14 61 ), and in neither case is it repelled. He
Himself indeed in a parable represents Himself as in a
unique sense the ' Son ' and ' Heir ' of God, differen-
tiated as such from all " servants " whatsoever (12 6 ' 7 ) ;
and receives the testimony of heaven itself that He is
God's 'Son' and His 'beloved Son' (i 11 9 1 ). He
speaks of Himself, however, with more predilection as
the 'Son of Man'; and under this self-designation
He asserts for Himself power over the religious ordi-
nances of Israel (2 28 ), and even the divine prerogative

The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 151

of forgiving sins (2 10 ), although He anticipates for
Himself only a career of suffering, predicting that He
will be betrayed (14 20 ) into the hands of men (9 31 )
who shall mock and scourge and kill Him (io 33 ).
Afterwards, however, He shall rise again (io 34 ) and
ascend to the right hand of power (i4 62 )> whence He
shall return in clouds with great power and glory
(13 26 ), the glory of the Father and the angels (8 3S ).
It is clear that the designation ' Son of Man ' is derived
from Daniel 7 13 ' 14 (13 20 8 28 14 62 ) and the portrait
presented under it is that of a being of more than
human powers and attributes. In complete harmony
with this portrait He is represented as calling Himself
also 'the Bridegroom' (2 19 ' 20 ), charged as that term
was with Old Testament associations with Jehovah
(cf. * Lord ' of I 3 ) ; and in immediate connection with
this high designation, too, He speaks of His death,
thus instituting a close parallel between this designa-
tion and that of the ' Son of Man.' In both alike,
indeed, He evidently is regarded as presenting Himself
as a personage of superhuman, or rather of divine
quality, who has come to earth ( 12 17 ) only on a mission
and who suffers and dies here only to fulfill that
mission. 3

3 There may be compared with this sketch the minimizing account
which von Soden {History of Early Christian Literature, 1906, p. 144),
gives of the christology of the primitive " Mark," which according to
him was of somewhat wider compass than what we have allowed it.
" Somewhat more frequently," he says, " than in the Logia of St. Mat-
thew, stress is laid upon the Messianic character of Jesus — for instance,
in the narrative of the Baptism (i 10 se( i), in the cry of the possessed
(i 24 ), in the simile of the bridegroom (2 19 ), in the question concerning
the Davidic sonship of the Messiah (i2 35se( i), perhaps in the claim to
forgive sin (2 10 ) ; again, on the part of the disciples in their confes-
sion (8 29 ), and in the petition of the sons of the Zebedee (io 37 ) ;

152 The Designations of Our Lord

No doubt there are some striking phrases occurring
in our present Mark which are lacking from this series
Other Possible of broken extracts from it. But the
Elements in the same figure is here outlined. And most
Primitive Mark £ even tnese striking phrases are re-
stored if we will attend also to passages common to
Mark and one of the other evangelists, of which it
would be hard to deny that they may therefore have
had a place in the primitive document underlying all
three. Thus, for example, in the fragments peculiar
to Matthew and Mark, while Jesus is not addressed
as * Lord ' except by the Syro-Phcenician woman ( Mk
7 2S , Mt 15 27 ), and is not spoken of at all by the general
Messianic designation, * the Christ/ He yet does call
Himself both the ' Son of Man,' and undefinedly, ' the
Son. 1 As * Son of Man,' he asserts, He " came " to
execute a great mission, not to be ministered unto but
to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many
(Mk io 45 , Mt 20 28 ), and therefore has a prospect
of suffering before Him (Mk 9 12 , Mt 17 12 , Mk 14 41 ,

finally on the part of our Lord, the disciples, and the people, in the
story of the entry into Jerusalem (n 1 se( i-). However, the expression
'Son of God' never occurs except in the voice at the Baptism (i 11 ),
and in the utterance of 13 32 , though elsewhere in the Gospel it forms
the proper formula for profession of belief (i 1 3 11 5 7 9 7 14 61 15 39 ) ;
and the word ' Christ ' only occurs in the Confession of the Twelve
(8 29 ), and in the theological dispute of 12 25 , though it likewise is
often employed elsewhere by the evangelist (i 1 - 34 13 21 14 61 15 32 ).
The term ' Son of Man ' is found in 2 10 < 28 io 33 - 45 , as also in i 4 2Mi f e2 f
if indeed these parts of the story of the Passion belong to the group of
which we are speaking; while in the sections due to the evangelist it
occurs only in 9 9 . 12 . 31 after the pattern of 8 31 and io 33 ." One cannot
help admiring the skill with which the attention of the reader is kept
from dwelling on the fact that all the significant, high designations of
Jesus are left in the fragment of the Gospel which is allowed to be
primitive; but the fact cannot even so be totally obscured.

The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 153

Mt 26 45 ), but dies only to rise again (Mk 9 9 , Mt if).
As * Son ' He represents Himself as of superangelic
dignity, and therefore above all creatures, standing next
to God Himself (Mk 13 32 , Mt 2 4 36 ). In the pas-
sages peculiar to Mark and Luke, we find Him testi-
fied to as the Messiah by the demons, who, although
they know His earthly origin ('Jesus of Nazareth'),
profess to know Him also to be the ' Holy One of j
God' (Mk i 24 , Lk 4 34 ) and the 'Son of the Most
Hjghjjpd' (Mk 5 7 , Lk 8 2 *). Not only does He
not repel these ascriptions, but He speaks of Himself
as the 'Son of Man/ teaching that He is to suffer
many things and be killed, but after three days to rise
again (Mk 8 31 , Lk 9 22 ). A primitive gospel contain-
ing all this falls short in nothing of the testimony borne
by our present Mark to our Lord's higher nature.

It is not neccessary for our purpose to expend effort

in endeavoring to ascertain the compass most com-

Christology of monly attributed to the second hypo-

the * Primitive thetical document supposed to underlie

Sayings* our Synoptics, the so-called, and let us

add, very much miscalled, " Logia." 4 We may as well

at once direct our eyes to its minimum contents, — the

4 The reconstruction of these so-called "Logia" by Harnack in his
Spruche und Reden Jesu, etc., 1907, PP- 88-102, provides one of the
most convenient and accessible forms in which they may be studied,
although Harnack (like Wellhausen) deprives them of the Passion
story, and even eliminates the conception of the Passion from them
(see to the contrary, Burkitt, The Gospel History and its Transmis-
sion, 1907). Their christology is minimizingly described by von
Soden, History of Early Christian Literature, 1906, pp. 136, 137.
While asserting that the claim advanced for Jesus in this document is
"scarcely more than any master might make on his disciples," von
Soden is yet constrained to allow that " a higher self-consciousness may
be clearly traced in the background." " The word ■ Christ,' " he con-

154 The Designations of Our Lord

passages peculiar to Matthew and Luke, — even in the
meager compass of which we shall find evidence enough
that this document, whatever its extent, presented Jesus
as a Divine Being. That He was the Messiah He is
represented as Himself indicating by pointing to His
works (Mt ii 3 , Lk 7 19 ), which, He intimates, evi-
dently on the basis of Isaiah 6i\ accredit Him as the
i One who was to Come.' It is apparently as Messiah
that He is addressed as 'Lord' (Mt 8 8 , Lk 7 6 ), and
He is represented as adverting to this customary mode
of addressing Him in order to declare that it is not
merely verbal recognition of His authority but actual
obedience to His words alone which will constitute
a claim upon His mercy (Mt 7 21 , Lk 6 46 ) — where,
it is to be noted, He presents Himself as * Lord ' of
the destinies of men, by their relations to whom men
stand or fall. He is accordingly appropriately spoken
to by Satan as ' Son of God ' (Mt 4 3 ' 6 , Lk 4 s ' 9 ) ; and
currently calls Himself by the great Danielic title of
4 Son of Man.' He explains that this ' Son of Man '
has come in the fashion of men, " eating and drink-
ing " (Mt ii 19 , Lk 7 34 ), and living a hard life (Mt
8 20 , Lk 9 58 ) — ending in betrayal and death (Mt 26 48 ,
Lk 22 47 ) ; but after death is to rise again (Mt 12 40 ,
Lk ii 30 ). But even while on earth He asserts for
Himself an unbroken communion with God, or rather
a continuous intercommunion of Himself as ' Son ' with

tinues, " which occurs twelve times elsewhere in St. Luke, together
with the expression ' Son of God/ which elsewhere occurs nine times,
does not occur in our compilation of sayings. Messianic tone and col-
oring, however, declare themselves in the sayings (1723 seq., 26 io 22 ),
and in the parable (i2 35se( l-)> an d, besides, the expression 'Son of
Man.' " How inadequate this is as a representation of the teaching of
the material common to Matthew and Luke concerning our Lord's self-
j«o„-:~4.:~., *i,„ +„„* ,^:n „u~™

The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 155

the ' Father' (Mt n 27 , Lk io 22 ) ; knowing the Father
as perfectly as He is known by the Father, and there-
fore able to make known the Father as His sole ade-
quate revelation to men. In this great passage we have
what must be considered the culminating assertion on
our Lord's part of His essential deity.

It is clear, then, that the documents which, even in
the view of the most unreasonable criticism, are sup-
Resort to posed to underlie the structure of our
' Historical present Synoptics are freighted with the
Criticism ■ same teaching which these Gospels them-
selves embody as to the person of our Lord. Literary
criticism cannot penetrate to any stratum of belief more
primitive than this. We may sink our trial shafts
down through the soil of the Gospel tradition at any
point we please; it is only conformable strata that we
pierce. So far as the tradition goes, it gives con-
sentient testimony to an aboriginal faith in the deity
of the founder of the religion of Christianity. In
these circumstances it is not strange that another mode
of analysis is attempted. Literary criticism is aban-
doned for historical criticism: and we are invited to
distinguish in our Gospels not between later and older
documentary strata, but between narrative and repor-
torial elements. We do not wish to know, it is said, what
Matthew, Mark or Luke thought, or what was thought
by those represented by them or by any predecessor
of theirs — the Christian community to wit, even the
primitive Christian community. What we wish to know
vis what Jesus Himself thought. We appeal from the
representation of Jesus given by His followers to the
self-testimony of Jesus. Let us have Jesus' own con-
ception of Himself.

156 The Designations of Our Lord

It is not necessary to spend much time upon this
demand in its simplest form, that, namely, which would
The Reportorial merely separate out from the Synoptic
Element in the Gospels as they stand the words attrib-
Gospels ute( j t0 j esuS) an d see k t ascertain from
them Jesus' witness to the nature of His person
and the quality of His dignity. It must have been ob-
served as we ran over the designations applied to our
Lord in the Gospels and sought to estimate their sig-
nificance, that the most remarkable of them are drawn
from the words of Jesus. The fact is too patent and
striking to have failed to attract attention: the higher
teaching of the Gospels as to our Lord's person is
embodied very especially in His own words. It is on
His lips, for example, that the term ' Lord ' appears
when employed in its loftiest connections. It is He
alone who applies to Himself the significant title of ' Son
of Man,' the vehicle of the most constant claim for
Him of a superhuman nature. It is He alone who,
speaking out of His own consciousness, proclaims Him-
self superior to those highest of God's creatures, the
angels (Mk 13 32 , Mt 24 s5 ) : represents Himself as
living in continuous and perfect intercommunion with
the Father, knowing Him even as He is known by
Him and acting as the sole adequate mediator alike
of the knowledge of God and of the grace of God to
men (Mt n 27 , Lk io 22 ) : and in His great closing
utterance places Himself, along with the Father and
Holy Spirit and equally with them, even in the awful
precincts of the Divine Name itself (Mt 28 19 ). To
separate between the narrative and reportorial elements
of the Gospels, therefore, only brings home to us with
peculiar poignancy the testimony they bear to the deity

The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 157

of our Lord, resting this testimony, as they do, on the
firm basis of our Lord's own self-testimony — a self-
testimony in which He at times lays bare to us the in-
nermost depths of His divine self-consciousness.

There can be no question of the deity of our Lord,
therefore, if we can trust the report which the evangel-
ists give of His words. It is at this point, however,
Trustworthiness tnat tne assault on the validity of their
of the Evangel- representation is made. We are not

ical Report asked to distinguish between what the
evangelists say in their own person and what they say
in the person of Jesus. We are asked to distinguish
between what is really theirs in their account of the
life and teaching of Jesus and what is really Jesus'
own transcribed into their narratives. It is suggested
that they may have, or rather that they must have, and
actually have, attributed much to Jesus which He never
said; that they have read back their own ideas into
His teaching, and unconsciously — or more or less con-
sciously — placed on His lips what was in point of fact
the dogmatic elaborations of the later Christian com-
munity. And it is demanded that we, therefore, sub-
ject the whole body of the evangelic representation of
Jesus' teaching to the most searchingly critical scrutiny
with a view to sifting out from it what may really be
depended upon as Jesus' own. Thus only, we are told,
will it be possible to find firm footing. Faith is the
foe of fact : and in the enthusiasm of their devotion to
Jesus it was inevitable that His followers should clothe
Him in their thought of Him with attributes which
He did not possess and never dreamed of claiming:
and it was equally inevitable that they should imagine
that He must have claimed them and have ended by

15 8 The Designations of Our Lord

representing Him as claiming them. We shall never
know the truth about Jesus, therefore, we are told,
until we penetrate behind the Jesus of the evangelists
to the Jesus that really was.

The situation might not have been so bad, we are
told, if the evangelists had been merely transmitters

^ . , . „ of a tradition, like, say, the rabbinical
Faith the Foe , . -n » • • i i-r

of Fact schools, but there is an essential dif-
ference between the two cases, a differ-
ence which casts us with respect to the evangelic tradi-
tion into grave doubt. This difference is due to the
unfortunate fact that the evangelists themselves be-
lieved in Jesus and loved Him. " In our case," there-
fore, we are told, 5 " we have not merely pupils trans-
mitting the teaching of their master, but a believing
community speaking of one they honor as the exalted
Lord. Even the oldest Gospel is written from the
standpoint of faith; already for Mark Jesus is not
only the Messiah of the Jewish people, but the miracu-
lous eternal Son of God whose glory shone in the
world." 6 " And it has been rightly emphasized that in
this regard our three first Gospels are distinguished
from the fourth only in degree. Must there not, then,
have taken place here a complete repainting from the
standpoint of faith? For there is a certain propriety
in saying that faith is the enemy of history. Where
we believe and honor, we no longer see objectively."
Accordingly we are told that the deepest longing of
men's hearts to-day is to rediscover the real Jesus.

5 By Bousset, Was <wissen ivir von Jesus? 1904, pp. 54 seq.

6 Cf. p. 57 : " For the belief of the community, which is shared already
by the oldest evangelist, Jesus is the miraculous Son of God, on whom
men believe, whom men put wholly by God's side." And cf. Wrede,
Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien, 1901, passim.

Th e Sy n op tic Jesus Prim itive 159

11 There is a great desire to know Him at first hand,"
it is said, 7 "not merely through the loving vision of
His earliest interpreters, but as He looked and spoke
and worked and thought." Which is as much as to say
that the vision the evangelists give us of Jesus is
not conformable to the reality, but has been distorted
by their love. If we wish the bald truth about Him
and His claims we must go behind them.

This point of view, it will be observed, is definite
enough. The evangelists are not to be trusted in the
Primary report they give of the teaching of
Canon of Jesus about Himself. But embarrassing
Criticism questions remain. Above all, these em-
barrassing questions: Why should we not trust the
evangelists' report of Jesus' teaching as to His own
nature? And, distrusting them, how are we to get be-
hind their report? That the evangelists believed in
Jesus and loved Him does not seem in itself an abso«-
lutely compelling reason why we should distrust their
report of His teaching concerning His own nature.
Suppose we assume for the moment that Jesus did
assert for Himself superhuman dignity. How does it
throw doubt upon that fact that those who report it
to us were led — possibly by overwhelming evidence of
its truth — to believe that in so asserting He spoke truly?
Are we to lay it down as the primary canon of criticism
that no sympathetic report of a master's teaching is
trustworthy; that only inimical reporters are credible
reporters?

Absurd as it seems, this is the actual canon of critical
reconstruction upon which our would-be guides, in re-

7 Jesus the Prophet, by Charles S. MacFarland, Ph.D., 1905; intro-
duction by Prof. Frank K. Sanders.

160 The Designations of Our Lord

covering from the obscuring hands of the evangelists
the real Jesus, would have us proceed. It has found
somewhat notorious enunciation in Professor Schmie-
dePs article " Gospels " in the Encyclopedia Biblical
But it is so far from being peculiar to Professor Schmie-
del that it is the common foundation stone upon which
the whole school of criticism with which we are now
concerned builds its attempt to penetrate behind the
evangelical narratives and to recover from these an
earlier and therefore presumably truer picture of Jesus
and His claims. 9 Under its guidance we are set to
searching diligently through the evangelical narratives
(as if for hid treasures) for sentences or fragments
of sentences in the reported words of Jesus, which
appear, or may be made to appear, out of harmony
with the high claims He is consentiently and constantly
reported by all the evangelists to have made for Him-
self : and on these few broken passages, torn from their

8 P. 1872: "When a profane historian finds before him a historical
document which testifies to the worship of a hero unknown to other
sources, he attaches first and foremost importance to those features
which cannot be deduced merely from the fact of this worship, and he
does so on the simple and sufficient ground that they would not be
found in this source unless the author had met with them as the fixed
data of tradition. The same fundamental principle may safely be ap-
plied in the case of the Gospels, for they also are all of them written
by worshipers of Jesus."

9 Cf. e.g. Shailer Mathews, The Messianic Hope in the N. T., 1905,
p. 58: "At this point we may safely use this canon: that saying is more
probably genuine which treats of Messianic matters in any other way
than that which characterized apostolic belief." " The trustworthiness
of sayings which do not contradict, but agree with, apostolic belief
must be decided on . . . more general critical grounds." It is the
same canon which Prof. N. Schmidt, The Prophet of Nazareth, 1905,
lays down in the words (p. 235): "These sayings possess evidential
value just in proportion as they contradict the notions current in the
circles through which they were transmitted."

The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 161

context and shredded in their own contents, is erected,
as on its foundation stone, a totally new portrait of
Jesus, expressing a totally new self-consciousness, —
which stands related to the Jesus of the evangelists
and the self-consciousness which is ascribed to Him in
their account, of course, as its precise contradictory, —
seeing that it is precisely on the principle of contradic-
tion that it has been concocted.

Surely we do not need to pause to point out that
the procedure we are here invited to adopt is a pre-
scription for historical investigation which must always
issue in reversing the portraiture of the historical char-
acters to the records of whose lives it is applied. The
result of its universal application would be, so to speak,
the writing of all history backwards and the adorn-
ment of its annals with a series of portraits which would
have this only to recommend them, that they represent
every historical character as the exact contrast to what
each was thought to be by all who knew and esteemed
him. The absurdity and wrong of invoking such a
canon in the case of our Synoptic Gospels are pecu-
liarly flagrant, inasmuch as these Gospels, as we have
seen, and as these very critics are frank to allow, are
themselves of very early date and rest on a documentary
basis, quite at one with them in the portrait they draw
of Jesus, which is naturally earlier than themselves;
and therefore reflect the universal conviction of the
first generation of Christians. It is really impossible
to doubt that they bring to us the aboriginal testimony
of the primitive Church — a Church which included
in its membership a considerable number of actual eye-
witnesses of Jesus and ear-witnesses of His teaching,
— as to His claims and personality.

1 62 The Designations of Our Lord

The absolute unanimity of that Church in its view
of Jesus is very strikingly illustrated by the difficulty of
discovering passages imbedded in our
This Canon Gospels which can be used as a founda-
tion for the opposing portraiture of
Jesus which the critics would fain draw. Professor
Schmiedel can by the utmost sharpness of inquisition
find only five, which by applying more exegetical pres-
sure he can increase only to nine. The groundlessness
of this assault on the trustworthiness of the portrait
of Jesus presented in our Synoptics may fairly be said,
therefore, to be matched by its resultlessness. Mate-
rial cannot be gathered from our Gospels out of which
a naturalistic Christ can be created. The method of
criticism adopted being purely subjective, moreover, the
assumed results naturally vary endlessly. We feel a
certain sympathy, therefore, with the position assumed
by those writers who frankly admit that, the evangel-
ical portraiture of Jesus being distrusted, the real Jesus
is hopelessly lost to our sight. Strive as we may, we
are told, we cannot penetrate behind the Jesus of our
first informants — the writers of the New Testament,
upon whose palette had already been mingled, never-
theless, colors derived from Jewish prophecy, Rabbinic
teaching, Oriental gnosis and Christian philosophy.
" All that can be determined with certainty from these
writings," it is declared, " is that conception of Christ
which was the object of faith of the early Christian
communities and their teachers " : the real Jesus is
hopelessly hidden under the incrustations with which
faith has enveloped it. 10 Nor does there seem to be

10 So, Pfleiderer, The Early Christian Conception of Christ, E. T.,
1905.

The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 163

lacking a certain logical force in the reasoning of bolder
souls 11 who drive the inference one step further and ask
what need there is of assuming a real Jesus at all. The
<* real Jesus " whom the critics invent certainly was
not the author of the Christianity that exists. If the
Christianity that actually exists in the world can get
along without the Jesus which alone would account for
it, why, they argue, must there be assumed behind it a
Jesus which will not account for it; of whom this only
may be said, — that He is a useless figure, the assump-
tion of whom is so far from accounting for that great
religious movement which we call Christianity, that it
is certain that the movement did not arise in Him and
did not derive its fundamental convictions from Him?
Let us, then, assume, they say, that there never was
any such person as Jesus at all, and the picture drawn
of Him in the evangelists is pure myth.

It is interesting — almost amusing — to observe our
disintegrating critics over against this more radical em-
Can We ployment of their own methods, suddenly
Save Any Jesus taking up the role of " apologists " 1S
at All? an j wr iting so in the spirit and with

the adoption of so many of the exact arguments of the
" apologists," whom they have been wont to despise,
as to lead the reader to exclaim, " Are these, too, among
the prophets? " It is all, however, in vain. The fatal
subjectivity which underlies their own view reasserts
itself in the end and leaves them without adequate de-
fense against extremists, simply because whether one

11 E.g. Albert Kalthoff, Das Ckristus-Problem, and Die Entstehung
des Christentums, 1904; and William Benjamin Smith, New Testa-
ment Criticism, Status and Drift of, Art. in the " Encyclopaedia Ameri-
cana," and, more fully, Der vorchristliche Jesus, etc., 1906.

12 E.g. Bousset, Was wissen wir von Jesus? 1904.

164 The Designations of Our Lord

stops with. them or goes on with the others is not a
matter of principle, but only of temperament. It is
just as impossible that Christianity can have sprung
from the Jesus which these critics give us, as that it
should have sprung up without any Jesus behind it at
all, as the radicals assert. There is just as little reason
in a sound historical criticism to discover the Jesus of
Bousset behind the Jesus of the evangelists, as there
is for discovering with Kalthoff that there was no real
Jesus at all behind the Jesus of the evangelists. The
plain fact is that the evangelists give us the primitive
Jesus, behind which there is none other; and the at-
tempt to set the Jesus they give us aside in favor of
an assumed more primitive Jesus can mean nothing but
the confounding of all historical sequences. The real
impulse for the whole assault upon the trustworthiness
of the portrait of Jesus drawn in the Gospels lies not
in the region of historical investigation but in that of
dogmatic prejudice, — or to be more specific, of natu-
ralistic preconception. The moving spring of the crit-
ical reconstruction is the determination to have a " nat-
ural " as over against the " supernatural " Jesus of the
evangelists. There must be a more primitive Jesus
than the evangelists' — this is the actual movement of
thought — because their Jesus is already a supernatural
Jesus, — " a miraculous Son of God, in whom men be-
lieve, whom men elevate to a place by the side of
God." 13 The plain fact, however, is that this super-
natural Jesus is the only Jesus historically witnessed to
us; the only Jesus historically discoverable by us; the
only Jesus historically tolerable. We can rid ourselves
of Him only by doing violence to the whole historical
testimony and to the whole historical development as

The Synoptic 'Jesus Primitive 165

well. Not only is there no other Jesus witnessed in the
documents, but no other Jesus can have formed the
starting point of the great movement which, springing
from Him, has conquered to itself the civilized world.
What must absorb our attention immediately, how-
ever, is the difficulty that is found even on these natu-
ralistic presuppositions in eliminating from the portrait
of Jesus drawn in the Gospels all supernatural traits
and all claims on His own part to a supernatural per-
sonality. To be successful here, there is required such
a policy of thoroughgoing rejection as Kalthoff's and

* W. B. Smith's, who sweep away the whole figure of
Jesus itself as a myth, or at least as Wrede's, who
would have us believe that Jesus made no claim to even
^Messianic dignity, so that the entire picture drawn of
His career in our Gospels is false; or else such a policy
of " ignoramus " as Pfleiderer's who declines to form
any picture of the real Jesus at all. The majority of
naturalistic critics recoil, however, from these extremes
with an energy which seems to betray at least a semi-
consciousness that there may haply be found in them
the reductio ad absurdum of their whole method. Their
position is certainly a hard one between these extremes
from which they recoil and the portrait of the evangel-
ists toward which their recoil brings them back. In en-

x deavoring to avoid conclusions recognized by them as in-
tolerable they are compelled to give recognition to facts
as to the claims of the real Jesus which are fatal to
their whole elaborately argued position.

They are forced, for example, to allow that Jesus
did announce Himself as the Messiah. 14 And they are

1 *Bousset, Jesus, 168, argues: "We have certain knowledge that the
belief existed from the very beginning among the Christian commu-

1 66 The Designations of Our Lord

forced to admit that, in developing His Messianic

conception, He was wont to call Himself ' the

t n a 4.o-«i Son of Man.' 15 It makes very enter-

Jesus Certainly # *

Claimed to be taining reading to observe Bousset,
Messiah and for example, grudgingly conceding the
'Son of Man £ ac ^ an( j ^^ nervous i v endeavoring

to save himself from the consequences of the
damaging acknowledgment. He cannot deny that
this title " represents a perfectly definite concep-
tion of the Messiah," a conception which sees in the
Messiah a supernatural figure who comes down from
heaven for a mission, and who is clothed with no
less a function than that of the Judge of the world:
and he cannot deny that Jesus represents Himself as

nity that Jesus was the Messiah, and, arguing backwards, we can
assert that the rise of such a belief would be absolutely inexplicable if
Jesus had not declared to His disciples in His life-time that He was
Messiah." It is consequently " now definitely assured, in spite of con-
tinual discussions in which it is still frequently disputed," " that Jesus
considered Himself to be the Messiah of His people" (107). Cf. Volk-
mar Fritzsche, Das Berufsbeivusstsein Jesu, 13, and Schwartzkopff
there quoted. For a precis of the literature in which it is altogether
denied that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, see Holtzmann N. T.
Theologie, I. 280, note. Of course it is not disputable that it was a
" self-evident assumption " on the part of the Synoptists that He was
the Messiah (Bousset, 167) : for the later community — the community
which gave birth to the evangelical narratives — says Bousset (171),
" the Messiahship of Jesus was the surest, most self-evident, and most
precious thing about Him." Cf. Dalman, Words, 306.

15 Professor N. Schmidt may be taken as the type of those extremists
who find it more convenient just to deny that Jesus used this title of
Himself at all: "Jesus never used this title concerning Himself either
to claim Messiahship in any sense, or to hint that He was ' a mere
man ' or ' the true man ' ; but in some pregnant utterances used it in
reference to man in general, his duties, rights and privileges" {The
Prophet of Nazareth, p. vii.). Mt 8 20 according to him means that the
life of man is " full of danger and uncertainty," whereas a beast is
"not deprived of his home and hearth by his convictions" (p. in) !

\The Synop tic Jes us Prim itive 167

1 the Son of Man.' But he wishes us to believe that
Jesus did this only under great pressure, as the close
of His life drew near and evil fate closed about Him,
— seizing and clinging to the Danielic prophecy to com-
fort Himself in the face of the fast-coming disaster.
And He assures us that Jesus did not adopt the title
even then in its full content " including the idea of
preexistence and His own judgeship of the world."
" To Him," he tells us, " the idea of the Son of Man
meant only one thing, — His return in glory." 16 " He
did not thereby place Himself on a level with God.
Above all, He did not lay claim to the judgeship of
the world, although that conception was, strictly speak-
ing, included in that of the Son of Man." " It is true,"
he adds, " in the narrative of our Gospels, the opposite
seems to be the case. But it is inconceivable . . .
that Jesus . . . should have arrogated to Himself
the judgeship of the world in place of God. This is
an instance of the faith of the community working upon
the tradition. ... As the tradition was handed
down by the community, Jesus was gradually removed
from the position of a simple witness for His followers
before God's tribunal to that of the actual judgeship
of the world." 17 That is to say, in brief, Bousset does
not like the consequences of allowing that Jesus applied
to Himself the title of ' Son of Man/ and, finding
Himself unable nevertheless to deny that He did apply

16 Jesus, p. 194. Cf. among naturalistic writers who admit that Jesus
used the title ' Son of Man ' in connection with promises of returning
in glory: Weisse, Evang. Geschichte i. 593 seq.: Keim, Jesus of Naz.,
in. 85-87; Wittichen, Idee des Reiches Gottes, 166-172; Vernes, Idees
Mess., 229-233, and note on 243; Schenkel, Character of Jesus, 145;
Zeller, Strauss und Renan, 88-91. These are brought together by Stan-
ton, p. 249, note 1.

17 P. 203-5.

1 68 The Designations of Our Lord

this title to Himself, contents himself simply with deny-
ing the consequences, — Jesus could not have meant it.
Those who prefer to determine historical facts by the
testimony of credible witnesses, rather than by the wit-
ness of Bousset's consciousness as to what were fitting,
will probably think otherwise. 18

Similarly it cannot be even plausibly denied that
Jesus spoke the remarkable words attributed to Him
Jesus Certainly in which He acknowledges His ig-
Claimed to be norance of the time of His promised
Superangehc seconc i coming. The critics are indeed
in a great quandary as to this passage. It is not the
kind of a passage they can assume the evangelists
to have invented. On their fundamental canon that
statements which are, or seem to be, in conflict with the
evangelists' hero-worship of Jesus, bear the inerad-
icable stamp of genuineness, they are bound to attribute
these words of Jesus. For was not Jesus to the evangel-
ists the omniscient Son of God? And how could they
put on His lips a confession of ignorance of so simple
a matter as the time of His return? In point of fact,
accordingly, this passage is found among the nine " ab-
solutely credible " passages which Schmiedel declares
" the foundation pillars for a truly scientific life of
Jesus," 19 and is pronounced by him to have been " most

18 Cf. Shailer Mathews, The Messianic Hope in the N. T., p. 103:
" The phrase is represented as being used by Jesus to refer to Himself
as Judge (Mk 8 38 14 62 ). To argue that these passages are Christian
comments added to the words of Jesus is certainly to base conclusions
on no clear evidence." Nor is it easy to be rid of Jesus' claim to be
judge of the world; says Dalman {Words, 314), justly: "The right
to judge the world was assumed by Jesus when He forgave sins," — and
the assertion of a function of forgiveness by Jesus is pervasive.

19 Encyc. Biblica, 1881; ibid., 1888, cf. 1872 and Dr. E. A. Abbott,
1773. Shailer Mathews (Messianic Hope in the N. T.) on the other

The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 169

certainly " spoken by Jesus. Yet in this passage Jesus
proclaims Himself a being superior to angels, sepa-
rated, that is, from the entire category of creaturely
existences, and assimilated to the divine: "No one,
not even the angels in heaven, nor yet the Son, but
God only. ,,

And if it must be allowed that the " real Jesus "
currently called Himself ' the Son of Man,' no doubt
with full consciousness of its implica-
And God tions, and asserted for Himself super-
angelic dignity, it would seem mere (
: hypercriticism which would deny to Him the great as-
sertion of intercommunion with the Father made in|
Mt 11 27 , Lk io 22 . On the general critical canon that
sayings reported by both Matthew and Luke " are to
be used with confidence as representing the thought of
Jesus," 20 this passage must be accepted as an authorita-
tive utterance of His. 21 But, in that case, the " real
Jesus " must be credited with conceiving His relation
to the Father less as that of a servant than as that of
a fellow : as the * Son ' He moves in the sphere of the
divine life. And, this once allowed, what reason re-
hand, thinks that " it must be admitted that this verse sounds much like
a gloss or editorial comment"; and Dalman {Words), p. 194, that
" the ending, ' nor the Son, but the Father only,' should be regarded as
an accretion." Of course writers like Martineau {Seat of Authority in
Religion, 590), and N. Schmidt {The Prophet of Nazareth, 147, 231)
take fright at the language, which seems to them redolent of a later
time; and thereby bear their unwilling witness to the implications of
the passage. In refutation of Dalman see Sanday, Hastings' B. D., IV.
573, whose general remarks are quite convincing.

20 Cf. Shailer Mathews, p. 58. This is but to say — with the whole

body of critics — that passages found in both Matthew and Luke belong

to what Weiss calls "the Apostolic source," which contains the oldest

(and most trustworthy) record of words of Jesus.

21 A strong defense of the genuineness of the passage is made by

170 The Designations of Oar Lord

mains for denying to Him the culminating expression
of His divine self-consciousness, the sublime utterance
in which He gives the Son a share in the Divine Name
itself (Mt 28 19 ) ? Of course it is denied to Him by
the critics of the school we have been considering. But
the denial is in the circumstances purely arbitrary and
creates a situation which leaves an important historical
sequence unaccounted for. It is undeniable, for ex-
ample, that the trinitarian mode of speech here illus-
trated was current in the Church from its earliest origin :
it already appears in Paul's Epistles, for example, —
especially, as a familiar and well-understood form of
speech, in 2 Cor 13 14 , which was written not more than
twenty-five years after our Lord's death and antedates
all our Gospels. This current form of speech among
Christians of the first age finds its complete account if
the usage were rooted in utterances of our Lord, but
it hangs inexplicably in the air without some such sup-
position. The occurrence of the passage in Mt 28 19
in the records of our Lord's teaching is thus too closely

Volkmar Fritzsche, Das Berufsbeivust. Jesu, pp. 32 seq. Harnack {Das
Wesen des Christentums, p. 81) pronounces it authentic, and treats it
as the most important and characteristic of the words of Jesus. Even
Schmiedel does not venture to reject it: he only, by appealing to the
" Western " text, attempts to reduce its meaning. The Abbe Loisy,
however, (I'Evangile et I'Eglise, 45; Autour un petit Livre, 130), casts
it out; but on the express ground that the declaration is too high an
one for Jesus to have made; which is at least an admission that the
words involve a claim to ontological Sonship. Prof. N. Schmidt, The
Prophet of Nazareth, p. 152, considers "such an utterance out of har-
mony with the admittedly genuine sayings of Jesus," and even "to
cast an undeserved reflection upon His character." For "how can the
gentle Teacher ... be supposed to have imagined Himself pos-
sessed of all knowledge and regarded all other men as ignorant of
God?" Certainly this is an unanswerable query if Jesus is to be con-
ceived as thinking of Himself only as a man among other men: the

The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 171

linked to a historical situation to permit its displace-
ment on the purely subjective grounds on which alone
its genuineness can be assailed. 22

It would seem to be reasonably clear, therefore, that
the attempt to penetrate behind the Synoptic tradition
The Synoptic with a view to discovering a " real
Jesus the Real Jesus," differing from the Synoptic
Jesus Jesus as the natural differs from the

supernatural, has failed. The purely subjective grounds
on which such an attempt must proceed in order to
reach its goal, lays it open to the exaggeration which
would eliminate the figure of Jesus from history alto-
gether. From this exaggeration, it can save itself only
by imposing arbitrary limitations upon the applica-

saying is, however, in point of fact, an express claim to be something
very different from this. " The occurrence of this verse in both Mat-
thew and Luke," says W. C. Allen, in loc, " even if the two Evangel-
ists borrow from a single source, proves that this saying reaches back
to an early stage of the Gospel tradition. If, as is probable, the two
writers drew from different sources, this tradition was wide-spread.
If we add the fact that a similar use of the Son-the Father occurs in
Mk 13 32 , this usage as a traditional saying of Christ is as strongly
supported as any saying in the Gospels." Cf. Plummer on Luke's re-
port of the saying, quoted above (p. 119).

22 Schmiedel, Encyc. Bib., 1876, gives a summary of the reasons relied
on to exclude the passage. The history of its criticism is briefly sketched
by Holtzmann, N. T. Theologie, ed. 1, I. 378-379, note. F. C. Cony-
beare alone has sought to put a documentary basis under the rejection:
see esp. his articles in Preuschen's Zeitschrift fiir N. T. Wissenschaft,
etc., 1901, Heft 4, pp. 175-78, and Hibbert Journal, I. 1. The findings
of Conybeare have been taken up and repeated with extraordinary
avidity by nearly the whole critical school. Only Harnack holds back:
" No positive proofs can be adduced for regarding 28 19 se ^- as an inter-
polation " {Expansion of Christianity, E. T., I. 44-45, note). E. Rig-
genbach has sufficiently answered Conybeare — who indeed required no
answer — (Schlatter and Cremer's Beitrdge zur Forderung christlicher
Theologie, 1903. vn.; also 1906, x.).; Men like Harnack, while vin-
dicating the genuineness of the passage in Matthew, and supposing it

172 The Designations of Our Lord

tion of its subjective principle, which render it nuga-
tory for the end for which it is invoked. In any event
no reasonable grounds can be assigned for discarding
the portrait of Jesus drawn by the Synoptists, or for
depriving Him of the great sayings by which He is
represented by them as testifying to His essential deity.
It is impossible to deny on any reasonable grounds that
Jesus called Himself the ' Son of Man ' by predilec-
tion, and it is purely arbitrary to suppose that in doing
so He did not mean what the term implies. It is
equally impossible to deny that He represented Him-
self under the denomination of ' Son ' as of super-
angelic dignity, and as standing in a relation of inti-
mate continuous intercourse with God the Father. This
prepares the way for allowing farther that He repre-
sented Himself as sharer with the Father in the divine
Name itself, and makes nugatory all subjective objec-
tion to it. The strictest scrutiny of the Synoptic record
of Jesus' teaching, in other words, renders an appeal
from their representation to Jesus' own teaching mean-
ingless. It is not only the Synoptists who testify that
Jesus is a divine person, but the Jesus they report:
it is not only the Jesus as reported by them who bears
this witness to Himself, but the only Jesus of history.

pre-Pauline in origin {op. cit. p. 111), yet deny it to Jesus. For rea-
sons why it must be vindicated to Jesus see Hort. on 1 P i 112 ; Sanday
Criticism of the Fourth Cospel, 218, 219; Hastings' B. D., 11. 213-14,
Iv - 573, 574; P- H. Chase, The Lord's Command to Baptize, in the
Journal of Theological Studies, July, 1905. Cf. also Bruce, The King-
dom of God, 1889, p. 258: "With reference to the trinity of the Bap-
tismal formula, it is to be observed that it simply sums up in brief
compass the teaching of Jesus"; and especially Zahn on Mt 28 18 - 20
(p. 711, note 7): "The text of verses 18-20 is transmitted with cer-
tainty in all essential elements. With reference to the almost stereo-
typed abbreviation which recurs in Eusebius (for example Demonstr.

The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 173

On the basis of the Synoptic record, in other words, we
can be fully assured that Jesus not only was believed
to have taught that He was a divine person, but actu-
ally did so teach. 23

Et'ang., in. 6, 32, 7ropeudivr£g fiaO-qrebffars Tidvra rd edvr) iv tw
6v6fiari fiou, diddcxovres xrA.), in which Conybeare, Ztschr. fur
N. T. Wiss, 1 901, p. 175 seq. supposes that he has discovered the origi-
nal text, cf. E. Riggenbach, Der Trinit. Tanfbefehl, 1903 (Schlatter-
Cremer, Beitr. VII. 1), by whom the matter is set at rest (erledigt).
From Eus. Epist. ad Casar. (Socr. h. e. I. 8) ; c. Marc. I. 1; Hist. Eccl.,
III. 5, and other passages, it may be seen that Eusebius recognized the
received text as that which had been transmitted to him too, and as
that which alone could be employed in dogmatic discussion."

23 Cf. Stanton, Jewish and Christian Messiah, p. 252: "His own
express language claimed the title [of Messiah] in a sense not one whit
less supernatural and glorious than that in which it was afterwards
understood." So p. 390: "I have endeavored to show that Jesus must
have claimed to be the Christ in a sense involving His deity." Cf. pp.
154, 155-

THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD IN
JOHN AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE

It may certainly be said that, on this showing, little
is left by the Synoptists to John, in the way of ascrib-
Same Chris- m £ essent i a l deity to Jesus. This is
tology in Syn- true enough. Those who are familiar
optics and John w ith the recent literature of the subject
will not need to be told that the contradiction which
used to be instituted between the Synoptists and John
in this matter tends of late to be abandoned. Not only
does Dr. Sanday, for example, speak of the teaching
of John as only " a series of variations upon the one
theme which has its classical expression " in the cul-
minating christological passage of the Synoptists, 1
and remark that it is in Matthew rather than in John
that the " only approach to a formulation of the doc-
trine of the Trinity " occurs in the Gospels; 2 but, as
we have already seen, purely naturalistic critics like
Bousset are emphatic in asserting that between the
Synoptists and John, in the matter of the ascription of
deity to our Lord, there exists only a difference of
degree, not of kind. 5 * Whatever else we must say of

1 Criticism of N. T.: St. Margaret's Lectures, 1902, by a company
of scholars, p. 17. Cf. his early work, The Authorship and Historical
Character of the Fourth Gospel, 1872, p. 109, where he speaks of Mt
11 27 as containing "the essence of the Johannine theology," and as
leaving " nothing in the Johannine christology " which it does not
cover.

2 Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 1905, pp. 218-19.

3 Was wissen wir von Jesus? 1904, p. 54: cf. Schmiedel, Encyclo-
pedia Biblica, 1872.

The Designations in John 175

Wilhelm Wreck's work on the Gospel of Mark, he has
certainly rendered it impossible hereafter to appeal from
the christology of John to that of the Synoptists. 4
Those who will not have a divine Christ must hence-
forth seek their human Jesus outside the entire evan-
gelical literature. It is not merely his own individual
opinion, then, which Professor Shailer Mathews is
giving when he declares that " generally speaking, out-
side the references to the early Messianic career of
Jesus, the Fourth Gospel contains nothing from Jesus
that is new " : and that, after all, the differences be-
tween the Synoptists and John are " a question of de-
gree rather than of sort of treatment." 5 He might
have omitted, indeed, the qualification with respect to
the references to the early Messianic career of Jesus.
We have already seen that to the Synoptists also Jesus
was consciously the Messiah from the very inception
of His work; or rather, in their case, let us say, from
the very beginning of His life. After all, it is the
Synoptists, not John, who tell us of the proclamation
of the Messianic character of this Child before His
birth: and it is Luke, not John, who tells us that He
was conscious of His unique relation to God as in a
very special sense His Father from His earliest child-
hood.

The Synoptists and John certainly stand on the same
level in their estimate of the person of Jesus, and differ
in their presentation of it only in the
Method 1 re ^ at * lve emphasis they throw on this or
the other aspect of it. In the Synoptists
it is the Messiahship of Jesus which receives the pri-
mary emphasis, while His proper deity is introduced

4 Das M essias geheimnis , etc.

5 The Messianic Hope in the N. T., p. 61.

176 The Designations of Our Lord

incidentally in the course of making clear the greatness
of His Messianic dignity. In John, on the contrary,
it is the deity of our Lord which takes the first place,
and His Messiahship is treated subsidiarily as the ap-
propriate instrumentality through which this divine
Being works in bringing life to the dead world. The
differences in point of view between them receive a
fair illustration in the introductions which the evangel-
ists have severally prefixed to their narratives. Luke
begins his Gospel with a short paragraph designed to
establish confidence in the trustworthiness of his ac-
count of the life and work of the world's Redeemer.
Mark opens his with a few words which connect Jesus'
career with the subsequent expansion of the religion
He founded. Matthew's commences with a reference
to the previous development of the people of God, and
presents the apparition of Jesus as the culminating
act of the God of Israel in establishing His Kingdom
in the world. All these take their starting-point in
the phenomenal, and busy themselves with exhibiting
the superhuman majesty of this man of God's ap-
pointment, the Christ of God. John, on the other
hand, takes his readers back at once into the
noumenal; and invites them to observe how this
divine Being came into the world to save the world,
and how His saving work was wrought in the
capacity of the Messiah of Israel. It is in his pro-
logue, therefore, that John sets forth the platform of
his Gospel, which is written with the distinct purpose
that its readers may be led to believe that Jesus is not
merely the ' Christ,' but the 'Son of God' (20 31 ) ;
for, that the term ' Son of God ' here has a metaphys-

The Designations in John 177

ical significance is scarcely open to question. In this
sense John's Gospel is the Gospel of the deity of
Christ; although it is clear that we can call it such in
contrast with the Synoptists only relatively, not abso-
lutely. In a sense not so fully true of them, however,
it was written to manifest the deity of Christ.

In his prologue, then, John tells us with clear and
even crisp distinctness what in His essential Being he

conceives the Jesus to be whose life and
of John" 6 teacmn £ m ^e world he is to give an

account of in his Gospel. And what he
tells us is, in one word, that this Jesus is God. In tell-
ing this he makes use of a phraseology not only not
found in the other evangelists, but absolutely peculiar
to himself. The person of whom he is speaking he
identifies at the close of the prologue (i 17 ) by the
solemn compound name of ' Jesus Christ,' as Mark
and Matthew also at the opening of their Gospels had
made use of the same great name to identify the sub-
ject of their discourse; and, like them, John also makes
no further use of this full name in his Gospel (cf.,
however, 17 3 ). The particular designation he applies
to this person in order to describe His essential nature
is 'the Word' (o X6 r os) . Of this 'Word' he de-
clares that He was in the beginning, that is, that He
is of eternal subsistence; that He was eternally " with
God," that is, that He is in some high sense distinct
from God; and yet that He was eternally Himself
God, that is, that He is in some deep sense identical
with God (i 1 ' 1 ' 1 ); and nevertheless that in due time
He became flesh, that is, that He took upon Himself
a human nature (i 14 ), and so came under the observa-

178 The Designations of Our Lord

tion of men and was pointed out by John the Baptist
as the ' Coming One,' that is, the Messiah. In further
elucidation of His essential nature, He is described as
the * only begotten from the Father' (i 14 ) or even
more poignantly as 'God only-begotten' (i 18 ).

All this phraseology is unique in the New Testa-
ment. Nowhere else except Rev 19 13 is Jesus Christ
called the 'Word' (i 1 * 1 * 1 * 14 only, with the possible
exceptions of 1 Jno I 1 , Heb 4 12 ). Nowhere else, ex-
cept Jno 3 16 ' 18 , 1 Jno 4 9 , is He called the ' Only Be-
gotten.' Yet the general sense intended to be conveyed
is perfectly clear. John wishes to declare Jesus Christ
God; but not God in such a sense that there is no
other God but He. Therefore he calls Him ' the
Word,' — ' the Word ' who is indeed God but also
alongside of God, that is to say, God as Revealer:
and he adds that He is ' God only begotten,' the idea
conveyed by which is not derivation of essence, but
uniqueness of relation, so that what is declared is that
beside Jesus Christ there is no other, — He is the sole
complete representation of God on earth. 6 In harmony
with these designations he calls Him also in this pro-
logue the 'Light' (ii 4 ' 5 3' 7 > 8 ' 9 ) — a designation more
fully developed by our Lord Himself in His discourses.
The effect of the whole is to emphasize in the strongest
manner at the inception of the Gospel the divine nature
of the ' Jesus Christ ' who is to be the subject of its

6 Cf. Westcott on i 14 (p. 126): "The thought is centered in the
personal Being of the Son, and not in His generation. Christ ifi the
One only Son." Meyer on i 14 (p. 92) : " Movoy. designates the Logos
as the only Son besides whom the Father has none." The same essen-
tial sense is conveyed by the dyanrjro^ employed in the Synoptists,
possibly of God's witness to His Son at His baptism and transfigura-
tion, and certainly in the parable of Mk 12 6 , Lk 20 13 .

The Designations in John 179

narrative: and thus to set forth the aspect in which
His life and work are here to be depicted.

The key-note of the Gospel having been thus set,
however, John, so soon as the prologue is over and he

takes up the narrative proper, leaves
J Namet r j r ohn e these high designations behind him and

prosecutes his narrative, like the other
evangelists, by means of the simple designation 'Jesus.'
As truly to John as to the Synoptists, thus, the narra-
tive name of our Lord is the simple * Jesus,' which
occurs nearly 250 times. It is varied in the narra-
tive only by a very occasional use of c the Lord ' in
its stead (4 1 6 23 n 2 20 20 2i [7L12 ). No other desig-
nation is employed by John himself outside the pro-
logue, except in the closing verse of the narrative proper
(20 31 ) , where he declares that he has written to the end
that it might be believed that ' Jesus ' — the ' Jesus ' of
whom he had so currently spoken — is ' the Christ, the
Son of God.' It is possible, no doubt, to take the
'Jesus Christ' of 17 3 as a parenthetical insertion from
his hand, and to assign to him the paragraph 3 16 " 21 ,
in which Jesus is spoken of as * the Son,' God's ' only
begotten Son,' ' the only begotten Son of God.' But
these exceptions, even if they be all allowed, only
slightly break in upon the habitual usage by which John
speaks of our Lord simply as ' Jesus,' varied occasion-
ally to * the Lord.' They would merely bear witness
to the fact that the high reverence to the person of
our Lord manifested in the designations of the pro-
logue continues to condition the thought of the writer
throughout, and occasionally manifests itself in the ap-
pearance of similarly lofty designations in the narrative.
As in the other evangelists, further, the simple

180 The Designations of Our Lord

' Jesus ' is reserved for the narrative name, and is

placed on the lips of no one of the speak-
Jesus' Popular who j n j tg course# j t j s ma( fe

Designations , i . i i •

clear, however, that it was by this name

that our Lord was known to His contemporaries, and
He is accordingly distinguished by those who speak of
Him as " the man that is called Jesus " (9 11 ), " Jesus,
the Son of Joseph" (6 42 ), "Jesus of Nazareth,
the Son of Joseph" (i 45 ), or the simple "Jesus
of Nazareth " (18 5 ' 7 19 19 ). In the reports of remarks
about Him the simple demonstrative pronoun indeed
is sometimes made to do duty as the only designation
needed, occasionally, possibly, with an accent of con-
tempt (6 42 ' 42 ' 52 7 15 ' 35 9 16 ' [241 18 30 ), but ordinarily merely
designator^ (i«w 3 26 4 29 ' 42 6 14 ' 46 > [50 ' 581 j"*"^
9 33 ! 187.37,47^ And sometimes He is represented as
spoken of merely as " this man" (foOpcoTioc;, 9 16 ' 24 n 47
i8 17>29 ), or indeed simply as a man (<*%, i 30 only;
fodpamoz, 4 29 5 12 7 46 ' [51] [8 40 9"' 16 ' 16 ' 24 IO 33 ] II 47 ' 50

l8 i4.i7,2» I9 5j #

In the narrative of John our Lord is represented as
customarily addressed by His followers, as He Him-
self informs us (13 13 ' 14 ), as 'Teacher'
F0 ATre a s S s° f (***««*•) and 'Lord' (afr/Kt), the
correlatives of which are * disciples '
(fiadyzai passim) and ' servants,' that is c slaves ' (SovXoe,
13 16 15 15,20 ). The actual formula 'Teacher,' how-
ever, occurs very rarely (i 38 20 16 , in n 28 it is an ap-
pellative, implying its use in address; cf. 3 2 13 13 ' 14 ),
although its place is in part supplied by the compara-
tively frequent Aramaic form ' Rabbi ' ( i 38,49 3 2 4 31
6 25 9 2 11 8 ; used of John the Baptist, 3 26 ), varied on
one occasion to ' Rabboni ' (20 16 ). The most common

The Designations in John 181

honorific form of address is ' Lord ' ( 4 *MMMi 5 t 6 34,68

q 36,38 j j 3,12,21,27,32,34,39 ^6,9,25,36,37 j. 5,8,22 r 2 15 l 2 I 15 ' 20 ' 21,

of Philip, 12 21 ). Of course, seeing that He was cur-
rently addressed as ' Teacher/ ' Lord/ He could not
but be spoken of by these titles, used appellatively :
4 the Teacher' (n 28 , cf. 13 13 ' 14 3 2 ) rarely, and com-
paratively frequently 'the Lord' (20 2 ' 13 ' 18 ' 25 21 7 ). The
latter usage the evangelist himself adopts in his own
person (4 1 6 23 n 2 20 20 21 7,12 ). It is noteworthy that
the title ' the Lord ' is in this Gospel confined to Jesus,
never occuring of God the Father except in a very few
citations from the Old Testament (12 13 ' 38 , cf. i 23 ). It
is an odd circumstance that the appellative use of
* Lord ' of Jesus occurs, however, only after His resur-
rection. We say this is an odd circumstance, because
our Lord is represented as Himself telling us that it
was applied to Him during His life (13 13 ' 14 ), as in-
deed it could not fail to be from the currency of the
corresponding formula of address with respect to Him.
This circumstance must be set down, therefore, as
merely an accident of the record.

From the substance of the passages in which it is
employed, we get very little guidance to the significance

of * the Lord ' as thus applied to Jesus.
•Lord* It is only obvious that it is used with

reverential recognition of His author-
ity. Only in the great passage (20 28 ) where Thomas'
doubt breaks down at the sight of his risen Master
and he cries to Him, " My Lord and my God," do
we catch an unmistakable suggestion of its highest
meaning. That this exclamation was addressed to
Christ is expressly stated: "Thomas answered and
said to Him." The strong emotion with which it was

1 82 The Designations of Our Lord

spoken is obvious. It is not so clear, however, what
precise connotation is to be ascribed to the term * my
Lord ' in it. There may be a climax in the progress
from ' my Lord ' to ' my God.' But it seems impos-
sible to doubt that in this collocation ' Lord ' can fall
little short of 'God' in significance; else the conjunc-
tion of the two would be incongruous. Possibly both
terms should be taken as asserting deity, the former
with the emphasis upon the subjection, and the latter
with the emphasis on the awe, due to deity. In any
event in combination the two terms express as strongly
as could be expressed the deity of Jesus; and the con-
joint ascription is expressly accepted and commended
by Jesus. It must rank, therefore, as an item of self-
testimony on our Lord's part to His Godhead. 7

The ascription to our Lord of prophetic character

is, as in the other evangelists, cursorily noted (4 19

6 i4 7 4o,[52] 9 i7\ as is a j so our Lord's

Testis

the 'Christ* own acce P tance of the role (4 44 ). But
in John, too, it is particularly the spe-
cifically Messianic titles which attract attention. The
simple designation ' the Christ ' is not, indeed, fre-
quently applied directly to our Lord, although it is
made clear that He announced Himself as ' the Christ,'
and was accepted as such by His followers, and therefore

7 Cf. Westcott, in loc: " The words are beyond question addressed
to Christ (saith unto Him), and cannot but be understood as a con-
fession of belief as to His Person . . . expressed in the form of
an impassioned address. . . . His sublime confession, won from
doubt, closes historically the progress of faith which St. John traces.
At first (ch. i 1 ) the evangelist declared his own faith: at the end
he shows that this faith was gained in the actual intercourse of the
disciples with Christ. . . . The words which follow show that the
Lord accepted the declaration of His Divinity as the true expression
of faith."

The Designations in John 183

raised continual questionings in the minds of outsiders
whether He were indeed 4 the Christ.' John the Bap-
tist is represented as frankly confessing that he was not
himself 'the Christ/ but His forerunner (i 20 - 25 3 28 ),
pointing not obscurely to Jesus as the Messiah. And
accordingly John's disciples following their master's
suggestion find in Jesus ' the Messiah ' ( i 41 ) , which the
evangelist interprets to us as * the Christ.' When the
woman of Samaria confesses her knowledge that ' Mes-
siah ' (who, adds the evangelist again, is called
'Christ') is to come, our Lord majestically declares
Himself to be Him (4 25 - 26 ). The speculation of the
people over His Messianic character finds repeated
mention U 29 7^27,31,41,41,42 ^2 IQ 2 4 I2 34) # j esus HIm .

self is represented as calling out from Martha the full
confession, in which the current Messianic titles are
accumulated with unwonted richness: "Yea, Lord: I
have believed that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God,
He that cometh into the world" (n 27 ). And the
evangelist himself, with some similar repetition of
titles, explains that the purpose he had in view in writ-
ing his Gospel was that it might be believed that " Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God" (20 31 ), and announces
as the full name of the subject of his narrative, at its
inception and possibly at one point in its course where
explicit identification seemed to him useful, 'Jesus
Christ' (i 17 , cf. 17 3 ). We must not pass over this
list of passages without noting that on two occasions
the Aramaic term ' Messiah ' occurs ( i 41 , 4 25 ) , the only
instances of its occurrence in the New Testament.

Nor should we leave unnoticed the somewhat diffi-
cult question whether * j Ihrist ' in 17 3 is intended
as a word of our Lord's or is to be understood as a

184 The Designations of Our Lord

parenthetical explanation of the evangelist's. No
doubt it is easiest to take it as an insertion of the evan-
gelist's. The term ' Jesus Christ ' occurs elsewhere in
the Gospels only as a form of the evangelists' own,
employed in the rarest manner as the most ceremonious
and solemn of all direct designations of Jesus (Mt I 18
[16 21 ], Mk i 1 , Jno i 17 ); and there seems something
incongruous in placing this full name on the lips of
Jesus Himself, implying as it does that ' Christ ' had
already for Him acquired the quality of a proper name,
and indeed that the compound ' Jesus

'SaS'^' had become > though of ? ou . rse

not with the loss of its Messianic im-
plications, yet very much itself a proper name. Never-
theless the structure of the sentence is not favorable
to its assignment to the evangelist. Our Lord, speak-
ing in these opening verses of His great prayer in the
third person (" Thy Son," " Thy Son," " to Him," " to
Him," verses 1 and 2), declares that eternal life con-
sists in knowing the Father and Him whom the Father
has sent (verse 3). To each of these persons, thus
formally mentioned, then, a fuller designation is de-
scriptively added: the words run: "That they may
know Thee, ' the only true God,' and Him whom Thou
didst send, * Jesus Christ.' " The balance of the clauses
seem to imply that they stand together, and that accord-
ingly if ' Jesus Christ ' is to be taken as an explanatory
addition, so must also * the only true God.' Dr. West-
cott accordingly makes this supposition, and urges in
its support that ' the only true God ' is in John's man-
ner (cf. 1 Jno 5 20 ) and not in our Lord's: and that it
is in no way derogatory to John's truthfulness as a
reporter that he should thus insert brief explanations,

The Designations in John 185

no doubt the compressed representation of much of
our Lord's teaching. On the other hand, it may be
urged that it is very easy to exaggerate the difficulty of
supposing our Lord to have used the phrase in ques-
tion. He is certainly speaking of Himself: He has
just designated Himself the ' Son ' (verse 2); and
now designates Himself by the phrase, " Whom Thou
didst send." Why, continuing the use of the third
person, should He not solemnly designate Himself by
name, and, doing so, why should He not employ the
full ceremonious name of ' Jesus Christ ' ? This, of
course, would imply that ' Christ,' in its constant ap-
plication to Him, had already become, in our Lord's
life-time, at least a quasi-proper name. We have seen
already, however, that this was very much the case
(Mk 9 41 , Mt 24 s 27 17 - 22 ) ; and if Jesus could speak of
Himself as * Christ,' there seems no compelling reason
why He should not speak of Himself as ' Jesus Christ.'
No doubt even this difficulty might be avoided by tak-
ing * Christ' here predicatively: "That they may
know Thee the only true God and Him whom Thou
didst send, Jesus, as the Christ." The structure of the
sentence again, however, is not favorable to this con-
struction, which would break the parallelism of the
clauses. It seems more natural on the whole, there-
fore, to take * Jesus Christ' together as Jesus' own
self-designation of Himself; though if any feel a diffi-
culty in assuming that He already used ' Christ ' in
this combination completely as a proper name, there
seems no reason why it should not be understood as
appellative : " Him whom Thou didst send, even Jesus
the Messiah." It must be recognized, indeed, that this
appellative connotation is in any event not entirely lost,

1 86 The Designations of Our Lord

but throughout the whole use of the name * Jesus
Christ ' in the Apostolic Church retains its force. In
this passage we have only the earliest instance of the
combination of the two names ' Jesus/ as the personal,
and ' Christ/ as the official designation, into one quasi-
proper name: and the solemn employment of it thus
by Jesus gives us the point of departure for its Apos-
tolic use from Pentecost on (Acts 2 38 3 6 4 10 8 12 ' 37 , etc.)
whenever great solemnity demanded the employment
of this ceremonious name. This fixed Apostolic
usage from the first days of the infant Church finds
its best explanation in such a solemn employment
of it by our Lord as we have here recorded for us by
John. 8

We ought not to pass finally from this passage with-
out fairly facing the apparent contrast which is drawn
in it between Jesus Christ as the Sent

Jesu tl G e dd tion of God and the God who sent Hlm '

described here as " the only true God,"
that is to say, Him to whom alone belongs the reality
of the idea of God. 9 From this contrast it has often

8 Luthardt on the passage; also Godet, Ebrard, and Stier {Reden
Jesu, ed. 3, 1873, v. 397).

9 Cf . Westcott, in loc: "To regard the juxtaposition of Thee, the
only true God, and Him whom Thou didst send, as in any way im-
pairing the true divinity of Christ, by contrast with the Father, is
totally to misunderstand the passage. It is really so framed as to meet
the two cardinal errors as to religious truth which arise at all times,
the one which finds expression in various forms of polytheism, and the
one which treats that which is preparatory in revelation as final. On
the one side men make for themselves objects of worship many and
imperfect. On the other side they fail to recognize Christ when He
comes." Accordingly the knowledge of God which is life is repre-
sented as twofold: "a knowledge of God in His sole, supreme Maj-
esty, and a knowledge of the revelation which He has made in its final
consummation in the mission of Christ." "The contents of the knowl-

The Designations in John 187

been rashly inferred that Jesus Christ is here by impli-
cation affirmed not to be God; at least not in the
highest and truest sense. This, however, it is obvious,
would throw the declarations in this Gospel of the
relation of Christ to the Father into the greatest con-
fusion. He who has explained that He and the Father I
are One (io 30 , cf. 5 18 ), and that to have seen Him is
to have seen the Father (14 9 , cf. 8 19 io 15 14 7 ), and
who commended the confession of Him by His fol-
lower as "his Lord and his God" (20 2S ), can scarcely
be supposed here so pointedly to deny Himself inci-
dentally to be the God He so frequently affirms Himself
to be. It is quite clear, indeed, that the relation of our
Lord to the Father is not represented by John, whether
in his own person or in the words he reports from the
lips of Jesus, as a perfectly simple one. Its complexity
is already apparent in the puzzling opening words of
the Gospel, where the evangelist is not content to de-
clare Him merely to have been from eternity with God,
or merely to have been from eternity God, but unites
the two statements as if only by their union could the
whole truth be enunciated. We may legitimately say

edge," says Meyer with his usual point, "are stated with the precision
of a Confession — a summary of faith in opposition to the polytheistic
r. fiovov aXyjd. deov (cf. 5 44 , Deut 6 4 , i Cor 8 5 , i Thess i 9 ), and the
Jewish x6ff[io<$, the latter of which rejected Jesus as Messiah, although
in Him there was given, notwithstanding, the very highest revelation
of the only true God." Our Lord, in other words, is not contrasting
God and Jesus Christ ontologically, but declaring that to have eternal
life we must know not only the only true God — for there is but one
true God; but also the only Mediator between God and man, Jesus
Christ — who, however, may Himself very well be, and in the teaching
of our Lord is, Himself the true God. How He can be the true God
and yet the sent of God raises the deeper questions of the Trinity and
the Covenant and the Two Natures which are alluded to in the text.

1 88 The Designations of Our Lord

that this double way of speaking of Christ confuses
us; and that we cannot fully understand it. We are
not entitled to say that it is the index of confusion in
the mind of the evangelist — or in the mind of the
greater Speaker whose words the evangelist reports,
— unless it is perfectly clear that there is no conception
of the relation to the Father of Him whom the evan-
gelist calls by predilection the * Son of God,' even the
* Only begotten Son ' or indeed * God only begotten/
on the supposition of which as lying in his mind the
double mode of speaking of Him which we find con-
fusing may be reduced to a real harmony. And it is
undeniable that on the supposition of that conception
which has come in the Church to be called the doctrine
of the Trinity, — especially as supplemented by those
other two conceptions known as the doctrines of the
Two Natures of Christ and of the Eternal Covenant
of Redemption, — as forming the background of the
evangelist's varied modes of speaking of Christ, and
of our Lord's own varied mode of speaking of Himself
as reported by John, all appearance of disharmony be-
tween these declarations disappears. To say this, how-
ever, is to say that these great doctrines are taught by
John and by our Lord as reported by Him : for surely
there is no more effective way of teaching doctrines
than always to speak on their presupposition, and in
a manner which is confusing and apparently self-con-
tradictory except they be presupposed. Whatever we
may ourselves find of mystery in these doctrines, it is
only fair to recognize that they express part of the
fundamental basis of the religious thought of the
Gospel of John and of the great Teacher whose words
that Gospel so richly reports to us. 10

The Designations in John 189

It is only another way of calling Jesus the * Christ '
to call Him the ' King of Israel.' This Nathanael does
when Jesus manifested to him His super-
'King* human knowledge of his heart, ex-
claiming: " Rabbi, Thou art the Son of
God, Thou art the King of Israel" (i 49 ) — where the
order of the titles used is perhaps due to the primary
impression being that of the possession of supernatural
powers, from which the Messianic office is inferred.
It is as * King/ too, that Jesus was acclaimed as He
made His triumphal entrance into Jerusalem : " Ho-
sanna: Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the
Lord, even the King of Israel" (12 13 , cf. 6 15 ) — in
which acclamation the evangelist sees the fulfillment of
the prophecy of Zech o 9 of the coming of the King
of Zion riding on the ass (12 15 ). At His trial, again,
Pilate demanded of Him whether He was the * King
of the Jews,' using the natural heathen phraseology
(18 33 ), and received a reply which, while accepting the
ascription, was directed to undeceive Pilate with respect
to the character of His Kingship : it is not of this world
(18 37 ). In that understanding of it (18 37 ) Jesus has
no hesitation in claiming the title (18 37 ). The subse-
quent ascription of this title to Him was mockery and
part of His humiliation (18 39 ^OTWiwm^ but at
the same time part of the testimony that He lived and
died as the Messianic King.

We should not pass finally away from the passages
in which Jesus is called ' Christ ' and ' King ' without

f noting somewhat more particularly the

AC ^Me1° n accumulation of Messianic designations
in such passages as 20 31 , where the
evangelist says he has written in order to create faith

190 The Designations of Our Lord

in Jesus as " the Christ, the Son of God," and i 49 ,
where Nathanael declares Him " the Son of God, the
King of Israel," and especially at n 27 , where Martha
declares her faith in Him as " the Christ, the Son of
God, Him that cometh into the world." The use of
the term ' Son of God ' in these passages as a general
synonym of ' Christ,' but yet not necessarily a synonym
of no higher suggestion, we reserve for later discussion.
The designation ' He that cometh,' more fully defined
here by the addition of " into the world," we have al-
ready met with in Matthew (n 3 ) and Luke (7 1920 ).
A clause in Jno 6 14 , " This is of a truth the prophet
that cometh into the world," may suggest that the epi-
thet was associated in the popular mind with the Mes-
sianic interpretation of Deuteronomy 18 1518 : and we
have seen that our Lord associated it with the great
passage in Isa 6i lseq \ In itself, however, it appears
to conceive the Messiah fundamentally simply as the
promised one (cf. 4 25 ), and to emphasize with refer-
ence to Him chiefly that He is to come into the world
upon a mission. As such it is supported even more
copiously in John than in the other evangelists by a
pervasive self-testimony of Jesus laying stress on His
1 coming ' or His ' having been sent,' which keeps His
work sharply before us as the performance of a task
which had been committed to Him and constitutes
John's Gospel above all the rest the Gospel of the
Mission. In the repeated assertions made by our Lord
that He " came " into the world, obviously with im-
plications of voluntariness of action (cf.

JeSUS* T [9],ll,[15],[27],[30] ~[19] „ [25,25] r 43 £14 „ [27], [31]

Mission I 3 4 5 ° 7

9 39 I0 io r2 [i3i,[i5] I5 22 I g3'), some are

explicit as to the point whence He came, which is de-

The Designations in John 191

fined as heaven (3 31 ' 31 ), or the Person from whom He
came, who is named as God (7 28seq - 8 1416 - 42 16 28 17 8 ) ;
while others declare plainly the object of His coming,
v, which is not to judge but to save the world (12 46,47 ).
The correlation of the coming from the Father and
being sent by the Father is express in passages like
17 8 , and the sending is most copiously testified to, some-
times in the use of the simple verb xifiTza) (4 s4 523,24,30,37

£38,39,44 -16,18,28,33 gl6,18,26,29 Q 4 j 2 44,45,49 j ~20 j * 24 j -21 j £5

20 21 ) and sometimes rather in the use of the more specific
aizoorkllw, which emphasizes the specialness of the
mission, and is most commonly cast in the aorist tense
with a reference to the actual fact of the mission (3 17 ' 34

5 38 £29,57 ? 29 g 42 j Q 36 ^42 ^3,8,18,21,23,25^ tn0 Ugh SOme-

times in the perfect tense with a reference to the abid-
ing effect of it (5 s6 20 21 ). 11 The effect of this whole
body of passages is to throw over the whole of our
Lord's self-testimony in this Gospel the most intense
sense of His engagement upon a definite mission, for
the performance of which He, sent by the Father in
His love, has come forth from God, or, more locally
expressed, from heaven, into the world. They supply
a most compelling mass of evidence, therefore, taken
in the large, to His preexistence, and to His super-
human dignity to which His earthly career stands re-
lated as a humiliation to be accounted for only by its
being also a mission of love (12 4647 ).

The fact of this mission is also, no doubt, implicated
in the designation ' the Holy One of God ' (6 69 ) , which
is elicited on one occasion as a confession from His
followers; that is to say, no doubt, the One whom the
Father has set apart for a given work and consecrated

11 See the long and careful note of Westcott, John, p. 298.

192 The Designations of Our Lord

to its performance (6 27 io 36 ). It would also be the im-
plication of the designation ' the Chosen One of God,'
if that were the correct reading in i 34 , where the Bap-
tist bears his witness really, however, to His divine
Sonship. Another designation given to Him exclu-
sively by the Baptist throws, however, a most illumi-
nating light on the nature of His mission. " Behold,"
John is reported as crying, as he saw Jesus coming

towards him after His baptism, " Be-
of God* ^°^ ^ e Lamb of God which taketh

away the sin of the world " : and again
on the next day, as he saw Him walking by, " Behold
x the Lamb of God" (i 29 * 36 ). 12 That this was in inten-
tion and effect a Messianic title is made clear from the
sequel. Disciples of John, following Jesus on this sug-
gestion, report to their friends that they have " found
the Messiah (which is being interpreted, Christ)"
(i 41 ). The source of the phrase is, of course, the fifty-
third chapter of Isaiah, through which, however, a
further reference is made to the whole sacrificial system,
culminating in the Passover. By it the mission of
Jesus is described as including an expiatory sacrifice of
Himself for the salvation of the world: it, therefore,
only gives point to and explains the modus of what is
more generally declared by our Lord Himself in such

12 Jesus is called d/ivog 'Lamb,' Jno i2»,36 f Acts 8 32 , 1 P i 19 only
in the N. T. The reference is to the suffering Messiah of Is 53. In
Rev. apviov is used of Christ some 29 times: and though the term has
changed, the ' Lamb ' is the same — the Lamb that had been slain and
in whose blood is salvation. The apviov is always thus the slain
lamb. Neither ap.vo$ nor apviov occurs in N. T. of anyone else
but Christ — except that the plural of apviov occurs in Jno 21 15 of
Christ's followers. In Lk io 3 aprjv is used. On the use of the dimin-
utive apviov of Jesus in Scripture, see A. B. Grosart, Expository
Times, in. 57.

The Designations in John 193

a passage as 12 47 : "I came ... to save the
world." The Messianic character of this saving work
is thrown up in a clear light by the confession of the
Samaritans who, having been invited to come and see
whether Jesus were not the * Christ' (4 29 ), when they
heard Jesus concluded for themselves that He was " in-
deed the Saviour of the world" (4 42 ).

Quite a series of designations, mostly figurative in
character, expressive of the same general conception, are

applied by our Lord to Himself. Thus
Delfgnations He calls Himself the * Light of the

world ' ( 8 12 9 5 1 2 35 - 36 ' 46 , cf . 3 19 ' 20 - 21 1 1 9 - 10 ) ,
which is explained as the " light of life" (8 12 ), even
as the evangelist himself had with the same reference
to "life" called Him ' the Light of Men' (i**™>*) m
The ultimate source of this designation is no doubt to be
found in such passages in the Old Testament as Is 9 1 ' 2 ,
which is quoted and applied to Jesus by both Matthew
(4 16 ) and Luke (2 32 ). Similarly He calls Himself
' the Door ' by entering through which alone can sal-
vation be had (io 7 ' 9 ); the ' Bread of God 1 or ' of
Life/ by eating which alone can life be obtained (6 33 ;
635,41,49 7 «) ; < t hc Good Shepherd ' who gives His life
for the sheep (io 11,14 , cf. io 2,16 ) ; and without figure
definitely ' the Resurrection and the Life,' believing
in whom the dead shall live and the living never die
(n 25 ). Perhaps to the same general circle of ideas
belongs the title 'Paraclete' (14 16 ) or 'Advocate,' 13
which seems to imply that our Lord conceives Himself
under this designation as coming to the help of the

13 Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, p. 215, connects the Paraclete
with " Menachem " employed in the later Judaism as a Messianic title.
That would imply that we should take 'Paraclete' in the sense of
* Comforter.'

194 The Designations of Our Lord

needy. And we should probably think of the designa-
tion ' Bridegroom ' (3 s9 ) in the same light: but in
this Gospel our Lord's application to Himself of this
designation with a reference to His death, familiar to
us from the Synoptics, is not recorded: there is only
an employment of it of our Lord by the Baptist with
no reference to the days to come when the ' Bride-
groom ' should be taken away.

In this Gospel, however, as in the Synoptists, the
title ' Son of Man ' comes forward as one of our Lord's

favorite self-designations; and it is
'Son of Man' charged here, too, with the implication

of a mission, involving suffering and
death but issuing in triumph. If we seek the guidance
here, as we did in the case of the Synoptist use of the
title, of the substance of the passages in which it occurs,
we shall learn that the ' Son of Man ' is no earthly
being. He came down from heaven whither He shall
ultimately return (6 62 ). His sojourn on earth is due
to a task which He has undertaken, and to which He
is "sealed" (6 27 ). This task is to give eternal life
to men (6 27 ) ; and He accomplishes this by giving
them His flesh to eat and His blood to drink, whence
they obtain life in themselves (6 53 , cf. 6 27 ). Of course
this is symbolical language for dying for men. Accord-
ingly our Lord declares that it is necessary that the
' Son of Man ' be " lifted up," that whosoever believes
in Him may have eternal life (3 15 ), and He announces
it as His precise mission, received of the Father, to be
thus "lifted up" (8 2S 12 34 ). Nevertheless, it is only
that He may enter His glory that He dies (12 23 13 31 ),
and it is given to Him to exercise judgment also (5 27 ).
Here there is open proclamation of His preexistence,

The Designations in John 195

of His humiliation for an end, and of His passage
through this humiliation to His primitive glory.

The culminating Messianic designation in John,
however, is ' the Son of God,' which comes fully to its
rights in this Gospel. This designation
* Son of God ' occurs not only, as in the other evangel-
ists, in the more technical form of ' the
Son of God' (i 34 i 49 5 25 9 35 io 36 n 4 ' 27 19 7 20 31 ), and
the simple absolute 'the Son' (317,35,36,86 ^ 19,19,20,21,22,

23,23,26 6 40 g36 ^13 j ?1) « but ^ fa ft form pecul } ar tQ

John, 'the only begotten Son,' or simply (3 16 ' 17 ) 'the
only begotten' (i 14 , cf. I 18 , 'God only begotten').
That the title ' Son of God ' is a Messianic title is clear
from such passages as i 49 n 27 20 31 , in which it is used
side by side with ' the Christ,' ' the King of Israel,' ' the
Coming One,' as their synonym, although not neces-
sarily as a synonym of no higher connotation. There
is no reason to doubt that here, too, as in the other
evangelists, ' Son of God ' carries with it the implica-
tion of supernatural origin and thus designates the
Messiah from a point of view which recognized that
He was more than man. What is noteworthy is that
in John ' the Son of God ' becomes very distinctly a
self-designation of Jesus' own (5 25 9 s5 io 36 n 4 ) : and

14 Dr. Sanday, Hastings' D. B. } iv., 571 b., writes: "We should not
form an adequate conception of the title ' Son of God ' if we should
confine ourselves to the use of that title alone. It is true that it occurs
in some central passages [of the N. T.], and true that in these passages
the phrase is invested with great depth of meaning. But we should
not adequately appreciate this depth, and still less should we under-
stand the mass and volume of N. T. teaching on this head, if we did
not directly connect with the explicit references to the 'Son of God'
that other long series of references to God as preeminently 'the
Father' and to Christ as preeminently 'the Son.' These two lines of
usage are really convergent."

196 The Designations of Our Lord

it is noteworthy that in connection with this designation
He claims for Himself not only miraculous powers
(9 35 II 4 ), but the divine prerogative of judgment (5 25 ,
cf. 27 ) ; and that He was understood, in employing it
of Himself, to " make Himself equal with God," and
therefore to blaspheme (io 33,36 ).

It is, however, in the use of the simple 'the Son'
( 3 i7,36,36 ^19,22 6 4o 386^ f ten set ; n & rect correlation

with 'the Father' ( 3 35 5^20,21,23,23,26
'Son' 14 13 17 1 ), that the deepest suggestion

of the filial relation in which our Lord
felt Himself to stand to the Father comes out. And
these passages must be considered in conjunction with
the very numerous passages in which He who never
speaks of God as " our Father," putting Himself in
the same category with others who would then share
with Him the filial relation, 15 speaks of God either as
1 the Father/ or appropriatingly as ' My Father.'
There are over eighty passages of the former kind, 18
and nearly thirty of the latter. 17 The uniqueness of
the relation indicated is brought out by the connection
of the simple ' the Son ' with the emphatically unique
'only begotten Son of God' (3 16 ' 17 ). Although, of
course, the passage in which this is most pointedly done
may be the evangelist's and not our Lord's, the phrase
' Only begotten Son ' or even the term ' Only begot-

15 But in 20 17 He speaks to Mary Magdalene of "My Father and
your Father, My God and your God."

16 -35 421,23, 23 ^19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 23, 26, 36, 36, 36, 37, 45 527,37,44,45,46,48,57,57,65
§16,18,27, 28, 38, 38 IQ 15, 15, 17, 29, 30,32, 36, 38,38 TI 41 I2 26, 27,28,49,50 X3 1 ' 3 I4 6
14 9,10,10,11, 12, 13,16,24,26, 28,31,31 j e9,10,16,26,26 jg3, 10,15, 17, 23,25, 26, 27,27, 28
2628,32 j-1, 5,11, 21,24,25 jgll 2 o 17 ' 21 .

17 2 16 cl7, 18,43 532,40 g[19],19,19,49,54 1Q 18, 25, 29,37 ^2, 7, 20,21, 23,28
1-1,8,15,23,24 2O 17 .

The Designations in John 197

ten ' applied to Christ, occurs nowhere else, except in
John's own words (i 14,18 , 1 Jno 4 9 , cf. Heb n 17 ), and
that affords a reason for assigning the paragraph 3 16 " 21
to him. Such a passage as 5 18 , however, makes per-
fectly clear the high connotation which was attached to
the constant claim of Jesus to be in a peculiar sense
God's ' Son/ entitled to speak of Him in an appro-
priating way as His ' Father.' The Jews sought to
kill Him, remarks the evangelist, because of this mode
of speech: " He called God His own Father (jzazspa
ideov ), making Himself equal (caov) with God." And
indeed He leaves no prerogative to the Father which
He does not claim as ' Son ' to share. There has been
given Him authority over all flesh (17 2 ), and the des-
tinies of men are determined by Him (3 17 6 40 ) ; He
quickens whom He will (5 21 ) and executes judgment
on whom He will (5 22 ). Whatever the Father does
He knows, and indeed all that the Father does He
does (5 19 ). He even has received of the Father to
have life in Himself (5 26 ). Though He declares in-
deed that the Father is greater than He (14 28 ), this
must be consistent with an essential oneness with the
Father, because He explicitly asserts that He and the
Father are one (io 30 ), that He is in the Father and
the Father in Him (io 38 ), and that to have seen Him
was to have seen the Father (14 9 ). It may be that
some mysterious subordination of God the Son to God
the Father is suggested in the declaration that the
Father is greater than He (14 28 ), and many certainly
have so interpreted it, constructing their doctrine of
God upon that view. But it seems more likely that our
Lord is speaking on this occasion of His earthly state
in which He is not only acting as the Delegate of the

198 The Designations of Our Lord

Father and hence as His subordinate — the " sent " of
the Father; but also in His dual nature as the God-man,
is of Himself in His humanity, of a lower grade of
being than God, without derogation to His equality
with the Father in His higher, truly divine nature. If
this be what He means, there is no contradiction be-
tween the strong affirmations of His not merely equality
(5 18 ) with God, but His oneness with Him ( io 30 ) , His
interpenetration with Him (io 38 ) as sharer in all His
knowledge and deeds (14 9 ), and His equally strong
affirmation of His inferiority to Him (i4 2S ), illus-
trated as it is by numerous assertions of dependence on
Him and of an attitude of obedience to Him.

Thus, so clear and pervasive is the assertion of deity
through the medium of His designation of Himself as

1 Son ' and the use of this term of Him
Sonship by the evangelist, 18 that the chief point

of interest in the term rises above this
assertion and concerns a deeper matter. Does the Son-
ship asserted belong to our Lord in His earthly mani-
festation merely; or does it set forth a relation existing
between Him as a preexistent person and God conceived
even in eternity as His Father? In other words, is the
term ' Son ' a term of economical or of ontological
relation? The question is not an easy one to determine.
But, on the whole, it seems that it should be answered
in the latter sense. The force of a passage like 3 16
(cf. 3 35 5 20 ) — " God so loved the world that He gave
His only begotten Son " — seems to turn on the intimacy

18 Cf. Sanday, Hastings' B. D., iv. 576 b.: "We may say with con-
fidence that a sonship such as is described in the Fourth Gospel would
carry with it this conclusion. How could any inferior being either
enter so perfectly into the mind of the Father, or reflect it so perfectly
to man? Of what created beins could it be said. 'He that hath seen

The Designations in John 199

of the relation expressed by the term " only begotten
Son" having been already existent before the giving:
otherwise how is the greatness of the love expressed in
the giving to be measured? Similarly in a passage
like 3 17 there seems an implication of the Sonship as
underlying the mission: He was sent on this mission
because He was Son, — He did not become Son by be-
ing sent. In like manner the remarkable phrase " God
only begotten" in Jno i 18 appears to be most readily
explained by supposing that it was as God that He was
the unique Son: and, if so, it seems easiest to under-
stand " the glory of an Only Begotten of the Father,"
which men saw in the incarnate Christ (i 14 ) as the
glory brought with Him from heaven. In this case,
it is obvious, John goes far toward outlining the foun-
dations of the doctrine of the Trinity for us: and it
is a mistake not to see in his doctrine of the Logos and
of the Only Begotten God and of the Divine Son, the
elements of that doctrine.

With this high doctrine of the divine Sonship in
connection with Jesus the way is prepared for the ex-
press assertion that He is God. This,
'God' as has already been incidentally pointed
out, is done in express words in this Gos-
pel. The evangelist declares that that * Word,' which,
on becoming flesh, is identified with * Jesus Christ,'
was in the beginning with God and was 'God' (i 1 )*
and calls Him in distinction from the Father, ' God
only begotten ' (i 18 ). And Thomas, his doubts of the

me hath seen the Father ' ? We need not stop to pick out other expres-
sions that admit of no lower interpretations, because the evangelist has
made it clear by his Prologue what construction he himself put upon
his own narrative."

200 The Designations of Our Lord

resurrection removed, greets Him with the great cry,
11 My Lord and my God" (20 28 ) : and more to the
point, our Lord Himself, who had elsewhere declared
Himself one with God (io 30 ), and had asserted that
He and the Father interpenetrated one another (io 38 ),
and that to have seen Him was to have seen the Father
( 14 9 ) , expressly commended Thomas for this great con-
fession and thereby bore His own testimony to His
proper deity (20 29 ). The deity of Jesus which in the
Synoptists is in every way implied is, therefore, in John
expressly asserted, and that in the use of the most
direct terminology the Greek language afforded. To
this extent, it is to be allowed that John's Gospel is in
advance of the Synoptists.

This advance is commonly represented as the index
of the development that had taken place between the

time when the Synoptics were written
Title and the much later time when John was

written. John, coming from a period
almost a generation later than the Synoptics, it is said,
naturally reflects a later point of view. Of course
John's Gospel was written thirty or thirty-five years
after the Synoptics. But it is an illusion to suppose that
it therefore sets forth a later or more developed point
of view than that embedded in the Synoptics. The
Synoptics present a divine Christ, as we have seen, and
are written out of a point of view which is simply sat-
urated with reverence for Christ as divine. John is
written from no higher point of view, and records noth-
ing from the life of Jesus which more profoundly re-
veals His consciousness of oneness with the Father than
the great utterance of Mt 1 1 27 , or which more clearly an-
nounces the fundamental idea of what we call the

The Designations in John 201

Trinity than the great utterance of Mt 28 19 . There is
no advance in conception in John over the Synoptics:
there is only a difference in the phraseology employed
to express the same conception. The Synoptics present
Jesus Christ as God; only they do not happen to say
* God ' when speaking of Him : they say c Son of Man,'
( Son of God/ Sharer in i the Name.' It did not, how-
ever, require thirty years for men who thoroughly be-
lieved Jesus to be divine to learn to express it by calling
Him ' God/ In a word, it is in the mere accident of
literary expression, not in the substance of doctrine,
that the Synoptics and John differ in their assertion of
the deity of Christ. Accidents of literary expression
are not products of time, and differences in modes of
expression do not argue intervals of time.

THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD IN
ACTS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE

How great an illusion it is to look upon John as
reflecting a new phase of teaching, which had grown up

„ , „ m , only in the course of years, in speaking
Value of Acts' , \ , . , r* * l -n

Testimony °* J esus plainly as God, may be illus-
trated by attending to the designations
employed of our Lord in the Book of Acts and in the
letters of Paul. The Book of Acts and the Epistles
of Paul both bring us testimony to how Jesus was
thought and spoken of in Christian circles at the time,
and indeed before the time, when the Synoptics were
composed. The Book of Acts was not only written
by the author of one of the Synoptic Gospels, 1 but
purports to record conversations and discourses by the
actors in the great drama of the founding of the Chris-
tian Church; and indeed could not have seriously mis-
represented them, — seeing that it was published in their
lifetime, — without having been at once corrected. We
may learn from it, therefore, how Jesus was esteemed
by His first followers, including those who had enjoyed

1 This certainly cannot admit of doubt: and it is pleasant to be able
to record that the evidence has been recognized as overwhelming even
by Harnack: cf. his Lukas der Arzt der Verfasser des dritten Evan-
geliums und der Apostelgeschichte, 1906. That Harnack is unwilling
to accord to Luke his true rank as an exact historian does not lessen
the value of his admission of his authorship of the Gospel (including
the infancy portion) that bears his name; and of the Acts, throughout.

The Designations in Acts 203

His daily companionship throughout His ministry. The
Epistles of Paul are none of them of later date, and
many of them are of earlier date, than the Synoptic
Gospels, and bring us, therefore, testimony to the esti-
mation in which Christ was held in the Christian com-
munity at about the time when the Synoptic Gospels,
or the sources on which they depend, were written.
The conception of Jesus given expression alike in the
Synoptics, in Acts and in Paul's Epistles, it cannot be
doubted, was aboriginal in the Church. 2 But this con-
ception is distinctly that expressed in its own way in the
Gospel of John.

The narrative of Acts does not concern the acts of
Jesus during the period of His earthly life, but those

of the exalted Jesus through His serv-
• Jesus' in Acts ants the Apostles (i 1 : " began"). It

is natural, therefore, that the simple des-
ignation i Jesus ' should occur less frequently in its pages
than in the Gospel narrative ; and that even when Jesus
is spoken of, which is of course comparatively infre-
quently, He should be spoken of by a designation more
expressive of the relation existing between Him and His
followers, whose acts it is proximately the business of
this book to describe. Accordingly in Acts the rever-
ential * the Lord ' becomes the ruling designation of
Jesus, and the simple * Jesus ' takes a subordinate place,
both as the narrative designation and in the reports

2 Harnack, in the Preface to the above-mentioned work, says: "The
genuine epistles of Paul, the writings of Luke, and Eusebius' Church
History are the pillars for the knowledge of the history of the earliest
Christianity." This is true testimony: and it only remains to give to
the testimony of these three pillar-witnesses its real validity to rise in
our conception of early Christianity far above not only the average
" critical " conception, but Harnack's own.

204 The Designations of Our Lord

of the remarks of our Lord's followers incorporated
in the narrative. Nevertheless it is employed by Luke
himself with sufficient frequency to show that it sug-
gested itself on all natural occasions. Thus, for ex-
ample, Luke uses it in the first chapter where he is
himself narrating what Jesus did before His ascension
(i 1,14 ), and elsewhere currently in such phrases as
"preaching Jesus " (5 42 8 35 9 21 17 18 ), "proving that
Jesus is the Christ "(9 20 18 5 ' 28 2 8 23 ), and the like (4 2 ' 13 ' 18
5 40 7 s5 9 27 18 25 ). And he records it as employed in a
natural way by the two chief spokesmen in Acts, Peter
in the earlier portion (i 16 2 32 ' 36 [ 3 13 - 20 ] 5 30 , cf. 4 27 ' 30 ),
and Paul in the later portion ([9 5 ' 20 ] 13 23 * 83 17 8 i9 4 ' [13] ),
as well as occasionally by other actors in the historical
drama ( 4 18 ' 27 - 30 5 40 9 17 '^ if ig whi5 25 i9^ including
the angel explaining the ascension (i 11 ) and Jesus Him-
self revealing Himself to Paul (9 s 26 15 ).

The fuller form, ' Jesus of Nazareth' (io 38 ), or

more frequently, * Jesus the Nazarene ' (2 22 6 14 2 2 8

26 9 ) also occurs, not as a locution of

Nkzareth' Luke's own, indeed, but upon the lips
of Peter (2 22 io 38 ), and Paul (22 s 26 9 ),
and in one case as a description of Jesus by Himself
(22 s ) ; and also on the lips of the inimical Jews de-
scribing with some contempt the great claims made by
His followers for "this Jesus the Nazarene" (6 14 ).
Twice, indeed, the full name * Jesus Christ the Naza-
rene ' is employed, as a solemn designation throwing
up for observation His entire personality in all its
grandeur (3° 4 10 ).

From these two last-named instances we may learn,
what otherwise is sufficiently illustrated, that the full

The Designations in Acts 205

sacred name * Jesus Christ ' was in easy use by our
Lord's first followers, whenever they
Christ 3 ' wished to speak of Him with special
solemnity. Luke himself so employs it
in his narrative (8 12 ), and he quotes it from Peter
(2 38 9 34 io 36,48 ) and Paul (16 18 ) — in each instance as
employed in circumstances of great ceremoniousness, in
demanding faith or in working cures by this great Name.
It is in similar conditions that the even more complete
designation * Jesus Christ the Nazarene ' (3 6 4 10 ) oc-
curs; and that a designation which occurs very fre-
quently in the Epistles, 'the Lord Jesus Christ' (n 17
28 31 ) or ' our Lord Jesus Christ' (15 26 20 21 ), appears
as in use by the Apostles, — Peter (n 17 ), Paul (20 21 ),
and the whole Apostolic body (15 26 ),— as well as by
Luke himself (28 31 ). In all these instances it seems
clear that the compound name ' Jesus Christ ' is treated
as a proper name, but of course not with any loss of the
high significance of the element ' Christ.' Perhaps it
would not be too much to say that the compound name
is dealt with as the ' royal name ' of our Lord, the
name which is given Him when He is to be designated
with special ceremony and solemnity.

In 3 2 ° 5 42 24 24 , 3 on the other hand, it is questionable

whether we are to read the names together so as to

yield the compound ' Christ Jesus,'

I Chns * which in that case meets us here for the

JeSUS first time in the New Testament, or

are to take * Christ ' as the predicate, — c Jesus as the

Christ.' The commentators seem inclined to follow the

3 T yS i8 5 > 28 , where also the two names stand in conjunction, are dif-
ferent: the presence of the substantive verb renders the construction of
the " Christ " as predicate necessary.

206 The Designations of Our Lord

latter course. 4 But in 24 24 , where the question is about
Paul, who, we know from his Epistles ( i Thess 2 14
5 1S , Rom passim), was accustomed, at an earlier date
than this, to use the compound ' Christ Jesus ' freely,
it seems difficult not to read that compound. 5 And this
increases our hesitancy with reference to the two earlier
passages. Paul's familiar use of * Christ Jesus ' must
have had a history back of it: and it seems, there-
fore, natural that its employment in the primitive com-
munity should emerge into light in such passages as we
now have before us. 6

Another compound designation of Jesus, which does
not occur in the Gospels, 7 meets us with some frequency

in Acts — * the Lord Jesus.' This is em-
Jesus ■ ployed by Luke himself in the course of

the narrative (4 s3 8 16 n 20 19 5 ' 13 ' 17 ), and
is also attributed to speakers whose words are reported,

4 So e.g. the Revised English Version at 3 20 5 42 , and Meyer- Wendt
at 3 20 : and so also A. H. Blom, De Leer 'van het Messiasrijk bij de
eerste Christenen, pp. 292 and 303. On 3 20 Blom says: "There can be
no doubt . . . but that Xpurrdv 'Irjffouv is not to be taken as one
name, but that 'I-qtrouv is the epexegetic appositive of Xpurrov, which
has here its original significance of a dignity." On the other side, cf.
Gloag, Barde, Rackham at 3 20 .

5 So e.g. R. V.

6 Paul Feine, Jesus Christus und Paulus, 1902, p. 35, is among those
(see note 4) who take the opposite view. He says: "This formula is
a specifically Pauline one. The compound name 'Itjgous Xpi<rr6^
is found also in the other N. T. writings. . . . But the reverse
sequence meets us only in Paul. No doubt it may be possible to dis-
cover it if we wish to do so in Acts. But even in Acts 3 20 17 3 i8 5 - 28 ,
the XpMTTo$, standing before V^<rou? 7 is the predicate; 5 42 means
similarly, 'they preached the Messiah Jesus.' Then only 24 s4 is left
tt}<$ e?£ Xptffrov 'Iyjgouv 7riffrecu? t Even here, however, it is pos-
sible that we do not have the Pauline formula, but what is spoken of is
faith in the Messiah Jesus."

7 In Mk 16 19 , Lk 24 s , it is not genuine.

The Designations in Acts 207

— or to be more specific, to both Peter (i 21 15 11 ) and
Paul (16 31 20 24,35 21 13 ). It is even used as an address
by Stephen (7 59 ). Indeed the fuller designation, ' the'
or ' our ' ' Lord Jesus Christ,' is employed by Luke him-
self (28 31 ) and attributed alike to Peter (n 17 ), the
whole body of the Apostles (15 26 ), and Paul (20 21 ).
In this last formula we have combined the three most
usual designations of Christ, and it seems charged with
the deepest reverence and affection for His person.

Of course these phrases, ' the Lord Jesus,' * the [our]
Lord Jesus Christ,' witness to the prevalence in the
Christian community of the simpler des-
'Lord' ignation * Lord ' of Jesus, and this prev-
alence is otherwise copiously illustrated
in x\cts. As the narrative does not concern what Jesus
began to do and teach while in His own person on
earth, but what " after He was received up " He did
through His servants, His own person is not a figure in
the narrative, subsequent to the few opening verses
which tell of the period before the ascension. Ac-
cordingly outside of these verses (i 6 ) there is no occa-
sion to record words directly addressed to Jesus, except
in visions (9 5 ' 10 ' 13 22 8 ' 10 ' 19 26 15 ), or in prayers (i 24
7 59 ' 60 ( ) . On all these occasions, however. He is ad-
dressed by the supreme honorific ' Lord,' except in
7 59 , where He is addressed more fully as ' Lord Jesus.'
It is clear that this formula is employed in all cases with
the profoundest reverence, and is meant to be the
vehicle of the highest possible ascription. Perhaps it
will be well to focus our attention upon the two or
three instances in which it is employed in direct prayer
to Jesus ( i 24 7 59 - 60 ) . In these He is not merely treated
as divine — for to whom but God is prayer to be ad-

208 The Designations of Our Lord

dressed? — but also directly characterized as the pos-
sessor of divine powers and the exerciser of divine
functions. It is as He "that knoweth the hearts of
all men " that He is appealed to at i 24 ; 8 as the forgiver
of sin at 7 60 ; 9 and as the receiver of the spirits of the
dying saints at 7 s9 . All these traits are assigned to
Jesus in the Gospel narratives, where Jesus claimed
authority even on earth to forgive sins (Mk 2 10 ||) and
represents Himself as the judge before whom all were
at length to stand and receive according to the deeds
done in the body (Mt 25 s2 ) : where He is represented
as knowing what was in men and needing not that

8 De Wette, Meyer, Wendt, Nosgen, Blass, in loc, wish this passage
to be understood as addressed to God; so also Sven Herner, Die Art'
ivendung des Wortes xopio? im N. T., 1903, p. 17: "In the sen-
tence, 'Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men' (i 24 ), God is
probably meant. According to 15 8 (4 29 ) and Lk 16 15 God is the
searcher of hearts, and the prayer of the primitive Church recorded at
4 24 - 30 is also addressed to God. Several exegetes, however, are of the
opinion that it is directed to the Lord Christ; and the 6 xupto$ 'Iyffous
of v. 21 can be urged in support of this." Among the exegetes who
consider it to be addressed to Christ are Bengel, Olshausen, Baumgar-
ten, Lechler, Bisping, and van Oosterzee (see the solid statement of the
last) : as also Alexander, Hackett, Gloag, Barde, Felton, Rendall.
Rackham prefers to leave the question undecided.

9 That the prayer in 7 60 is addressed to Jesus is pretty generally
allowed. Cf. e.g. Sven Herner, p. 16: "We think we can maintain
that in Stephen's prayer the words, ' Lord, lay not this sin to their
charge' (7 60 ), are directed to Jesus, since the immediately preceding
verse has the expression ' Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.' " Also A. H.
Blom, p. 126: "It is probable that the same person is addressed by the
xupte as was called xopte ''Irjcroo in v. 59." Blom points out that
it is the dominant conception of Acts that the forgiveness of sins
is to be had in Christ: therefore men are baptized in His name (2 38
22 16 ), and He has been exalted to God's right hand as a Prince and a
Saviour (5 31 ), and all who believe in Him receive forgiveness through
His name (io 43 ) ; "and therefore," he adds, "Stephen can have had
Him in mind when he prayed for his foes, Lord, reckon not this sin to
their charge (7 60 )."

The Designations in Acts 209

anyone should teach Him what were the thoughts of
their hearts (Mk 2 s ) : and where His promise to the
thief was that he should be that day with Him in Para-
dise (Lk 23 43 ). It can occasion no surprise, therefore,
that He should be appealed to after His return to His
\ glory as at once the searcher of hearts, the forgiver
of sins, and the receiver of the spirits of the saints.
What we learn in the meanwhile is that to the infant
community the ascended Jesus was their God, whom
they addressed in prayer and from whom they sought
in prayer the activities which specifically belong to God.
Quite naturally in these circumstances the chief nar-
rative name for Jesus in Acts becomes the honorific
'Lord* as ' tne Lord,' which is employed about
Narrative twice as frequently as the simple
Name * Jesus,' 10 and which is occasionally given

more precision by taking the form of * the Lord Jesus '

( 4 33 gl6 lr 20 ^5,13,17) ^ eyen « the Lord J^ Q^ ,

(28 31 ). All of these designations are placed also on
the lips of actors in the history recounted. Thus Peter
speaks of Jesus as ' the Lord ' in [2 34 ] 2 36 n 16 12 11 , as
* the Lord Jesus' in i 21 15 11 , and as 'the Lord Jesus
Christ' in n 17 ; Paul as 'the Lord' in i 3 *mm« 20 19
26 15 , as 'the Lord Jesus' in 16 31 20 24 ' 35 21 13 , and as
' the Lord Jesus Christ ' in 20 21 ; and others speak of
Him as 'the Lord' in 8 22 ' 24 9 17 16 15 , as 'the Lord
Jesus' in 7 59 , and as 'the Lord Jesus Christ' in 15 26 .
It is quite clear that ' the Lord ' is a favorite designation
of Jesus in this book, and was such also in the com-
munity whose usage it reflects. 11 And it is equally clear

10 r 2 471[rl4] g25 91,10, 11.15. [17], 27, 29, 31, 35, 42 IZ 21,21,23 I2 17 13 2,49
I4 3,23 15 35,[36],40 1 6[14],[32] jgS.9,25 T ^20 ^ll,

11 Cf. Sven Herner, Die Anivendung des Wortes xupto? tm N. T.,
p. 20: "The frequent employment of the word xupio$ in Acts is

2IO The Designations of Our Lord

that in the use of this term what is primarily expressed
is the profoundest reverence on the part of the com-
munity and the highest conceivable exaltation and au-
thority on the part of Jesus Himself. It belongs to the
/. situation that it is often extremely difficult to deter-
~~ mine whether by * Lord ' Jesus or God is meant. 12 That
is to say, so clearly is Jesus ( God ' to this writer and

shown not merely in the cases where it refers to God, but even more
where it is Christ that is spoken of. Acts loves to call Christ ' Lord.'
According to 2 36 God has made Jesus Lord and Christ; He is 'the
Lord over all' (io 36 ), and, therefore, He is often spoken of by the
designation of 'Lord' ( 2 20 > 21 > 34 9 i,E5,6]io,ii,i5,i7,27 „16 [ l6 io l8 25]
20 28 [22 10 ' 16 ] 23 11 [26 15 ]). To these must be added the passages in
which Christ is addressed with the term 'Lord'(i 6 7 s9 ' 60 9S.E6l.10.13
23 8,io,i9 26 10 ), and a series of citations in which He is called 'Lord,'
but in connection with a 'Jesus' or 'Jesus Christ' (i 21 4 s3 8 16 [9 2S
io 48 ] n 17 ' 20 [14 10 ] 15 11 ' 26 16 31 19 5 . 13 . 17 20 21 ' 24 ' 35 21 13 28 31 ). Acts
speaks therefore extremely often of Christ by the designation ' Lord,'
even if we neglect the passages adduced at an earlier point, where
decision is uncertain whether God or Christ is meant."

12 Cf. Sven Herner, op. cit., p. 16: "Whereas the Gospels depict
the life of Jesus on earth, the narrative in Acts revolves around the
Jesus exalted to the right hand of God, whom God has made Lord and
Christ (2 36 ). It is He who leads to eternal life; He is the Lord of
life (3 15 ). He is the Saviour, and there is salvation in no other (4 12 ).
He deals out His blessings (3 16 ) and pours out the Holy Spirit on be-
lievers (2 s3 ). His power is not bounded by the limits of space (26 17 ),
and His flesh shall not see corruption (2 31 ). He is not only the Lord
and Master according to the ordinary representation of the Gospels (cf.
e.g. Mt 21 3 , Mk n 3 , Lk 19 31 with Mt 26 18 , Mk 14 14 , Lk 22 11 and John
13 13 ), but He is the Lord over all (io 36 ). Accordingly Acts can leave
it undetermined whether certain assertions are to be made of God or
Christ; a designation is employed which is common to both, and it can
often not be decided whether God or Christ is meant, — indeed some-
times it seems almost as if Acts had chosen a common designation just
because it was unnecessary more precisely to express whether what was
spoken of was to be ascribed to God or Christ. It is thus character-
istic of Acts that a large number of passages occur where we cannot be

The Designations in Acts 21 1

those whose speech he reports that the common term
* Lord ' vibrates between the two and leaves the reader
often uncertain which is intended. 13 The assimilation
of Jesus to God thus witnessed is illustrated also in
other ways. Thus, for example, in Peter's Pentecostal
sermon Jesus is conceived as sitting at the right hand
of God (2 34 ) and as having been constituted "both
Lord and Christ," where the conjunction is significant
(2 36 ) : and more explicitly still He is designated in a
later discourse of the same Peter, " Lord of all "
(io 36 ), that is to say, universal sovereign, a phrase
which recalls the great declaration of Rom g 5 to the
effect that He is " God over all," as indeed He who
sits on the throne of God must be. 14

sure whether xopto? means God or Christ (i 24 a 47 5 14 8 25 ' 39 931,35,42

2221,21,23,24 r ~2, 10,11, 12, [44], 47,48,49 jj.3,23 2*35,36 2614,15,32 jg8,9,25
19 10,20 2Q 19 2I 14 )."

13 Therefore commentators have been tempted sometimes to seek out
an easy and mechanical rule of discrimination. In his Neueste Theol.
Journal, iv., pp. 11-24 (cf. m. p. 501), Gabler, e.g., maintained that
anarthrous xbpio$ always is God in the N. T., while articled xoptog
is always Jesus. Winer in the first and second editions of his Gram-
mar blindly repeated this. But on investigating the matter he was soon
convinced of the error, and showed in his monograph, Disputatio de
sensu <vocum xopto$ et 6 xopto$ im Actis et Epistolis Apostolorum
(Erlang., 1828), pp. 26, that the assumed rule did not hold good.
Moses Stuart had meanwhile taken up the whole subject and printed
the results of his researches in a somewhat rambling but useful paper
in the first volume of the Biblical Repository (1831, Oct.), to the same
effect. Dr. A. Plummer in his commentary on Luke repeats as regards
that book the artificial statement of Gabler. In truth the distribu-
tion of the usage between Christ and God cannot in any book of the
N. T. be determined on such grounds: and the difficulty in determining
the reference is rooted ultimately in the assimilation of the two persons
in the minds of the writers. Cf. Harnack, History of Dogma, 1. p. 183.

14 Cf. Meyer on 2 36 and io 36 .

212 The Designations of Our Lord

That in this rich development of the conception of
the Lordship of Jesus, His Messianic dignity is not
t out of mind is already apparent from the

Man , phraseology of 2 36 . 15 The emphasis of

Peter's preaching turns, indeed, pre-
cisely on the fact that God has made the Jesus whom
the Jews crucified " both Lord and Christ." It is thus
with Acts as truly as with the Gospels the Messianic
office of Jesus on which the greatest stress is laid. Nat-
urally as Jesus is not a speaker in the narrative of Acts,
His own favorite self-designation of ' Son of Man '
is here conspicuous by its absence. It occurs only a
single time, when the dying Stephen declared that he
saw the heavens opened and the ' Son of Man ' stand-
ing at the right hand of God (7 56 ). This is the only
instance in the whole New Testament where this desig-
nation is employed by anyone except our Lord Himself:
Stephen's use of it seems a reflection of our Lord's
declaration, " Henceforth ye shall see the Son of Man
sitting at the right hand of power" (Mt i6 M ||), and
is at once Stephen's testimony to the greatness of his
Lord in His divine Majesty, and a witness to the genu-
ineness of the whole series of declarations attributed
to our Lord in which He saw Himself in the Danielic
vision and developed on that basis His conception of
His Messiahship in its earthy humiliation and subse-
quent elevation to participation in the divine glory.

The great companion designation ' Son of God ' is

15 Cf. e.g. A. H. Blom, De Leer <van het Messiasrijk, etc., pp. 58-9:
" Christians were thoroughly convinced that the Messiah had appeared
in Jesus the Nazarene. This was the main content of the preaching of
the Apostles, whether they turned to the Jews (Acts 2 2236 3*3, 26 48-12
5 29-32 7 52 9 2o ? etc ^ f or t0 t h e Samaritans (8 5 ), or to the heathen

( I0 34-42 I3 16-41).»

The Designations in Acts 213

almost as rare in Acts as the ' Son of Man.' This pre-
cise designation, indeed, occurs but once,
q *\ ? where we are told that Paul immediately
after his conversion began to proclaim
X in the synagogues of Damascus Jesus as the ' Son of
xGod' (9 20 )) which is explained as meaning that he
K proved Jesus to be ' the Christ' (9 22 ). In his speech
in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch, Paul indeed de-
clared that by raising up Jesus God fulfilled the an-
nouncement of the second Psalm, " Thou art my Son,
this day have I begotten Thee " (13 33 ) ; and the risen
Jesus is quoted as twice speaking of God as " the
Father" (i 4 ' 7 ), and Peter is cited as repeating one of
these declarations in his Pentecostal sermon (2 s3 ). Oc-
casion has been taken from the circumstance that in
all these three cases of allusion to the ' Father ' the
term employed is ' the Father ' to suggest that it is
not specifically Jesus' Father but the general Father of
spirits that is intended. To this is added the sugges-
tion that in Paul's allusion to the second Psalm it is
(of the incarnation or even perhaps of the resurrection
( that he is thinking as the point when the Son was be-
( gotten. The conclusion is then drawn that in Acts
there is no allusion to a metaphysical Sonship of
Christ. 16 It must be frankly admitted that had we these

16 Cf. e.g. A. H. Blom, De Leer van het Messiasrijk, etc., pp. 58-9,
70, 71: "We think we may conclude that the Christians as little as the
Jews connected with the ' Son of God ' the conception of a divine na-
ture; and that the ethical element in the idea of the Messiah lay more
in the tzcu$ than in the ul 09 of God " . . . "It attracts our at-
tention that Jesus here and there speaks of God as 'the Father*
(Acts i 4 ' 7 ), and that Peter too on one occasion made use of this desig-
• nation (2 33 ). Seeing how that elsewhere in the N.T. the most inti-
mate communion of God with men, His life for and in men, is ex-
pressed by this term, it is all the more remarkable that Jesus by speak-

214 The Designations of Our Lord

passages alone to consider, we might hesitate to ascribe
to Acts the doctrine of a divine Messiah. But this is
by no means the case, and we need only note in passing
that the title of ' Son of God ' is very little in evidence
in Acts either in its precise form or in its cognate modes
of expression. Nevertheless, the locution ' the Father '
does not appear in the usage of it here to be without
suggestion of its correlative ' the Son '; and Paul's cita-
tion of the second Psalm does not seem to be without
implication of a Sonship for Jesus lying deeper than
either His resurrection or His incarnation.

The prevailing Messianic designation in Acts is the

simple ' Christ,' and Luke tells us that the staple of

the Apostolic teaching was that Jesus

J^aS? Is ' the ChrIst ' (5 42 8 " 9 22 l85 ' 28) ' and

illustrates this fact by instances recorded
both from Peter (2 31 ' 36 3 18 ' 20 ) and from Paul (17 3
26 s3 ). The general employment of the compound
names, 'Jesus Christ/ 'the Lord Jesus Christ* (or
' our Lord Jesus Christ ') and even ' Christ Jesus/ tes-
tifies to the fixedness of the conviction that Jesus was
* the Christ ' and the close attachment of the title to
His person as at least a quasi-proper name. Luke does
not himself make use of any other Messianic title,
except in the one instance when he tells us that Paul

ing not of His but of the Father, does not lay claim by it for Himself
alone to such a relation to God. And Peter follows Him in this, since he
employs the term to the Jews, who did not yet believe in Christ, from
which it may be inferred that this fatherlike love of God for men was
not conceived as dependent on their belief in Christ, but as grounded
in His nature. . . . And if we were not arbitrary in suggesting
that for the early Christians the title ' Servant of Jehovah ' was of
much more ethical significance than that of ' Son of God,' it would
seem to follow that we should not seek a rich ethical sense in the name
of Father."

The Designations in Acts 215

on his conversion began at once " to proclaim Jesus
that He is the Son of God" (9 20 ). But he quotes
quite a rich variety of such titles as employed by others.
To Peter there is ascribed, for example, a considerable
series, which, moreover, he is represented as weaving
together in a most striking way, as all alike designa-
tions of the same Jesus, which bring out the several
aspects of the unitary conception fulfilled in Him.
Prominent among them are those which apply to Jesus
the prophecies concerning ' the Righteous Servant of
Jehovah ' (3 13 ' 14 ' 26 , cf. 4 27 ' 30 ) and ' the Prophet like unto
Moses' (3 22,28 ), which are inextricably combined with
those which speak of Him as ' the Anointed King.' 17

17 With respect to this intermingling of designations, cf. A. H. Blom,
De Leer van het Messiasrijk bei de eerste Christenen, 1863, p. 48:
" It scarcely needs to be said that only the religious-minded were in a
position rightly to understand Jesus, and that undoubtedly the most of
those who became His followers in the first years belonged to this class.
The question thus becomes, What was the conception which they had
formed of the Messiah, when they came to know Jesus? And the Book
of Acts answers us, that the Messiah, in their view, was to be the
offspring and successor of David, a Prophet like to Moses, the Servant
of Jehovah, the Son of God and the Son of Man. The three first of
these characterizations describe His dignity, while the two last raise
the question for us what nature was ascribed to Him." Again, pp.
55-56: "Diverse as were the ideas expressed in these three views of a
King like David, a Prophet like Moses, and the Servant of Jehovah,
and little as the particulars in which they were developed permitted
themselves to be united into a unitary, consistent, concrete conception,
yet since the Messiah was seen in all three, they were looked upon as
identical. Accordingly what was said of one of them was considered
unhesitatingly to be applicable to the others. A striking example of
this is afforded by the words applied to Jesus in Mt 17 5 — ' This is my
Son, the Beloved, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye Him.' Here
the predicate, 'my Son,' belongs to the idea of the King of Ps 2; the
1 in whom I am well pleased ' is a trait only of the portrait of the
Servant of Jehovah (Is 42 1 ) ; and the 'hear Him' points to what is
due to the prophet (Deut 18 15 ). We meet with a like phenomenon in

216 The Designations of Our Lord

In Peter's early discourses ' the Servant (?r«Tc) of

God ' is one of the most notable of the designations of

Jesus (3 23,26 , cf. 4 27 ' 30 ) ; and along with

AC ofTm a es° n [t occurs <the Hol y and R^™ 8
One ' (3 14 ) 18 which belongs to the same

series of designations; and in the same context appeal

is made likewise to Moses' prophecy of a Prophet like

unto himself (3 22,23 ) ; 19 while to these is added further

Acts. It is declared that what stands written in Ps 2 2 of the King —
'The Kings of the earth set themselves and the princes take counsel
together, against the Lord and against His Anointed ' — is fulfilled in
God's holy Servant (Acts 4 25 " 27 , cf. verse 30). Similarly the idea of
the prophet is brought into connection with that of the Servant of Jeho-
'vah when Peter, after adducing the words, 'A prophet shall the Lord
your God raise up/ announces that God has actually sent him to them,
'having raised up to you His servant Jesus' (Acts 3 24 " 26 ). And if the
splendid successor of David received the glory, which the Holy One
of God expected (Acts 2 27 ' 30 ), so also the sufferings of the Servant of
Jehovah were unhesitatingly assigned to the King (3 18 ), as Peter de-
clares that God through all His prophets has proclaimed that ' His
Christ should suffer.'"

18 Cf. Blom, op. cit., p. 33: "Whatever weight can be attached here
to the appeal to this anointing of Jesus with the Holy Spirit of proph-
ecy and with power, as a proof that He must be the Messiah, there was
yet another side to the manifestation of Jesus which strongly impressed
the Christians and by which they were led to recognize His religious
greatness. He was the offio$ (Acts 2 27 13 35 ), the dixato? (7 52
22 14 , the ayio<s xai dixouo? (3 14 ), the ayto<; 7r«T? too deou (4 27 ' 30 ).
And this He was not only after His exaltation, but already on
earth, for the guilt of the Jews was so great just because they had
rejected and killed Him, the ayto? xai dtxaios instead of a mur-
derer. These general predicates, however, are not enough to give us
a just notion of the perfection which they saw in Jesus. It is undoubt-
edly wrong for men to see nothing more in them than that He was
guiltless in the matters of which He was accused by the Jews. This
is already plain from the emphasis with which He is named 6 aytos,
b dixaio<$. . . . And so the predicate 6 ayto<s must include in
itself a religious and ethical sense . . ."

19 Cf. Blom, op. cit., pp. 50-57: "Although they [the Jews] applied
these words to a particular person, they do not seem to have all thought

The Designations in Acts 217

the striking title of the ' Prince ' or ' Author ' * of life '
(3 15 ). In other discourses Peter calls Jesus a ' Prince
and Saviour ' (5 31 ) and indeed even ' Judge of the
quick and the dead ' (io 42 ). The composite portrait
which he presents of Jesus the Messiah as he passes
freely from one of these designations to another is a
complex and very lofty one : what is most apparent is
that he conceives Him as the focus upon which all the
rays of Old Testament prophecy converge, and as ex-
alted above all earthly limitations. A somewhat simi-
lar list of designations is placed on the lips of Paul.
xTo him the 'Lord Jesus 1 (16 31 2 o 21 - 24 ' 35 21 13 ) is 'the
-Christ' (17 3 26 23 ), 'the Holy One' (13 35 ) 20 ' the
Righteous One ' (22 14 , cf. 7 52 , Stephen) 21 who has come
x as a 'Saviour' (13 28 ) to Israel, and who though a

of the same one ; and while some held ' him of whom Moses wrote in
the law' (Jno i 45 ) or 'the prophet who should come into the world'
(6 14 , cf. 15 ) for the Messiah, others must have distinguished Him from
the Messiah (j2i. cf. 20, 7 40, cf. 41 ) # According to these last, he was,
in harmony with the prophecy of Malachi (3 1 4 5 " 6 ), the returning
Elijah, who was to prepare the way before the Messiah (Mt 17 10 ). The
Christians did not share this view. While they also had expected an
Elijah and had found him in John the Baptist (Acts 13 24 ), they con-
ceived that the promise of Moses had found its fulfilment only in the
Messiah; and Peter, therefore, in his preaching, appealed directly to
these words (Acts 3 22 ), and Stephen also seems to have meant the same
thing (7 s7 ). Accordingly on their basis the gift of prophecy was a
main element of the idea of the Messiah, and that, such a gift as placed
Him by the side of Moses and elevated Him above all other prophets.
There was certainly connected with this also an inner communion
with God ; and God was understood to speak with Him face to face,
and to reveal to Him His counsel more clearly as in the case of Moses
(Ex 33", Numb 12 6 - 8 )."

20 Cf. 2 27 . In both cases it is derived from Ps 16 10 , and the term
employed is offto?, not ayio$, as in 3 14 , cf. Mk i 24 , Lk 4 s4 , Jno 6 69 ,
1 Jno 2 20 , Rev 3 7 . See on the titles of this sort Hastings' D. C. G., I.
pp. 730-31.

21 Cf. Stanton, op. cit., p. 170.

2i8 The Designations of Our Lord

* Man ' (drfp, 17 31 ) is c God's own Son ' (13 33 ), nay,
in some high sense ' God ' Himself (20 28 ), — for it was
by nothing else than " the blood of God " that the
Church was purchased. 22

A rapid enumeration of the mere titles applied to
Christ, such as we have made, fails utterly to repro-
duce the impression which they make on the reader as
he meets them in the course of the narrative. That
impression is to the effect that although the true hu-
manity of our Lord is thoroughly appreciated (av0/>w7roc,
5 28 , cf. 7 56 : d%, 2 22 17 31 , cf. Lk 24 19 ), yet it is the
majesty of this man which really fills the minds of these
first Christians, as they perceive in Him not merely a
man of God's appointment, representing God on earth,
in whom all that they can conceive to be the source of
dignity in Old Testament prophecy meets and finds its
fulfillment (io 42,43 ), but also something far above hu-
manity, which can be expressed only in terms of precise
deity (20 28 ).

A side-light is thrown upon the high estimate which
was placed among these early Christians on Jesus'

person by the usurpation by it of the
'The Name* Old Testament pregnant use of the

term u Name." As in the Old Testa-
ment we read continually of " the Name of Jehovah "
as the designation of His manifested majesty, and even
of simply " the Name " used absolutely with the same
high connotation, so in Acts we read of the Name of

22 The variant reading, "the blood of the Lord," means the same
thing. But Dr. Hort justly says, "too Oeoo is assuredly genuine."
See for a discussion of the reading, Westcott and Hort, The New Testa-
ment in the Original Greek, n. pp. 98-99.

The Designations in Acts 219

Jesus Christ, to the exclusion of the old phrase, 23 and
again of simply "the Name" (5 41 , cf. 3 Jno 7) used
absolutely of Jesus. Those who were persecuted for
His sake we are told rejoiced " that they were counted
worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name " (5 41 , cf. 3
Jno 7). 24 In the Old Testament this would have meant
the Name of Jehovah: here it means the Name of
Jesus. 25 " The Name," as it has been truly remarked,
" had become a watchword of the faith, and is conse-
quently used alone to express the name of Jesus, as
it stood in former days for the Name of Jehovah (Lev
24 11 ) ." 26 Nothing could more convincingly bear in upon
us the position to which Jesus had been exalted in men's
thoughts than this constant tendency to substitute Him
in their religious outlook for Jehovah.

23 Only in citations from the O. T. (2 21 15 14 . 17 ) does "the Name of
God " appear in Acts. On the other hand the phrase " the Name of
Jesus Christ" is quite frequent: 2 38 3MI6) 4.10,18,30 5 40 gi2,ie 9 i4,i5
9 i6,27 10 43.48 IS 26 l6 is 19 5,i3,i7 2I is 22 i6 26 s>. Instances like 4T.12.1r
5 28 9 21 , where " the Name " or " this Name " is used more absolutely,
are quite instructive from the point of view of the significance of the
term. Only at 5 41 is the completely absolute use of it found.

24 Cf. Meyer on 5 41 : "The absolute to ovofia denotes the namexar,
lZo%rjv % — namely 'Jesus Messiah' (3 s 4 10 ) — the confession and an-
nouncement of which was always the highest and holiest concern of
the apostles. Analogous is the use of the absolute DK> (Lev 24 11 . 16 ),
in which the Hebrew understood the name of his Jehovah as implied
of itself. Cf. 3 Jno 7." Cf. on the general question Giesebrecht, Die
alttest. Schatzung des Gottesnamens, p. 1901; G. B. Gray, JS. D., m.
p. 480, and also Conybeare, J. Q. R., ix. p. 66, and Chase, J. T. S.,
January, 1907.

25 That the Name was simply "Jesus" is thought by Hackett and
Barde: that it was " Christ," by De Wette and Gloag: that it was "the
Lord Jesus Christ" is Blass' view; and that it was "the Messiah
Jesus" is Wendt's, as it was Meyer's.

26Rashdall, in he.

THE CORROBORATION OF THE EPISTLES
OF PAUL

In passing from the book of Acts to Paul's Epistles,
we are not advancing to a new period, in order that we
Relative Early ma y observe how Jesus had come to be
Date of Paul's thought of at a somewhat later date, in
Letters ^ developing thought of Christians. 1
In point of fact, none of Paul's letters are of a later
date than the Acts, and the earlier of them come from
a time which antedates the composition of that book
by ten or fifteen years. What we are passing to is
merely a new form of literature, — didactic literature
as distinguished from narrative. And what we are to
observe is not a later development of the Christian
conception of Jesus, but only more directly and pre-
cisely how the Christians of the first age thought of
Jesus.

The book of Acts does indeed tell us not only how
Paul and his companions thought and spoke of Jesus

1 On the witness of Paul, see in general R. J. Knowling, The Wit-
ness of the Epistles, 1892; The Testimony of St. Paul to Christ, 1905.
It used to be the fashion to attribute to Paul a very " primitive " chris-
tology supposed to find expression in Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians and
Galatians; largely on the ground of this these Epistles were allowed
to be his. It is now the fashion, recognizing that the christology of
these Epistles too is high, to represent Paul as the author of the deifying
christology which, so it is said, has spread from him through the N. T.
"Paul is everywhere the starting point," says Wernle (Beginnings of
Christianity, II., p. 294) : " it is his Gospel which now speaks to us
from the words of Jesus and the original Apostles." The Gospels, from

220

The Corroboration of Paul 221

^/^as they presented Him to the faith of men; but also
how Peter and his fellow-evangelists of the first days
of the Gospel proclamation thought and spoke of Him:
and to this extent the information derived from it re-
jects an earlier usage. But neither in Acts nor in Paul's
Epistles is there any hint that Peter and Paul stand re-
The Value plated to one another in their thought of
of their ^Christ as representatives of a less and
Testimony (^ a more developed conception. 8 On the
contrary in Acts the conception of the two, though
.clothed in different forms of speech, is notably the same :
and in Paul's Epistles, though differences are noted be-
tween the other Apostles and himself in other matters,
there is none signalized on this central point. And it

Mark (Wernle, 251 seg., cf. Wrede, Paulus, 89) to John (Wernle, 274,
Wrede, p. 96), reflect Paul's christological speculations: and the rest of
the N. T. bears equally his mark. The origin of this high Pauline chris-
tology is left somewhat obscure. Wrede and Weinel are, on the whole,
's inclined to say that Paul had as a Jew believed in a transcendent Mes-
-siah, such as is pictured in the Similitudes of Enoch, say, and had only,
on conversion, to accept Jesus as Messiah to have an exalted christology
ready at hand. But if this doctrine of a transcendent Messiah was
" in the air," why was it left to Paul to invent a transcendent chris-
tology for the church ? And if it was " in the air " why need it be sup-
posed to be derived from the later Apocalypses? Why might not the
Apocalypses and Paul alike draw from, say, Daniel j 1 *^? And why
may it not have been shared by Jesus Himself? It scarcely seems
logical to refer all traces of a transcendent christology in the N. T.
to Paul; and then to refer Paul's doctrine to a generally active cause.
The single solid result of the movement is, thus, the general recognition
that the christology of the N. T. at large is " transcendent."

2 Cf. Knowling, The Testimony of St. Paul to Christ, pp. 44, 45:
"The Twelve and St. Paul differed, no doubt, in many ways; but
there is no trace that the former opposed the Gentile Apostle in the
estimate which he formed of the person of Christ and of His relation-
ship to the Father." " If the deification of Christ was due to St. Paul,
how is it that we do not hear of any such opposition, of any such viola-
tion of Jewish feeling and belief?"

222 The Designations of Our Lord

is distinctly to be borne in mind that these Epistles were
written not merely in the lifetime of the original apostles
of Christ, but also in full view of their teaching, and with
an express claim to harmony with it. Their testimony
is accordingly not to Paul's distinctive doctrine with
regard to the person of Jesus, but to the common doc-
trine of the Churches of the first age, when the Churches
included in their membership the original followers of
Jesus. 8 They, therefore, do not present us a different
usage from that reflected in Acts and the Synoptic Gos-
pels, but the same usage from a different point of sight.
As didactic writings addressed by a Christian leader to
Christian readers they enable us to observe, as the his-
torical books do not, how Christians of the sixth and
seventh decades of the first century were accustomed to
speak of the Lord to one another; and accordingly
what their thought of Jesus was as they sought to
quicken in themselves Christian faith and hope and
to bring their lives into conformity with their profes-
sions. Not merely in point of date, therefore, but also
in point of intimacy of revelation, the Epistles of Paul
present to us the most direct and determining evidence
of the conception of Jesus prevalent in the primitive
Church.

It belongs to their character as didactic rather than
narrative writings, for example, that in Paul's Epistles

the designation of our Lord by the sim-
Constant , < x^ , f aUg strIkIngIy J nto t h e back-

Use of Lord r J i- • / TT .

ground, while the designation ot hum

8 Cf. Stanton, The Jewish and Christian Messiah, p. 156-7-
*Cf. Robinson on Eph i 3 (p. 23) : "To St. Paul, Jesus was preemi-
nently ' the Christ.' Very rarely does he use the name ' Jesus ' without
linking it with the name or the title ' Christ.' " Cf. p. 107.

The Corroboration of Paul 223

as * Lord ' comes strikingly forward. 5 This phenome-
non we already observed in Acts: it is much more
marked in Paul. The simple * Jesus ' occurs in all these
Epistles only some seventeen times, while the simple
1 Lord ' occurs some 144 or 146 times, to which may
be added 95 to 97 more instances of the use of ' Lord '
in conjunction with the proper name. 6 And this con-
stant application of the term ' Lord ' to Jesus must not
be imagined merely a formal mark of respect. 7 It is
the definite ascription to Him of universal absolute
dominion not only over men, but over the whole uni-
verse of created beings (Phil 2 11 , Rom io 12 ). 8

It is, of course, true that Paul has the exalted Jesus

in mind in thus speaking of Him. It was only on His

Ground exaltation that Jesus entered upon His

of Jesus' dominion. But it by no means follows

Lordship t j lat ^ e conceived Jesus to have acquired

His * Lordship,' in the sense of His inherent right to

reign, by His exaltation. On the contrary, to Paul it

was the ' Lord of Glory ' who was crucified ( 1 Cor 2 8 ) .

5 On the relation of ' Christ ' and ' Lord * in Paul's usage cfj Robin-
son, Com. on Ephesians, pp. 72-90.

6 The statistics of Paul's employment of the various designations of
our Lord are carefully given by Paul Feine, Jesus Christus und Paulus,
1902, pp. 21 seq. The text he uses is Nestle's ed. 3, 1901.

7 Cf. Knowling op. cit., pp. 39, 65, etc.: "No criticism has sufficed
to do away with the peculiar significance of this title." . . . We
must "frankly admit that St. Paul had very far overstepped the limits
of Christ's humanity when he finds in Him the Lord of the O. T."

8 It was a notion of Baur's {Der Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, I. p. 85,
N. T. Theologie, p. 193) that 'Lord' in Paul always means 'Lord of the
Church,' through whom salvation has been brought to men. Not only
the passages cited, but many others, such as 1 Cor 8 8 , negative this.
Dr. Sanday (on Rom i 4 , p. 10) supposes that this was the primary
meaning of the term: "On the lips of Christians, xopio? denotes the
idea of 'sovereignty,' primarily over themselves as the society of be-

224 The Designations of Our Lord

That is to say, even in the days of His flesh, Jesus was
to him intrinsically " the Lord to whom glory belongs
as His native right." 9 That Paul usually has the ex-
alted Christ in mind when speaking of Him as Lord
is only thus a portion of the broader fact that, writ-
ing when he wrote, and as he wrote, he necessarily had
the exalted Christ in mind in the generality of his
speech of Him. He was not engaged in writing a his-
torical retrospect of the life of the man Jesus on earth,
but in proclaiming Jesus as the all-sufficient Saviour
of men. That he recognized that this Jesus had entered
upon the actual exercise of His universal dominion
only on His resurrection and ascension, and in this
sense had received it as a reward for His work on
earth (Phil 2 9 , Rom 14 9 ) merely means that, no less
than to our Lord Himself, the earthly manifestation

lievers (Col ii8seq.) f but also over all creation (Phil 2 10 - 11 , Col
j16.it) » "The title," he adds, "was given to our Lord even in His
lifetime (Jno 13 13 ), but without a full consciousness of its signifi-
cance: it was only after the Resurrection that the Apostles took it to
express their central belief (Phil 2 9se( i)." These remarks, however,
require revision. Though the term " does not in itself necessarily in-
volve divinity " and "Jews may have applied it to their Messiah (Mk
12 36,37 ) p ss Sol 17 46 ) without meaning that He was God " — and indeed
His followers may have applied it to Jesus in its lower connotation
during His lifetime and afterwards, — yet its association with the
' Lord ' of the lxx. gave it also its divine implication from the begin-
ning, and in point of fact it is so employed from the first.

9 Cf. T. C. Edwards on 1 Cor 2 8 ; who rightly takes the genitive as
genitive of characteristic quality, and explains: "The Lord to whom
glory belongs as His native right. . . . Glory is the peculiar attri-
bute of Jehovah among all the gods (Ps 29 1 ). The expression is theo-
logically important because it implies that Jesus was Lord of Glory,
that is Jehovah, and that the Lord of Glory died (cf. Acts 3 15 )."
Passages like 1 Cor n 26 , "the Lord's death," u 27 , "the body and
blood of the Lord," are quite similar in import, owing to the exalted
sense of the term ' Lord.' Hence Heinrici speaks of " the paradox " in
such expressions. Cf. Heinrici-Mever, ed. 1896, pp. 353 and 363.

The Corroboration of Paul 225

of Jesus was to Paul an estate of humiliation upon which
the glory followed. 10 But the glory which thus followed
the humiliation was to Paul, too, a glory which be-
longed of right to Jesus, to whom His lowly life on
earth, not His subsequent exaltation, was a strange ex-
perience. It was one who was rich, he tells us, who
in Jesus became poor that we might through His poverty
become rich (2 Cor 8 9 ) ; it was one who was in the
form of God who abjured clinging to His essential
equality with God and made Himself of no reputation
by taking the form of a servant, and stooping even to
the death of the cross (Phil 2 6seq ). When Paul
speaks of Jesus, therefore, as ' Lord ' it is not espe-
cially of His exaltation that he is thinking, but rather
" the whole majesty of Christ lies in this predicate ""
for him, and the recognition that Jesus is ' Lord ' ex-
presses for him accordingly the essence of Christianity

10 Cf. on this Meyer on 2 Cor 4* (E. T. pp. 229-30) : " For Christ
in the state of His exaltation is again, as He was before His incarna-
tion (comp. Jno 17 5 ), fully iv /iop<pfj Oeou and Ua Osti (Phil 2 6 ),
hence in His glorified corporeality (Phil 3 21 ) the visible image of the
invisible God. ... It is true that in the state of His humiliation
He had likewise the divine dot-a, which he possessed xara Tzveofia
ayia><Tuvr}$ (Rom i 4 ), which also, as bearer of the divine grace and
truth (Jno I 14 ), and through His miracles (Jno 2 11 ), He made known
(Jno 14 9 ) ; but its working and revelation were limited by His humili-

__ ation to man's estate, and He had divested Himself of the divine appear-
ance (Phil 2 7se( i-) till in the end, furnished through His resurrection
with the mighty attestation of His divine Sonship (Rom i 4 ), He en-
tered, through His elevation to the right hand of God, into the full
communion of the glory of the Father, in which He is now the God-
man, the very image and reflection of God, and will one day come to
execute judgment and establish the Kingdom." "The whole acknowl-
edgment of the heavenly xuptorrj? of Jesus as the <ruv0povo? of
God," says Meyer justly on Rom io 9 , " is conditioned by the acknowl-
edgment of His previous descent from heaven, the incarnation of the
Son of God, 8 3 , Gal 4 4 , Phil 2 6 , et al."

11 The phrase is Meyer's, on 2 Cor 4 s .

226 The Designations of Our Lord

(Rom io 9 , 2 Cor 4 5 , i Cor 12 3 , Phil 2 11 ). The proc-
lamation of the Gospel is summed up for him therefore
in this formula (2 Cor 4 s ); the confession of Jesus
as Lord is salvation (Rom io 9 ), and it is the mark of
a Christian that he serves the Lord Christ (Col 3 24 ) ;
for no one can say that Jesus is Lord except in the Holy
Spirit (1 Cor 12 3 ).

Obviously the significance of the title ' Lord ' as
applied to Jesus by Paul is not uninfluenced by its con-
'Lord' a stant employment of God in the Greek
Proper Name Old Testament, and especially in those
of Jesus OU Testament passages which Paul ap-
plies to Jesus, in which ' Lord ' is the divine name
(e. g., 2 Thess i 9 , 1 Cor i 31 io 9 ' 26 , 2 Cor 3 16 io 17 ,
Rom io 13 , Eph 6 4 , 2 Tim 2 19 4 14 : Isaiah 4 5 23 is cited
vXwith reference to God in Rom 14 11 , and with reference
to Jesus in Phil 2 10 ). 12 Under the influence of these
passages the title ' Lord ' becomes in Paul's hands almost
a proper name, the specific designation for Jesus con-
ceived as a divine person in distinction from God the
Father. It is therefore employed of Jesus not merely
constantly but almost exclusively. It is doubtful
whether it is ever once employed of God the Father,
outside of a few citations from the Old Testament:
and in any case such employment of it is very excep-

12 Cf. Paul Feine, Jesus Christus und Paulus, p. 38 : "6 xvpio?
became to him ever more the heavenly Jesus, to whom he belonged
with all his thoughts and activities. Jesus was to the Apostle the em-
bodiment of God. This follows from the peculiarity which meets us
also in Acts 2 20 (?) 2 25 , 1 P 3 15 , that with Paul xupto? in O. T.
citations is often applied to Jesus: 2 Thess i 9 , 1 Cor i 31 , 2 Cor io 17 , 1
Cor io 9 , 2 Cor 3 16 , Rom io 13 , Eph 6 4 , 2 Tim 2 19 4 14 . In Rom 14 11 ,
Is 45 23 is applied to God : in Phil 2 10 se «- to Christ."

The Corroboration of Paul 227

tional. It is accordingly in point of fact the determinate
title for Jesus as distinguished from God the Father. 18
As such ' the Lord Jesus Christ ' is coupled with * God
our Father ' (or ' the Father ') as the co-source of that
grace and peace which Paul is accustomed to invoke
on his readers in the addresses to his Epistles ( 1 Thess
i\ 2 Thess i 1 ' 2 , 1 Cor i 3 , 2 Cor i 2 , Gal i 3 , Rom i 7 , Eph
i 2 , Phil i 2 , 1 Tim i 2 , 2 Tim i 2 , Titus i 4 , cf. Eph 6 23 , 1
Thess 3 11 , 2 Thess i 12 ). And throughout the Epistles
Jesus as ' the Lord ' and the Father as ' God ' are set over
against each other as distinct and yet conjoined objects
of the reverence of Christians, and distinct and yet con-
joined sources of the blessings of which Christians are
the recipients.

13 Cf. David Somerville, St. Paul's Conception of Christ, 1897, pp.
124 seq.: "The term 'Lord' occurs hundreds of times in the Epistles,
and expresses the conviction of the supremacy of Christ which the
Apostle shared with the entire primitive Church. In the nomenclature
of the Apostle the Father is 6 0ed?, Christ is xvpio?. The term
'Lord,' except when he quotes from the O. T. (in which case xuptof
is used of God, being the lxx. translation), uniformly describes Christ
in Paul's Epistles. That he regards it as Christ's proper designation
we see from i Cor 8 5 > 6 , also from Eph 4 s , 1 Cor 12 3 . Wherever ' Lord '
occurs we are to understand him as referring to Christ, i Cor 4 19 3 s
7 17 , Rom 14 4 , which Weiss adduces as exceptions, are so only in ap-
pearance." Cf. also Sven Herner, Die Anwendung des Wortes xvpto?
im N. T., p. 22, speaking of the Ep. to the Romans, he says: "If we
direct our attention here to the verses where xopto$ represents God,
we find that they are all citations from the O. T.: n 3 12 19 14 11 form
no exception to this rule. Outside the O. T. citations, on the other hand,
xoptos in Romans means our Lord Jesus Christ, and no certain ex-
ception to this rule occurs. . . . These citations are not always,
however, able to alter the usage of Paul. We not only have an in-

V stance in which in Romans— as in the Gospels and Acts— a passage is

applied to the Lord Christ in which in the O. T. the Lord Jehovah is

/spoken of (io 12 ) ; but also two passages (n 1 - 2 ) in which an O. T.

T'Lord God' is altered to (ii«) 'God.'"

228 The Designations of Our Lord

No doubt by this elevation of Jesus as * Lord ' to the
side of God 14 certain peculiarities of expression are pro-
Jesus Embraced duced which are on a surface view suffi-

in the One ciently puzzling. Thus, for example,
Godhead [ n declaring the nonentity of the ob-
jects of heathen worship, Paul asserts roundly that
" none is God except One," and proceeds to explicate
this assertion by remarking that, although there may
exist so-called gods whether in heaven or earth, as there
are — obviously among the heathen — many gods and
many lords, " yet to us there is one God, namely, the
Father, from whom are all things and we unto Him "
( i Cor 8 4 " 6 ) . But he does not stop there, but adds at
once, " And one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are
all things and we through Him " ( i Cor 8 6 ) . This
addition might seem to a superficial reading to stultify
his whole monotheistic argument: "There is no God
but one; . . . for to us there is one God . . .
and one Lord." There is but one possible solution.
Obviously the one God whom Christians worship is
conceived as, in some way not fully explained, without
prejudice to His unity subsistent in both the ' one
God,' viz., the Father and the * one Lord,' viz., Jesus
Christ. Otherwise there would be a flat contradiction

14 Cf. David Somerville, St. Paul's Conception of Christ, p. 295 seq.,
where the use of the term xbpio<s in the LXX. is examined, and it is
added that it was as " accustomed to this usage that Paul confines the
term xopio<$ to Christ and reserves 0so$ for the Father, God " —
and " this plainly points to the belief that He whom he called Lord
was in some sense God as well as He who was termed 0£o?" (p.
296). Cf. p. 143: "But the fact that he habitually applies to Christ
the term ' Lord ' (xupto?) a term that in the lxx. is practically
equivalent to God ( 0£o$ ) and is the rendering of the most solemn
name of Jehovah in the O. T., shows that in his regard He was enti-
tled to the worship and obedience that are due to God."

The Corroboration of Paul 229

between the emphatic assertion that " none is God but
one " and the proof of this assertion offered in the
explanation that to Christians there is but " one God,
viz., the Father " and " one Lord, viz., Jesus Christ.''
And it is clear that Paul can count upon his readers
understanding that the " one Lord, Jesus Christ " bears
such a relation to the " one God, the Father " that
^r< these two may together be subsumed under the category
of the one God who alone exists. We shall not say that
there are the beginnings of the doctrine of the Trinity
here. It seems truer to say that there is the clear pre-
supposition of some such doctrine as that of the Trinity
here. 15

There is lacking, indeed, only the conjunction of
"the Spirit" with " God the Father" and "Jesus the
. . Lord " to compel us to perceive that

Background underlying Paul's mode of speech con-
cerning God there is a clearly conceived
and firmly held conviction that these three together con-
stitute the one God of Christian worship. And other
passages enough supply this lack. For example, later
on in this same Epistle the Apostle, speaking of those
gifts of the Spirit with which the Apostolic Church was
blessed, remarks in the most natural way in the world:
" Now there are diversities of gifts but the same Spirit.

15 Dr. Sanday, in his otherwise excellent note on Rom i 7 , neglects to
consider the point here made, and speaks as if we were observing in
these passages the formation of a christology and of a doctrine of the
Trinity instead of the presupposition of these doctrines. He says:
" The assignment of the respective titles of ' Father ' and ' Lord ' rep-
resents the first beginnings of christological speculation. It is stated
in precise terms and with a corresponding assignment of appropriate
prepositions in i Cor 8 6 . Not only does the juxtaposition of ' Father '
and 'Lord' mark a stage in the doctrine of the Person of Christ; it
also marks an important stage in the history of the doctrine of the

230 The Designations of Our Lord

And there are diversities of ministrations, and the same
Lord. And there are diversities of workings, but the
same God" (1 Cor 12 46 ). "Now I beseech you,
brethren," he says again towards the end of the Epistle
to the Romans, " by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the
love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in
your prayers to God for me" (Rom 15 30 ). "There
is one body and one Spirit, even as also ye were called
in one hope of your calling," says he again, in a later
Epistle (Eph 4 4seq ), "one Lord, one faith, one bap-
tism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and
through all, and in all." Or, perhaps, most explicitly of
all, in those closing words of the Second Epistle to the
Corinthians which have become the established form of
benediction in the Churches: "The grace of the Lord
Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion
of the Holy Spirit, be with you all" (2 Cor 13 14 ).
From passages like these it is perfectly clear that the
Christian doctrine of God as apprehended by Paul, and
as currently implied in his natural modes of speech con-
cerning Him, as he wrote in simplicity of heart and with
no misgivings as to the understanding of his language by
the Christian readers whom he addressed, embraced,
in conjunction with the utmost stress upon the unity

Trinity. It is already found some six years before the composition of
Ep. to Romans at the time when St. Paul wrote his earliest extant
Epistle (1 Thess i 1 , cf. 2 Thess i 2 ). This shows that even at that
date (A. D. 52) the definition of the doctrine had begun. It is well
also to remember that although in this particular verse of Ep. to Ro-
mans the form in which it appears is incomplete, the triple formula
concludes an Epistle written a few months earlier (2 Cor 13 14 ). There
is nothing more wonderful in the history of human thought than the
silent and imperceptible way in which this doctrine, to us so difficult,
took its place without struggle and without controversy among accepted
Christian truths." Dr. Sanday neglects to note that the triple formula
is found in Romans as well as 2 Cor., viz.. is 30 .

The Corroboration of Paul 23 1

of God, the recognition at the same time of distinctions
^in the Divine Being by virtue of which the Lord Jesus
- Christ and the Holy Spirit were esteemed God along
with the Father.

But what we require to note particularly at this
point is that to Paul, the divine name — perhaps we
' Lord ' the ma y even De permitted to say, " the Trini-
Trinitarian tarian name " — of Jesus is apparently
Name of Jesus < fa Lord.' God, the Lord, the Spirit,
■ — this is his triad, and when he speaks of Jesus as
* Lord ' it must be supposed that this triad is in his
mind. In other words, * Lord ' to him is not a general
term of respect which he naturally applies to Jesus be-
cause he recognized Jesus as supreme, and was glad
to acknowledge Him as his Master (Eph 6 9 , Col 4 1 ),
or even in the great words of Col 2 19 as the ' Head '
of the body which is His Church (cf. Eph 4 15 ). It
is to him the specific title of divinity by which he indi-
cates to himself the relation in which Jesus stands to
Deity. Jesus is not ' Lord ' to him because He has
been given dominion over all creation; He has been
given this universal dominion because he is * Lord,'
who with the Father and the Spirit is to be served and
worshipped, and from whom all that the Christian longs
for is to be expected. In His own nature the * Lord
of glory' (1 Cor 2 8 ), He has died and lived again
that He might enter upon His dominion as ' Lord ' of

I both the dead and the living (Rom 14 9 ), and being
thus ' Lord of all ' (Rom io 12 ) might be rich unto all
that call upon Him and so fulfill the saying that who-
soever " shall call upon the name of the Lord " shall
be saved (Rom io 13 ). He does not become ' Lord,'
but only comes to His rights as ' Lord,' by and through

232 The Designations of Onr Lord

His resurrection and ascension, which are the culminat-
ing and completing acts of His saving work. He is
* Lord ' because He is in His own person the Jehovah
who was to visit His people and save them from their
sins. 16

No doubt a different representation is sometimes
given. We are even told that there is in these very

Appearance passages a distinction drawn between

of ' God ' and * the Lord/ by which the

Subordination status of « the Lord 1 Is made definitely

inferior to that of ' God/ to whom He is subject and
whose will He executes. It is God the Father who is
the source and end of all things; the * Lord Jesus
Christ ' is the mediator through whom He works ( 1
Cor 8 6 , cf. 1 Tim 2 5 and such passages — Sea with the
genitive— as the following, Rom 2 16 3 s2 5*.".".* Eph i 5 ,

16 Cf. Paul Feine, Jesus Christus und Paulus, 1902, pp. 165 seq.:
" If Jesus undertook to perform the redemptive acts which were in the
O. T. hoped for from God's action, so in Paul, in correspondence with
the advance of the redemptive work which lay in Christ's death and
resurrection, there emerges even more strongly the idea of the divine
activity of Christ. Paul applies to Christ words which in the O. T.
refer to God,— 2 Thess i 8 > 9 seq., 12 T Cor i 31 2 16 io 22 , 2 Cor 3 16 8 21
10 17 , Rom io 16 , Phil 2 10se( i-, Eph 4 8 . 1 Thess 4 6 is doubtful. One of
the most commonly employed designations of Christ on the part of the
Apostle is 6 xupto$, the name in which the lxx. prevailingly rep-
resents the unpronounced ffiiT. It is not merely in the letters to
the Thessalonians uncertain in many passages whether God or Christ
is intended by xupto$i even in 1 Cor we still meet with a multi-
form vacillation in the reference of xupio? to Christ and to God.
Divine honors are given to Christ in 2 Thess i^seq.^ R om I0 i3 f phil
2 10 . In 2 Tim 4 18 a doxology such as elsewhere is given to God is
given to Him. One of the designations of Christians is ' those who
call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ' (1 Cor i 2 ; similarly
Rom io 128 ^-, 2 Tim 2 22 ).(~Christ, after He has ascended above all
the heavens (Eph 4 10 ), sits at the right hand of God as sharer in the
divine disposition of grace to believers (Rom 8 34se( *-)> an d has the

The Corroboration of Paul 233

1 Th 5*, Tit 3 6 ) . The term ' Lord ' as applied to Jesus,
therefore, although ascribing a certain divinity to Him,
appears to fall short of attributing deity to Him in
its full sense. It is the appropriate designation of a
sort of secondary divinity, a middle being standing in
some sense between man and God. Accordingly we
read that while " the head of every man is Christ,"
"the head of Christ is God " (1 Cor n 3 ), and that
"if we are Christ's," so " Christ is God's " ( 1 Cor 3 23 ) .
The whole redemptive work of Christ is represented as
the working of God through Christ, as terminating ul-
timately on God, and as redounding specifically to His
glory (Rom 3 25 5 10 8 3 , 2 Cor 5 18 , Eph i 6 - 12 - 14 ' 19 3 19 ,
Col i 19 , etc.). When, then, the redemptive work is
completed the * Lordship ' which has been conferred
upon Christ ceases also, so that His very sovereignty
appears as a derived sovereignty delegated for a pur-
pose (1 Cor 15 27 ' 28 ). God is appropriately spoken of
therefore distinctly as the " God of our Lord Jesus
Christ" (Eph i 17 , cf. Rom 15°, 2 Cor i 3 n 31 , Eph

power to subject all things to Himself (Phil 3 21 ). Every knee shall
bow to Him in the realms of the heavenly and the earthly and the
underearthly (Phil 2 10 ). He is Lord over every lordship and power
and might and dominion and every name that is named (Eph i20seq. f
Col 2 10 ). The O. T. day of the Lord, the day of Judgment, has be-
come His day (1 Thess 5 2 , 2 Thess i 10 2 2 , 1 Cor i« ■**•)■ Christ is to
carry out the world-judgment when He appears accompanied by His
holy angels (i Thess 3 13 , 2 Thess i 7 > 10 ). All must appear before His
throne (2 Cor 5 10 ). . . . The Apostle passes back and forth with
references to God and Christ. Is 45 23 , which in accord with its original
meaning is referred to God in Rom 14 11 , is applied to Christ in Phil
2 10 . In Rom 14 612 the Apostle begins with the words ' Who eats, eats
to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God' etc. (cf. 1 Cor io 31 ). Then
comes the beautiful declaration that we belong to the Lord in life and
death; on which, however, he grounds the warning to judges that we
must all stand before the judgment seat of God."

234 The Designations of Our Lord

I 3 ), a locution which, while intimating that the relation
subsisting between Him and Jesus is peculiarly close,
yet equally clearly intimates that it is not a relation of
equality but of the nature of divine master and subject
servant. 17

That a problem is raised by the passages of this class
is obvious enough. But it is equally obvious that this

problem cannot be solved by the attribu-
>u°p S1 „! l y tion of a certain secondary divinity to

Christ, and much less by supposing that
He has merely a sort of divinity communicated to Him
quoad nos, while in His essential nature only a creature.
The strict and strongly asseverated monotheism of Paul
forbids the former assumption : his definite ascription
to Jesus of an eternal divine form of existence ante-
cedent to His earthly career excludes the latter. Noth-
ing could exceed the clearness and emphasis of Paul's

17 Cf. for statement of this point of view Beyschlag Die Christologie
des N. T., 1866, pp. 203 seq.: "Whatever there may be great and
unique lying in the e\<$ zupios, it is undeniable that Paul purposely
does not apply the name 0eo$ to Christ, but rather most distinctly dis-
tinguishes the el? xupto$ from the el? 0e6$ besides whom there is
no other. The same conception and manner of expression runs excep-
tionlessly and in numerous instances throughout the Pauline Epistles:
everywhere ' God '=the Father, our Father, the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and everywhere the ' Father ' and the Father only^God,
our God, the 'God of Jesus Christ' (Eph i 17 ) : everywhere in a word
the conception of ' God ' and ' Father ' stand together, while the ' Son '
or the ' Lord ' is equally constantly distinguished from the ' Father.' "
How overstated this is may be observed by comparing it with the text.
Cf. the long argument to the same effect in Richard Schmidt's Die
paulinische Christologie, etc., 1870, pp. 148 seq.; and the brief but
pointed statement of Paul Feine, Jesus Christus und Paulus, 1902, pp.
168, 169; also David Somerville, St. Paul's Conception of Christ, etc.,
1897, pp. 140, 141.

The Corroboration of Paul 235

monotheism. " None is God," says he, " but one " 18 ;
(1 Cor 8 4 ) ; and he says it, as we have seen, in im-
mediate connection with his recognition of ' one God,
the Father" and " one Lord, Jesus Christ" (cf. Rom
3 30 16 27 , Gal 3 20 , Eph 4 6 , 1 Tim 2 5 ). How, then,
could he mean to set by the side of this " one God the
Father " the " one Lord Jesus Christ " as a second,
although somewhat inferior, God? 19 And nothing
could exceed the clearness and emphasis with which
Paul represents Jesus' divine majesty not as an attain-
ment but as an aboriginal possession. He does not
say that Jesus Christ became rich that by His riches
we might be enriched, as he must have said if he had
conceived of Jesus as a man to whom divine powers
and dignity were communicated that He might save
us. What he says is that our Lord Jesus Christ was
rich, and became poor only for our sakes, that
" through His poverty we might become rich " (2 Cor
8 9 ). That is to say, that, as he expresses it in another
place, it was to make no account of Himself for Him
to take the " form of a servant " (Phil 2 7 ) . Nor does
he leave us in doubt as to the quality of the riches He
left when He thus made Himself of no reputation by
taking " the form of a servant." No heavenly hu-

18 "No [Being] is God except One [Being]," Evans in he; cf.
Edwards in loc: "There is but one God and the Christians' God is
that One."

19 The fallacy of writers like Beyschlag, Christologie d. N. T., 1866,
consists in treating the phrase " to us there is one God the Father "
as taking up and repeating the "There is no God but One," and the
phrase " and one Lord Jesus Christ " as a kind of afterthought added
to it (pp. 203-4). 1° truth it is the double clause: "There is one God
the Father . . . and one Lord Jesus Christ for us," which takes
up and develops the phrase, "None is God but One."

236 The Designations of Oar Lord

manity suffices here: not even angelic grandeur: 20 it
was " in the form of God " that He was by nature
(uTrdpycov) : it was " equality with God " which He did
not graspingly cling to. And to be " in the form of
God" means nothing less than to have and hold in
possession all those characterizing attributes which
make God God: having which He could not but be
equal with God, because He was just God. No wonder
then that Paul tells us that though He was crucified
by man yet was He ' the Lord of glory ' ( 1 Cor 2 8 ) ,
that in Him dwelt " all the fulness of the Godhead
bodily " (Col 2 9 ), that Israelite as He was " according
to the flesh " He was something much more than
what He was according to the flesh — nothing less in-
deed than " God over all, blessed forever " (Rom 9/).
He certainly does not mean then to contrast Jesus
as ' Lord ' with God the Father as an inferior God
or as possessing a merely delegated
Implication of di init „ Nor lndee d, does the term
Term 'Lord' /T ,,,,.,/. ,., 1

Lord lend itself readily to such a

contrast. On the pages of Paul's Bible — the Greek
version of the Hebrew Scriptures — it stood side by side
with ' God ' as the most personal and intimate name

20 Richard Schmidt, Die paulinische Christologie, 1870, pp. 148
seq., represents it as difficult to fix on a formula by which to express
Paul's conception of what the preexistent Christ was. We may at first
sight think that to suppose he conceived the antemundane Christ as
man will best meet his references: but that will soon appear inade-
quate. Nor can we satisfy ourselves that he thought of Him as an
angel. Nor indeed that he conceived Him after the fashion of later
Trinitarianism as of purely intro-divine relations. It is unimportant
whether he calls Christ 'God' as, e.g. in Rom 9 5 , or not: for even if
he applies the name to Him the question would still remain open
whether he means by it what we should naturally express by it. This
seems, however, in the face of Paul's repeated attribution to Jesus of
full deity in a great variety of modes of expression, very hypercritical.

The Corroboration of Paul 237

of Deity: and thence he took it as we have seen and
applied it to Jesus. And if it thus could not have been
lower in its connotation to him than c Jehovah ' itself,
it was charged likewise to the apprehension of his
Gentile readers with suggestions in no way inferior to
those of ' God ' itself. 21 For him to say * Lord ' of
Jesus as His most appropriate title was therefore to
say and to be understood as saying all that he could
say by the designation of ' God ' itself. And if never-
theless there was to him and to his readers but one
God, then there is nothing for it but that we should
recognize that for Paul and his readers two might be
God and yet there be but one God; and that is as much
as to say that their thinking of God was already ruled
by a Trinitarian consciousness.

As for the expressions in which, despite his clear

intimation of the proper deity of Jesus, he yet speaks

of Him as in some sense inferior or,

Subordination be mQre . subordinate, to God

is Humiliation .... \ ,

the Father, it is quite clear that they

must find their explanation in Paul's intimation of the
humiliation to which this divine Person subjected Him-
self for the purposes of redemption. When He who
was rich became poor; when He who was and ever
remains " in the form of God " made Himself of no
reputation " by taking the form of a servant " : then
and thus He became so far inferior to and subject
to that God the Father on an equality with whom He
might have remained in His riches had He so chosen.
In and for the purposes of this redemptive work He

21 Cf. Harnack, Hist, of Dogma, I. p. 119, note 1: " Dominus in certain
circumstances means more than Deus; see Tertull Apol. ... It
signifies more than Soter; see Irenaeus I. i. 3: . . . 'They say
Saviour since they do not wish to call Him Lord' . . ."

238 The Designations of Our Lord

is the Mediator of God the Father, whose He is, and
who is His Head and His God; whose will He per-
forms and whose purposes of grace He executes; and
to whom, when the redemptive work is fully accom-
plished and its fruits garnered, He shall restore the
Kingdom, that God may be all in all. In a word, there
underlies Paul's statements not merely the conceptions
which have found expression in the doctrine of the
Trinity and the Incarnation, but those also which have
found expression in the doctrine of the Covenant of
Redemption in accordance with which the Persons of
the Godhead carry on each His own part of the work
of redemption: and he who will not recognize these
conceptions in the Pauline statements must ever find
those statements a confused puzzle of contradictions,
which can be reduced to apparent harmony only by
doing manifest violence to one or another series of
them. Only on the presupposition of these conceptions
can it be understood how the Apostle can speak of our
Lord now as " in the form of God," " on an equality
with God," nay, as " God over all," and now as sub-
ject to God as His Head and His God with reference
to whom He performs all His work: and how He
can speak of " God the Father " and " Jesus Christ
our Lord " as each " God over all," and yet declare
that there is but one Being who is God.

With this high meaning of * Lord ' as attributed

to Jesus in our mind it is interesting to observe the

Designations various forms of designation into which

Compounded this epithet enters. These run through

with 4 Lord ■ near ly a ll the possible combinations with

the names of Jesus. 'The (or our) Lord Jesus,'

which, were the title ' Lord ' a mere honorific, would

The Corroboration of Paul 239

be the simplest of them all, but which, since that title
is an express declaration of deity, is now the most
paradoxical, 22 occurs some twenty-four to twenty-six
times, chiefly in the earlier Epistles; and its duplicate,
4 Jesus our Lord,' twice more. * The (or our) Lord
Christ' is less frequent, occurring only twice (Rom
16 18 , Col 3 24 ). But the full formula, ' the (or our)
Lord Jesus Christ,' is the most common of all, oc-
curring some forty-nine times, pretty evenly scattered
through all the Epistles. * The (or our) Lord Christ
Jesus' does not occur: but in the reverse order of the
titles, ' Christ Jesus, the (or our, or my) Lord,' this
combination occurs ten times and by its side, " Jesus
Christ, our Lord " four times. In all these combina-
tions the names, whether the simple * Jesus,' the simple
* Christ,' or the combinations * Jesus Christ ' or * Christ
Jesus,' appear to be used as proper names, though,
no doubt, the appellative ' Christ ' does not in any of
them become a mere proper name. Certainly in the
phrase, " Ye serve the Lord Christ," the term * Christ '
is a title of dignity which is still further enhanced
by the adjunction of the term * Lord ' : and something
of the same intention to enhance an already lofty ascrip-
tion appears traceable in the instances where the fuller
phrase 'Christ Jesus, our Lord' occurs (1 Cor 15 31 ,
[2 Cor 4 5 ], Rom 6 23 8 39 , [Col 2 6 ], Eph 3 11 , [Phil 3 s ] ).
But this obvious use of * Christ ' as a name of dignity

22 Cf. Heinrici-Meyer, 1896, on 1 Cor 12 3 , p. 363: "The paradoxi-
cal synthesis of the historical personal name with the divine name of
dignity (cf. p. 353" [where the paradox of speaking of 'the Lord's
death' in n 26 is adverted to]) "is the crispest and most impressive
form of the Christian confession. The Apostle accordingly looks upon
xbpior 'Iyaouz as the fixed watch-word of the believing heart, and
the key-note of spiritual speech."

240 The Designations of Our Lord

by no means implies that it is not employed practically
as a proper name. Its implications of Messiahship
remain present and suggestive, but it has become the
peculiar property of Jesus who is thought of as so
indisputably the Messiah that the title ' Messiah ' has
become His proper name. 23

It is worthy of remark moreover that not only is

23 As is natural, opinions differ on this matter. Says Feine, op. cit.
29: "It is still a much controverted question. Bornemann (Meyer's
Com. on 1 Thess. i 10 ) maintains that Xpccrog is never a proper name
in the N. T. : on the other hand, von Soden (Theolog. Abhandlungen
Weizsacker geividmet, 1902, p. 118), considers Xpurros already to
have won the character of a proper name so fully that it has the article
only about sixty times.' Westcott-Hort also print Xptffr6$ when it
stands without the article, as a proper name with a capital initial: on
which Schmiedel (Winer, Grammatik, § 54) remarks that 6 Xpiazos
just as truly is a proper name in a series of passages.' " " Hausleiter
also (p. 9) points out that 'Christ' has for the Apostle frequently the
significance of a proper name for designating the person of Jesus."
Feine thinks the term is appellative in such passages as Rom 9 5 io 6 ' 7 ,
2 Cor 5 16 , Gal 2 17 , and that the Messianic suggestion is generally
present. Dr. Sanday in his Inspiration, 289, speaks cautiously (but
scarcely cautiously enough): "We know how in the Epistles 'Christ*
has become almost a proper name. It may perhaps retain rather more
of its true meaning than we are apt to realize; but if not exactly a
proper name it is rapidly becoming such." So far, so good. But more
doubt attaches to the assertions that follow: "In the Gospels, on the
other hand, it nearly always means, as in the mouth of our Lord and
His strict contemporaries it must have meant, ' the Messiah ' . . •
The compound phrase 'Jesus Christ' occurs a few times (Mt i 1 i 18
(v. 1.) l6 2i (v. i.) > Mk i 1 , Jno i 17 17 3 20 31 ), but always, with one ex-
ception (Jno 17 3 ), as it should do, in words of the evangelist and not
of our Lord Himself. The true phrase, the natural phrase in our
Lord's life-time, is of course that which we find three times in St. Mat-
thew, 'Jesus who is called Christ' (Mt i 16 27 17 ' 22 )." Dr. Sanday mis-
conceives the significance of the phrase ' Jesus who is called Christ,*
not perceiving that it presupposes that ' Christ ' had already become a
quasi-proper name, having in this respect the same implications as the
compound 'Jesus Christ.'

The Corroboration of Paul 241

1 Christ ' a proper name of our Lord with Paul, but
'Christ' Paul's lt IS ms favorite designation for Him. 24
Favorite For, full and rich as Paul's employ-
Designation ment f t he term * Lord ' is, it is not
nearly so frequently employed by him as ' Christ.' This
designation (more commonly with than without the
article) 25 occurs in his Epistles no fewer than 210 or
211 times in its simplicity, and many more times in
combination with other designations. It is most dom-
inantly Paul's favorite name for our Lord in the great
central Epistles — Romans, Corinthians and Galatians, ( ~
— in which it occurs some 138 to 140 times; but it is
also very frequent in the Epistles of the first imprison-

2*Harnack, Hist. Dog., E. T., 1. p. 184, note 2, says: "Only in the
second half of the second century, if I am not mistaken, did the desig-
nation ' Jesus Christ ' or ' Christ ' become the current one, more and
more crowding out the simple Jesus." This appears to be founded on
the relative usage of the terms in the writings of the early post-Apos-
tolic age. On taking a broader outlook the appearance of things is
altered. Already in Paul the simple ' Jesus ' has retired into the back- U^.
ground and the simple ' Christ ' together with compounds of ' Christ '
has taken its place. There is in fact no question here of change or
development of usage: but only of character of literature. In the
N. T. ' Jesus ' is only the narrative name of our Lord : ' Christ ' and its
compounds, together with 'Lord,' the didactic name. So far as ap-
pears from the evidence, Christians were from the beginning accus-
tomed to speak of Jesus as ' Christ,' ' Lord,' whenever they were not ty
merely recounting His deeds in the flesh. The use of ' Lord ' and its
high implications are recognized by Harnack as an early phenomenon
persisting through the succeeding eras (p. 183).

^ Anarthrous Xpunos in Paul: Rom 5 6 ' 8 &** 8 9 - 10 » 17 9 1 ioW.it

I2 5 14 9,15 ^8,18,20,29 1 g5,7,9,10 j j Qor ll2,17,2B,24 2 16 3 1,23,23 ^1,10,10,15
5 7 gl5 7 22 811.12 g 21 „1 I2 27 j ,;3. 12.13. 14,16,17,18,19,20,23^ 2 Cor I 21 2 10 »
2 15,17 3 3,14 5 16,17, 18,19, 20,20 gl5 IQ 7,7 u3, 10,13,23 I2 2,10,19 Gal
!6, 10,22 2 16,17,17,20,20,21 3 13,16,24,27,29 4 19 51,2^ £ph I 3 2 12 4 15 » 32
5 21,32 phi] jlO.13, 17, 18, 20,21,23,29 2 1,16,30 ^8,9^ Q)! I 2 >27,28 2 2,5,8,20 jl^

Philem 6,8,20, i Thess 2 6 4 16 ; and not at all in the Pastorals; 127 in all.

242 The Designations of Our Lord

ment (67 times in Eph., Col., Phil, Philemon), and
is unusual only in the Thessalonian letters (4 times
only) and in the Pastorals (once only). It surprises
us somewhat to observe that next to the simple * Christ '
(and 'Lord'), Paul's favorite designation for our

Lord is the compound 4 Christ Jesus.'
, This form, as we have seen, seems to

occur occasionally in Acts, not only as
a Pauline (24 24 ) but also as a primitive Christian
(3 20 ) and a Lucan formula (5 42 ). 26 But in Paul's
Epistles it occurs not less than 82 (84) times, regu-
larly anarthrously (except Eph 3 1 , cf. 3 11 , Col 2 6 ),
and pretty evenly distributed, though with a tendency
to increased frequency in the progress of time (Thess.
only 2; Gal., Cor., Rom. 29; first imprisonment, 29;
Pastorals 24). It is possible that the prepositing of
the ' Christ ' may throw greater emphasis upon the
Messianic dignity of Jesus than was currently felt in
the opposite compound ' Jesus Christ,' 27 which is much
less frequent in Paul (only 23 times; and not at all
in Thess., Col., Philemon). But in any case, both

26 Cf. also Mt i 18 , v. r.

27 So e.g. Paul Feine, op. cit., p. 36: "The ground of this combina-
tion is a feeling of need on Paul's part to throw the Messianic aspect
of Jesus into the foreground. This form, Xpi<jTo<$ V>y<roD?, accord-
ingly has much the same significance as that in which the Apostle uses
the simple ' Christ.' " In his comment on Rom i 1 , Dr. Sanday dis-
cusses the forms of the names of Jesus used by Paul in the addresses to
his Epistles. He supposes that in the addresses of the earlier Epistles
Paul used VvytfoD? XpiffTos, but in those of the later XpiGTo?
Itjgous. "The interest of this," he adds, "would be in the fact
that in Xpurros ViyffoD? the first word would seem to be rather
more distinctly a proper name than in ''Itjgous XpiGToq. No doubt
the latter phrase is rapidly passing into a proper name, but Xptard?
would seem to have a little of its sense as a title still clinging to it: the

The Corroboration of Paul 243

formulas are employed as practically proper names of
our Lord, and it is difficult to trace any difference in
the implications of their use. Along with these simple
compounds Paul also employs the more elaborate
formulas, 'the (or our) Lord Jesus Christ/ 'Jesus
Christ our Lord,' ' Christ Jesus, the (or our, or my)
Lord.' The first of these meets us most frequently,
occurring indeed no fewer than 49 times, pretty evenly
distributed through the Epistles. The second occurs
only four times (Romans 3 and 1 Cor 1) : and the
last only ten times (two central groups of Epistles
only). In these sonorous formulas the Apostle ex-
presses his deep sense of reverence to the person of
Jesus, and he tends to fall into one or the other of
them whenever he is speaking of his Master with
solemnity and exalted feeling. 28 It is noticeable that

phrase would be in fact transitional between Xpttrv6$ or 6 Xptaro?
of the Gospels and the later Xptaros ^I-qaovs or Xpiaro$ simply
as a proper name." He refers us to his own Bampton Lectures, p. 289
seq., and to an article by the Rev. F. Herbert Stead in The Expositor,
1888, i. pp. 386 seq. According to Feine, then Xpio-ro? '/^<ro5? is more
of a proper name; according to Sanday it is less of a proper name,
than Y^<7oD? XpiGros. The truth seems to be that both are prac-
tically proper names: and neither has lost the whole implication of
office. For the rest is it not rash to speak of one as an " earlier " or
a "later" form than the other? "Jesus Christ" is, indeed, placed
once on our Lord's lips (Jno 17 3 ), and is used by the evangelists (Mt
i 1 ' 18 16 21 , Mk i 1 , Jno i 17 [17 3 ]), but "Christ Jesus" already appears
on the lips of the earliest followers of Jesus (Acts 3 20 ), and in Paul's
earliest epistle (1 Thess 2 14 5 18 ). "Jesus Christ" appears not only in
1 Thess (i 1 3 1 5 9 » 23 » 28 ), but also in James (i 1 2 1 ).

28 Cf. Feine, op. cit., pp. 41 seq.: "Y^ffoD? Xptmoq and 6 xupto?
*Ir)ffou$ are already solemn names of Jesus: and this is in still
higher degree the case with 6 xupios (fip.wv) Y^ffoD? Xptard?. It
gives expression formally and ceremoniously to the majesty of Jesus
over against the believers, and has something in it of the nature of a

244 The Designations of Our Lord

they are apt to be employed in the formal solemn
opening and closing sections of his Epistles, and when-
ever Jesus is named in direct connection with God.

In the Pastoral Epistles the compound names ' Jesus

Christ ' and * Christ Jesus ' occur also in composition

with the epithet ' Saviour ' : ' Christ

'Saviour* J esus our Saviour ' (Titus i 4 ), 'Jesus
Christ our Saviour' (Titus 3 6 ), 'our
Saviour Christ Jesus' (2 Tim i 10 ), 'our Saviour
Jesus Christ' (Titus 2 13 ). In the earlier Epistles,
Jesus is indeed not only treated as our ' Saviour,' but
the epithet is given Him as a title of honor, it being
a mark of Christians that they look for a ' Saviour '
from heaven, even 'the Lord Jesus Christ' (Phil 3 20 ,
cf. Eph 5 20 ). But the precise forms of expression
occurring in the Pastorals are not found in these. The
significance of the epithet ' Saviour ' thus applied to
Jesus may perhaps be suggested by the circumstance
that it is in the same Epistles a standing epithet of
God. Paul describes himself as an apostle of Jesus
Christ " according to the command of God our Saviour
and Christ Jesus our hope" (1 Tim I 1 , cf. Titus i 3 ),
and wishes Timothy to live so as to be acceptable " in
the sight of God our Saviour" (2 3 , cf. Titus 2 10 )
whose glory it is to be 'the Saviour' of man (4 10 ),
in accordance with His love to men as our ' Saviour '
(Titus 3 4 ). 29 The ascription of this epithet thus in-

confession. ... In Paul this formula occurs for the most part in
the opening and closing greetings. . . . And it occurs frequently
when Jesus is named in connection with God." " Both of the formulas
[A'phttos y Ir)<Toos 6 xupio$ (ijfiibv, poo) and y Ir)aou$ Xptarbs
6 xuptos i]fia>v~\ have something very solemn about them."

29 Cf. Swete on Rev 7 10 : "The cry l H <Twrrjp(az<b 0£<1> xai t^> dpvtat
is equivalent to attributing to Both the title of Zidttjp, so freely

'The Great
God'

The Corroboration of Paid 245

terchangeably to God and to Jesus assimilates Jesus
to God and leaves us in less doubt how we are to take
the passage in Titus 2 13 which in contrast
with Christ's first coming in grace
speaks of the impending " appearing
of the glory of " — shall we say " the great God and
our Saviour Jesus Christ "? — or shall we not rather
say " our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ"? If
the latter construction is followed, as it seems it should
be, 30 it provides us with one of the most solemn ascrip-
tions of proper deity to Jesus Christ discoverable in the
whole compass of the New Testament.

Perhaps something similar is implied in the designa-
tion of Him in Eph i 6 as the ' Beloved,' the epithet
appearing in its simple majesty without
'The Beloved* qualification: "His grace which He"
— that is God — " freely bestowed on us
in the Beloved." We have already had occasion to
point out the significance of this phrase on its appear-

given by loyal or pliant cities of Asia to the Emperors, but belonging
in Christian eyes only to God and to His Christ. The Pastoral Epistles
supply examples of both applications, (i) i Tim i 1 2 3 , Tit i 3 3 4 , (2)
Tit i 4 2 13 3 e ." Also p. clxiii. : "The phrase is perhaps suggested by
the free use of ffcuryjp on coins and in inscriptions in reference to cer-
tain of the heathen deities (e.g. Zeus, Asklepios), and to the Emperors.
John recalls the word from these unworthy uses, and claims it for the
Ultimate Source of health and life. But in this attribution he includes
Jesus Christ."

30 Cf. Weiss (Meyer) in loc, correcting Huther. Cf. Schmiedel-
Winer, Grammatik, p. 158: " In Tit 2 13 , 2 P i 1 , 2 Thess i 12 , Jude 4, Eph
5 5 , and Acts 20 28 , according to the badly attested reading rijv ixxX. rod
xupiou xai Oeou, grammar strictly requires, as well as in 2 P i 11
2 2o 32,18^ th a t there should be in every case a single person in-
tended, and therefore Christ be called 6e6$ or povo? d£ff7rorr)?.
Nevertheless it is possible for xvpto$ in 2 Thess and Jude, and 0e6$
in Eph (and Acts) to stand as a designation of a new person (§19,
13 d). That <Tci)T7Jp too in Titus and 2 P can also be so construed,

246 The Designations of Our Lord

ing in the Gospels as a designation of Jesus (Mt 3 17
12 18 17 5 , Mk i 11 9 7 , Lk 3 22 ). Here the same epithet
meets us without the defining accompaniments: Jesus
Christ is in full simplicity set forth as by way of
eminence ' the Beloved/ in and through whom God
has communicated His grace to men. This designation
of Christ " makes us feel," we are told, " the great-
ness of the divine grace." 31 But it does this only by
making us feel the greatness of the Mediator of this
grace. It is only at the cost of the blood of the
1 Beloved ' that God has redeemed us. The epithet
of ■ Saviour ' is a designation of our Lord from the
point of view of men : this epithet of * Beloved ' tells
us what He is from the point of view of God — He
is God's own unique One, the object of His supreme
choice, who stands related to Him in the intimacy of
appropriating love. In the parallel passage in the
sister Epistle (Col i 13 ), Paul calls our Lord " the
Son of God's love." This seems a combination of
the two titles, the ' Son of God,' and the ' Beloved ' ;
and bears witness to their close affinity, — which indeed
is inherent in their significance. We will recall that
in the evangelical use of c the Beloved ' it stands in
the closest relation with c Son ' : " This is my Son, the
Beloved, in whom I am well pleased." It is only in

since it has yfiwv with it, is ace. to § 19, 5, to be left open. In any
case no one will ground here on Grammar, but must hold a careless
construction possible, and therefore in deciding the question leave
room for material considerations." Winer (Thayer, p. 130) had on
Biblico-theological grounds decided in these passages for two persons —
that is, he had decided on the strength of his conception of what these
authors would be likely to say; but he allows that grammatically they
are flexible to the other opinion.
31 Meyer in loc.

The Corroboration of Paul 247

connection with the idea of * Son,' thus, that c Beloved '
comes to its rights. 82

On the other side, the compound names, ' Jesus
Christ ' and ' Christ Jesus,' appear in Paul's Epistles
also in combination with designations
'Man' 6 which emphasize rather the human as-
pect of our Lord's person. We read
of "the man Jesus Christ" (Rom 5 15 ), of "the man
Christ Jesus " ( 1 Tim 2 5 ) , and somewhat more fre-
quently we are, apart from such a combination with
His personal name, directed to contemplate our Lord
as a "Man" (avOpwitoc;) . In very few of these in-
stances, it is true, is the emphasis primarily upon the
fact of humanity. Most commonly it is thrown upon
some point of likeness or contrast between Jesus and
that other man, Adam (Rom 5 15 ' [19] , 1 Cor ^"W.wmm
cf. 15 45 , "last Adam "), and it is the singleness or the
superiority of this * Man ' which is in question. But
in a passage like 1 Tim 2 5 , " There is one God, one
mediator also between God and man, Himself man,
Christ Jesus," it is clear that the humanity of Christ
itself is insisted upon: and there is a necessary if some-
what unemphasized suggestion of humanity underlying
all these passages. The lesson we must first of all'
draw from this series of passages seems, then, to be
that neither * Jesus Christ ' nor ' Christ Jesus ' is a
designation of such supreme dignity that it could not
suggest itself as an appropriate name for Jesus when

32 On this designation see the full note of J. Armitage Robinson in
his commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, 1903, pp.
229-233; and cf. Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, II. p. 501. Cf. also
Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah, 1900, pp. 3 seq., and E. Daplyn,
in Hastings' D. C. G., sub <voc. (1. pp. 188, 189).

248 The Designations of Our Lord

the mind of the writer was intent on precisely His
humanity, as indeed no designation could be in the
case of a being who was not purely divine, not even
4 the Lord of Glory' (i Cor 2 8 ) or ' God ' itself
(Acts 20 28 ). Beyond that, we learn, therefore, that
clear and strong as was Paul's conception of the proper
deity of Christ, it in no wise precluded him from also
recognizing with equal clarity and expounding with
equal force His essential humanity. When He who
was in the form of God took the form of a servant
He was made in the likeness of men

Merel "San anc * was f° rme d m fashion as a man
(Phil 2 7 ' 8 ); and Paul found no diffi-
culty in so understanding, even though he also under-
stood that the " taking the form of a servant " was not
a supercession of " the form of God " but an addition
to it : and that therefore though now made in the like-
ness of men and formed in fashion as a man, Jesus
remained nevertheless unbrokenly ." in the form of
God " (jjxdpxwv, verse 6, observe the tense) and able
at will to lay hold again of His essential equality with
God. Accordingly, therefore, the Apostle, if he rep-
resented Jesus as of the seed of David, represented
Him as this only on one side of His being, — that side
which he calls "according to the flesh" (Rom i 3,4 ) :
if he saw in Him, to the glory of the covenant people,
an Israelite, he saw this also in Him only " according
to the flesh" (Rom 9 5 ). It cannot be denied that
there underlies this whole mode of conception the idea
of " the two natures " of Christ, on the basis of which
alone can this duplex method of speaking of Him be
defended or even comprehended.

In the opening verses of the greatest of his Epistles

The Corroboration of Paul 249

the Apostle brings the two sides of our Lord's being
The Two Sides sharply to our apprehension. Reduced
of Christ's to its lowest terms, what he tells us
Being jjere is that on one side of His being
our Lord was the * Son of David ' and on the other
side the * Son of God.' These two sides of being he
speaks of respectively as " according to the flesh " and
" according to the Spirit of holiness," which may be
briefly paraphrased respectively as the human and the
divine sides. But he does not leave us to infer that
these two sides of our Lord's being were equally orig-
inal to Him. On the contrary, he tells us that the
human side had a historical beginning, while the divine
side knew only an historical establishment: our Lord
was made — came to be (yevofievoz ) — of the seed of
David according to the flesh; He was ' designated '
— marked out as (pptodsvToq) — the ' Son of God ' by the
resurrection of the dead. Becoming man, He brought
life and immortality to light, and thus showed Himself
more than man, — nothing less than ' the Son of God.'
The highest human exaltation is the Messiahship : but
His Messiahship was the lower side of His majesty.
That He might be the Messiah He stooped from His
prior estate of divine glory. 33 Thus clearly the Apostle
presents our Lord as essentially the ' Son of God,' and
this Sonship to God as essentially consubstantiality with
God. 34 After precisely the same fashion, at a later

33 Cf. Lightfoot on Rom i 4 : "The word yevo/isvo? implies a prior
existence of the Son before the Incarnation. . . . His Messiahship
was after all only the lower aspect of His Person ( xara adpxa ).
His personality as the Divine Word . . . was His higher aspect."

34 Cf. Sanday on Rom i 4 : "It is certain that St. Paul did not hold
that the Son of God became such by the Resurrection. The undoubted

250 The Designations of Our Lord

point of the same Epistle, having occasion to mention
Christ as sprung from the seed of Israel, he at once
pauses as if to guard himself from the imputation of
insufficient reverence, to add the limitation, " accord-
ing to the flesh." He was not wishing to speak of
Christ even incidentally as merely man. And so greatly
did his reverence for His person swell in his heart,
that, in adjoining a designation of His higher na-
ture, he is content with nothing lower than the
highest conceivable. " From whom is Christ, as ac-
cording to the flesh," — that Christ " who is in His
essential being (p wv) none other than God over all
blessed for ever" (9 5 ). On the side in which He
was not " according to the flesh," He was the Supreme
God ruling over all things.

It is, however, significant rather than copious use
which the Apostle makes of the category of the ' Son

Epistles are clear on this point (esp. 2 Cor 4 4 8 9 , cf. Col 1 15 - 19 ). At
the same time he did regard the Resurrection as making a difference—
if not in the transcendental relations of the Father to the Son (which
lie beyond our cognizance), yet in the visible manifestation of Sonship
as addressed to the understanding of men (cf. esp. Phil 2 9 . . .). This
is sufficiently expressed by our word ' designated,' which might perhaps
with advantage also be used in the two places in the Acts (io 42 17 31 ).
It is true that Christ becomes Judge in a sense in which He does not
become Son; but He is Judge too not wholly by an external creation,
but by an internal right. The Divine declaration, as it were, endorses
and proclaims that right. . . . It is as certain that when St. Paul
speaks of Him as 6 tdio? vlo<z (Rom 8 32 ), 6 iauroo old? (8 3 ),
he intends to cover the period of preexistence as that St. John identi-
fies the iiovoyevrj<5 with the preexistent Logos." Cf. also Robinson on
Eph. 4 13 (p. 100) : When Paul is treating of the relation of our Lord
to the Church he speaks of Him as 'the Christ'; but when he would
describe Him as the object of saving faith, he speaks of Him as the
1 Son of God ' — " thereby suggesting, it would seem, the thought of His
eternal existence in relation to the Divine Father."

The Corroboration of Paul 25 X

of God ' in his presentation of the personality of

'Son of God' J CSUS t0 k* s reac ^ers. 85 It is doubtless
at least in part due to his predilection
for the term ' Lord ' as the Trinitarian name of
Jesus that Paul speaks of Him only some seventeen
times as ' the Son.' 36 In a number of these instances 37
there is naturally little indication of the particular im-
plication of deity which it nevertheless always carries
with it in Paul's usage. 38 In others, however, the whole
point of the employment of the term hangs on the
uniqueness of the relation to God which it intimates.
This is the case, for instance, when this uniqueness of
relation is emphasized by the added term " own " :
God, we are told for example (Rom 8 3 ), sent "His
own Son" (rov kaozou olov) " in the likeness of sinful
flesh " " to condemn sin in the flesh ": and again God
spared not " His own Son " ( rod idiou olou ) but " de-
livered Him up for us all" (Rom 8 32 ). Obviously
we are expected to estimate the greatness of the gift

35 It is a usage which he was so far from inventing that he seems to
have brought it with him when he entered on his career as a preacher
of the Gospel. " It is most significant," remarks Knowling ( The Tes-
timony of St. Paul to Christ, p. 43), "that the first and earliest intima-
tion which we have in Acts of St. Paul's Christian teaching is this, that
1 in the synagogues,' not to Greeks and Romans, but to Jews and prose-
lytes, 'he proclaimed Jesus that He is the Son of God' (Acts 9 20 )."
It is already an old form of speech with him when he wrote his first
Epistle (cf. 1 Thess i 10 and see Knowling, pp. 229 seg.).

86 Rom i 3 - 4 - 9 5 10 8 3 . 29 . 32 , 1 Cor i 9 15 28 , 2 Cor i 19 , Gal i 16 2 20 4 4 .«,
Eph 4 13 , Col i 13 , 1 Thess i 10 .

37 E.g. 1 Thess i 10 , Gal i 16 2 20 , Col i 13 , Eph 4 13 .

38 Cf. Meyer on Rom i 3 - 4 (E. T., pp. 43, 44): "The Apostle never
designates Christ as the ulo$ 6soo otherwise (cf. Gess. <v. d. Pers.
Christi, p. 89 seg.; Weiss, Bibl. Theol., p. 309) than from the stand-
point of the knowledge of God given him by revelation (Gal i 16 ) of
the metaphysical Sonship (8 3 . 32 , Gal 4 4 , Col i 13 , Phil 2 6 , al)."

252 The Designations of Our Lord

by the closeness of the relation indicated: it is because
it was His own Son whom He gave that the love of
God to us was so splendidly manifested in the gift
of Jesus, who, we are further told, was for this
gift " sent forth from " Himself (Gal 4 4 , iScariareetev) .
This closeness of relation, amounting really to identity,
is somewhat oddly suggested by the argument in Rom
5 8 " 10 . Here we are told that scarcely for a righteous
man would one die : but God commends His love to us
— or as it is strengtheningly put, His own love to us —
by dying for us while we were yet sinners? No, —
by Christ's dying for us while we were sinners ! But
how does God commend His own love for us — by
someone else's dying for us? Obviously the relation
between Christ and God is thought of as so intimate
that Christ's dying is equivalent to God Himself dy-
ing. And so, we read further that this Christ is God's
Son (v. 10) and His dying for us is to such an extent
the pledge of God's love that it carries with it the
promise and potency of all good things (vv. 10, 11).
With this emphasis on the Sonship of Christ and
its high significance it is a little strange that the correla-
tive Fatherhood of God is brought so
'the Father* ^' ltt ^ e mto immediate connection with it.
The explanation is doubtless again that
Paul prefers the title ' Lord ' to express our Lord's
Trinitarian relations. The Fatherhood of God is in
any event not very frequently adverted to by Paul,
and is very seldom brought into immediate relation
with Jesus. Indeed God is expressly called the Father
of Jesus Christ only in those few passages in which
He is spoken of as " the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ" (Rom 15 6 , 2 Cor i 3 n 31 , Eph i 3 , [Col

The Corroboration of Paul 253

I 3 ]). In a number of other passages in which God is
called ' the Father ' the Trinitarian relation seems in
mind (Rom 6 4 , 1 Cor 8 6 15 24 , Gal i 3 , Eph 2 18 6 23 , 1
Thess i 1 , 2 Thess i 2 , 1 Tim i 2 , 2 Tim i 2 , Titus i 4 ).
In the other instances of the application of the name of
Father to God the reference is rather to His relation
to us (Rom i 7 [8 15 ], 1 Cor I 3 , Gal i 4 [4 6 ],
Eph i 2 4 6 , Phil i 2 2 11 4 20 , Col i 2 , 1 Thess i 3 3 11 ' 13 , 2
Thess i 1 [ 2 - rlec ] 2 16 , Philem 3, cf. 2 Cor i 3 , Eph
i 17 3 14 5 20 , Col i 12 3 17 ). In only three passages are
the correlatives * Son ' and ' Father ' brought together
(1 Cor 15 28 , Gal 4 4 " 6 , Col i 13 ), and in no one of these
instances is it clear that the term ' Father ' is employed
in sole reference to Jesus, the unique * Son.' In one
of them we are told that the Father has delivered us
out of the power of darkness and translated us into
the Kingdom of * the Son of His love' (Col i 13 ),
where there seems certainly a reference to God's
Fatherly relation not only to Jesus ' the Son of His
love ' but also to us who are by His grace introduced
into a similar relation to God with Christ's own. So,
in another, we are told that because we are sons God
has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts,
crying, Abba, Father (Gal 4 6 ) — where it is quite clear
that ' Father ' has relation to us, too, as the brethren of
Christ. Even in the remaining instance, where we are
told that at the end Christ shall deliver up the King-
dom to God even the Father, and even ' the Son ' Him-
self shall be subjected to Him, that God may be all
in all (1 Cor 15 28 ), it is by no means obvious that the
term Father may not again embrace with Christ all
those who have been brought by Christ into the King-
dom. We may see in all three instances that the

254 The Designations of Our Lord

peculiar relation of the * Father ' and * Son ' lies at
the basis of the thought: but this peculiar relation
does not in any of them absorb the whole thought. It
seems to be treated by Paul as a matter too well under-
stood to require particular insistence upon. He could
count on his readers, when he spoke of Jesus as * the
Son of God,' understanding without further elucidation
that he was thereby attributing to Him a unique re-
lation, including proper deity along with the Father,
while our co-sonship was to be realized only in and
through Him.

Another method employed by Paul to indicate the
relation of Jesus to God is the presentation of Him

as the ' image of God ' ( 2 Cor a 4 , Col
Christ All m u . b . . c r A

that God Is l >' " e 1S *" e lma £ e °* God, we are

told, and the light of the knowledge of
the glory of God shines in His face (2 Cor 4 4 ). And,
again, He is the image of the invisible God, the first-
born of all creation (Col i 15 ). The meaning is that
we may see in Christ what God is: all God's
glory is reflected in Him; and when we see Him we
see the Father also. Perhaps the mere term falls short
of expressly asserting proper deity, though it would
certainly gain force and significance if proper deity
were understood to be asserted. In that case it would
suggest that Jesus Christ is just the invisible God made
visible. And that this is its actual significance with
Paul can scarcely be doubted when we recall that he
does not hesitate to ascribe proper deity to Jesus, not
only by means of the designations * Lord ' and * Son
of God/ but by the direct application to Him of the
name ' God ' itself and that in its most enhanced form
« — ' God over all ' (Rom 9 s ) , the ' Great God ' (Titus

The Corroboration of Paul 255

2 13 ). That Jesus Christ is intended in both instances
by these great designations, seems, despite sustained
efforts to deny them to Him, beyond legitimate ques-
tion. 39 The natural interpretation of the passages them-
selves compels it : and no surprise can be felt that Paul,
who everywhere thinks and speaks of Christ as very
God, should occasionally call Him by the appropriate
designation. These passages in effect supply only the
to-be-expected expression in plain language of Paul's
most intimate thought of Jesus. He is always and
everywhere to his thought just ' our Great God and
Saviour,' * God over all, blessed for ever.'

It was thus, then, that Jesus was thought of, and
familiarly spoken of, in the Christian communities

Paul's Jesus throughout the epoch in which the Syn-
the Primitive optic Gospels were composed or, if we
Jesus choose to use such misleading language,

were compounded. The testimony of Paul's letters
comes from the sixth and seventh decades of the cen-
tury; and assures us that at that time Jesus was to
His followers a man indeed and the chosen Messiah
who had come to redeem God's people, but in His
essential Being just the great God Himself. In the
light of this testimony it is impossible to believe there

39 On Rom 9 5 see Dwight, Journal of Exegetical Society, 1881, p. 22;
and Sanday in loc. with the literature there mentioned. Dr. R. B.
Drummond significantly writes {The Academy, March 30, 1895, p.
273): "I must confess that I feel very strongly the grammatical diffi-
culty of the Unitarian interpretation; but on the other hand the im-
probability of Paul attributing not only deity, but supreme deity (im
ndvTiov 0£«?) to Christ, seems to me so great as to outweigh all
other considerations." On Titus 2 13 see Weiss' note (in Meyer's Com.),
The case against the application of these titles to Christ may be read,
as well as elsewhere, in Ezra Abbott, Journal of Exegetical Society,
1 88 1, reprinted in his Critical Essays.

256 The Designations of Our Lord

ever was a different conception of Jesus prevalent in
the Church: the mark of Christians from the begin-
ning was obviously that they looked to Jesus as their
4 Lord ' and ' called on His name ' in their worship.
The general significance of the testimony of Paul, we
may say, is universally recognized. Bousset, for ex-
ample, when engaged in repelling the crudities of
Kalthoff points it out with great distinctness. In Paul,
he tells us, we have " a witness of indubitable value
from the bosom of the Christian community for the
existence and the significance of the Person of Jesus."
" His conversion, according to the tradition, goes back
very nearly to the death of Jesus. His chief activity
falls in any case in the forties and fifties. From his
letters the historical existence of Jesus stands out be-
fore us in all clearness. And not merely does Paul
presuppose this, as we perceive from these letters: he
had intercourse with the first generation of Christians,
who had themselves seen the Lord Jesus." " Whoever
would question the existence of Jesus must erase also
the existence of Paul, as he meets us in his letters."
" With the person of Paul the person of Jesus, too,
stands established." Nor is it merely the existence of
a Jesus which Paul thus substantiates for us: he rati-
fies also the fact that the person of Jesus had for the
faith of the first Christian community " no indeter-
minate but a perfectly determinate significance." 40
In the presence of Paul's letters, therefore, it is im-
possible to deny that there underlies the whole Chris-

40 Was ivissen ivir von Jesus? 1904, pp. 17-26. This much, says
Bousset, is certain from the general testimony of Paul : " First, the fact
of a historical Jesus is assured. . . . Secondly, however, it is assured
that the Person of Jesus had for the faith of His first community no
indefinite but a perfectly determinate significance."

The Corroboration of Paul 257

tian movement the great personality of Jesus, or that
the primitive Christian community looked to Him as
its founder and Lord. Is it not equally impossible to
deny in the presence of these letters that the primitive
Christian community looked upon this Jesus as their
divine founder and divine Lord?

Strange to say, Bousset draws back at this point.
Paul's testimony to the existence of the historical
Jesus and to His significance to the primitive Church
is decisive. But Paul's testimony to the estimate
placed upon the personality of this historical Jesus
is not trustworthy. It is, indeed, impossible to
doubt in the light of his testimony, that " the
earthly Jesus worked in the souls of His disciples
(with inexpressible power" (p. 26): and that they
liad come to believe that He had risen from the
dead. But it does not follow that they who had com-
panied with Him in His life shared Paul's idea that
He was " essentially a heavenly being" (p. 26). The
inconsequence here is flagrant. Paul is not writing a
generation or two later, when the faith of the first dis-
ciples was a matter only of memory, perhaps of fading
memory; and when it was possible for him to represent
it as other than it was. He is writing out of the very
Wjbosom of this primitive community and under its very
^ eye. His witness to the kind of Jesus this community
believed in is just as valid and just as compelling,
therefore, as his testimony that it believed in Jesus at
all. In and through him the voice of the primitive
community itself speaks, proclaiming its assured faith
in its divine Lord. This would be true quite apart
from the consentient witness of the Acts and the Gos-
pels. In the presence of this consentient witness it

258 The Designations of Our Lord

is impossible to contend that Paul has misrepresented
or misconceived the faith of Christians. The same
divine Jesus which Paul presents as the universal and
aboriginal object of Christian faith, Luke sets before
us in Acts from the mouth of the primitive disciples
— Peter and John and James and the rest — as from
the beginning believed on in the Church; and the
same Luke with his companion evangelists represents
as Himself asserting His divine dignity. The testi-
mony of Paul merely adds to this witness a new and
thoroughly trustworthy voice; and renders it so much
the more impossible to doubt that from the very be-
ginning the entire Christian community was firmly con-
vinced of the deity of its Lord.

Nor can the force of this testimony be broken or
even weakened by suggesting doubts as to the genu-
Inaccessibility ineness of more or fewer of Paul's let-
to Critical ters, or raising question of a development
Doubts f tne doctrine of the person of our
Lord through their course. We have treated them all
as genuine products of Paul's mind and pen and as
all of a piece: because, shortly, the facts warrant such
a treatment of them. But the conclusion to be drawn
from them in the matter in hand does not depend on
so taking them. The conception of Jesus embedded in
these letters is the same in them all: if they are not
all Paul's they are all Pauline. You may discard any
number of them you choose, therefore, as not Paul's
personal product: the conception of Jesus in those that
remain is not altered thereby. Take the extremest
hypothesis which has ever even temporarily commanded
the assent of any considerable number of scholars, —
the old Tubingen theory which allowed to Paul only the

The Corroboration of Paul 259

four great Epistles, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians and
Galatians. 41 In these Epistles may be found Paul's
entire witness to the deity of Christ. It is from them
that we learn that Jesus Christ, while on the side of
His flesh of the seed of David, had another side to
His being, on which He was the Son of God (Rom
i 3,4 ) ; that as God's own Son He was rich before He
became poor by becoming of the seed of David (2 Cor
8 9 ) ; and that in His real nature He is not merely
God's Son but Himself God over all, blessed for ever
(Rom 9 5 ). When we add to these four great Epistles
one after another of the others — such as Philippians,
and 1 Thessalonians and Colossians, as practically all
living critics do 42 — and even Ephesians and Second
Timothy, as many are willing to do — we merely add
to the mass of the testimony, and in no respect alter
its character or effect. These letters one and all only
repeat, and in repeating more or less clarify, the teach-
ing of the four chief Epistles as to the dignity of our
Lord's person.

41 The extreme radicalism of the so-called Dutch school, the best
representative of which is probably van Manen (or in Germany, Steck),
may safely be neglected.

42 Bousset, Was ivissen ivir, etc., pp. 19, 20, says: "It is not, however,
at all the case that the critical theology denies to Paul all others of
the letters ascribed to him with the exception of the four chief Epistles
(and possibly also the Epistle to the Philippians). If the critical the-
ology once did that, it has since corrected itself here. Thus with ever
increasing confidence it has again accredited to Paul, together with the
Epistle to the Philippians, 1 Thessalonians also, and Colossians, with
the exception of perhaps a few verses. Lately a theologian like Julicher,
whom no one can accuse of anti-critical prepossessions, has again de-
fended the genuineness of Ephesians on striking grounds. With ever
greater clearness and definiteness doubts are confining themselves to
particular Epistles — 2 Thess., 1 Tim. and Titus." Weinel bases his
picture of St. Paul the Man and His Work (E. T., 1906), on Romans,

260 The Designations of Our Lord

For this same reason nothing is gained for our pres-
ent purpose by treating the Epistles not all together,
but in small chronologically arranged

development g rou P s - S1I g ht differences may be ob-
served, it is true, from group to group
in modes of expression and relatively favorite forms
of statement. But no differences can be traced in the
conceptions which are brought to expression in these
varying forms of statements. For example, the ruling
designation of Christ in the Thessalonians is ' the
Lord' (22), with 'the Lord Jesus Christ' (14) a
somewhat close second, and 'the Lord Jesus' (10)
third, while the simple ' Christ ' occurs only four times.
In Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, on the other hand,
it is the simple ' Christ ' which becomes the favorite
designation, with ' Lord ' a good second : and the same
is true of the Epistles of the first imprisonment. In
the Pastorals, on the other hand, while ' Lord ' is still
common, ' Christ,' as in Thessalonians, falls into the
background, and ' Christ Jesus ' becomes the favorite
designation. Variations like these, it is obvious, are
rather interesting to those who are engaged in studying
the literary form of the Epistles than important in
estimating their witness to the deity of our Lord.
Through all such variations, the product of circum-
stance, the essential teaching of all these Epistles upon

1 and 2 Cor, Gal, Phil, and i Thess only: but he is willing to admit
that "the vast majority of critics consider the Epistle to the Colossians
and the short note to Philemon to be genuine," and that some not un-
worthy of the name of critics add Eph. and 2 Thess. (p. ix.) Wrede
(Paulus, 1905) uses Romans, 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Philip., 1 Thess., Col.,
Philem. ; while Wernle makes use of all except the Pastorals {Beginnings
of Christianity, 1903).

The Corroboration of Paul 261

the person of Christ remains the same. In them all
alike He is the divine ' Lord/ whose right it is to rule:
the ' Son of God,' consubstantial with the Father: the
' great God and Saviour ' of sinners : ' God over all,
blessed forever.' And in their consentient testimony to
the deity of Christ they make it clear to us that upon
this point, at least, the whole primitive Church was
of one unvarying mind.

THE WITNESS OF THE CATHOLIC
EPISTLES

There yet remains a certain amount of corroborative
evidence for the conclusions which we have reached,
Catholic borne by a series of letters which have
Epistles been preserved to us, purporting to be
Corroborative tne compositions of primitive followers
of our Lord. We use the term " purporting " not be-
cause we have any doubt that they are all that they
profess to be, but because their descriptions of them-
selves have not been accepted as valid in all critical
circles, and because we do not consider it necessary to
pause to vindicate their authenticity here. If their
testimony were substantially different from that of the
more extended documents which we have already passed
in review, it might be required of us to validate their
claim to give testimony to the primitive conception of
Christ, before admitting their witness. As, however,
they yield only corroborative testimony, we may be
content to present it for what it seems to each indi-
vidual to be worth. In any event it helps to make
clear to us the absolute harmony of early Christianity
taken in a wide sense in its lofty conception of its Lord's
person, and thus adds weight to what we have learned,
from the more important documents, of the concep-
tion current in the first age. And just in proportion
as we recognize these letters, too, as a legacy of the
first age, reflecting the belief of the first generation of

The Catholic Epistles 263

Christians, their corroborative evidence will become
more and more significant to us. If, as in our own
judgment they ought to be, they are accepted at their
face value, their testimony becomes of primary im-
portance, and would suffice of itself to assure us of
the attitude of mind our Lord's followers cherished
towards Him from the beginning. We shall present
their testimony then frankly from this our own point
of view, without stopping to argue our right to do so.
It will thus at least be made apparent that the whole
body of writings gathered into what we call the New
Testament unite in commending to us one lofty view
of Christ's person. For in all these letters, too, as in
those which have already claimed our attention, Jesus
appears fundamentally as the divine object of the
reverential service of Christians.

Among these letters a special interest attaches to
the Epistles of James and Jude, because of their au-
James' and thorship by kinsmen of our Lord accord-
Ch . e . s ing to the flesh, who moreover did not

High believe in Him during His earthly man-

• ifestation (Jno 7 s ) : to which is added in the case of
the Epistle of James, its exceedingly early date (a. d.
45)) — a date antecedent to that of any other of the
canonical books. Not only does not the simple ' Jesus '
occur in either of these Epistles or even the simple
t Christ,' but our Lord is uniformly spoken of by des-
ignations expressive of marked reverence. Both writers
^.describe themselves simply as "servants" — that is,
><" bond-servants," " slaves," 1 — James " of God and of

1 We must not press, however, the ignoble connotations of " slaves "
to our modern minds: entire subjection is all that is imputed. Cf.
Mayor on Jude 1.

264 The Designations of Our Lord

the Lord Jesus Christ" (i 1 ), and Jude with striking
directness simply "of Jesus Christ" (1). The ac-
knowledgment of Jesus as their ' Lord ' implied in this
self-designation is emphasized in both Epistles by
the constant employment of this title in speaking of
Jesus.

James speaks of our Lord by name only twice, and
on both occasions he gives Him the full title of rever-
ence: 'the (or our) Lord Jesus Christ ' (i 1 2 1 ) —
coupling Him in the one case on equal terms with God,
and in the other adding further epithets of divine
dignity. Elsewhere he speaks of Him simply as ' the
Lord' (^7,8 [14] f i5 j 2 | n con texts which greatly enhance
the significance of the term. The pregnant use of ' the
Name,' absolutely, which we found current among the
early Christians as reported in the Acts, recurs here;
and James advises in the case of sick people that they
be prayed over, while they are anointed with oil
"in the Name" (5 14 ). The "Name" intended is
clearly that of Jesus, which is thus in Christian
usage substituted for that of Jehovah. A unique epithet,
equally implying the deity of the Lord, is applied to
Him in the exhortation, " My brethren, hold not the
faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the

'the Glory' Glory, with respect of persons" (2 1 ).
i The Glory ' seems to stand here in ap-
position to the name, " our Lord Jesus Christ," further

2 Sven Herner, op. cit, thinks that ' Lord ' is used of Jesus only at
5 7 * 8 . Mayor on i 7 thinks it probable that it is used of Jesus also at
5 [i4],i5. Herner remarks (p. 42): "The Epistle of James knows the
expression 'The Lord Jesus Christ' (i 1 2 1 ) and, therefore, uses xupto?
of Christ. Since this is the case, we do not venture definitely to deny
that Christ is meant in the expression ' the coming of the Lord ' (s 7 Be( i-),

The Catholic Epistles 265

defining Him in His majesty. 8 There is here some-
thing more than merely the association of our Lord
with glory, as when we are told that He had glory with
God before the world was (Jno 17 5 ), and after His
humiliation on earth (though even on earth He mani-
fested His glory to seeing eyes, Jno i 14 2 11 17 22 ) entered
again into His glory (Lk 24 26 , Jno 17 24 , 1 Tim 3 16 , Heb
2 9 , cf. Mt 19 28 25 31 , [Mk io 37 ]), and is to come again
in this glory (Mt 16 27 24 30 25 31 , Mk 8 38 13 26 , Lk 9 26
2 1 27 , Titus 2 13 , 1 P 4 13 ). We come nearer to what is
implied when we read of Jesus being ' the Lord of
Glory' (1 Cor 2 8 ), that is He to whom glory belongs
as His characterizing quality; or when He is described
to us as " the effulgence of the glory of God " (Heb
i 3 ). The thought of the writer seems to be fixed on
those Old Testament passages in which Jehovah is de-
scribed as the " Glory " : e. g., " For I, saith Jehovah,
will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and I will
be the Glory in the midst of her" (Zech 2 5 ). In the
Lord Jesus Christ, James sees the fulfillment of these
promises: He is Jehovah come to be with His people;
and, as He has tabernacled among them, they have
seen His glory. He is, in a word, the Glory of God,
the Shekinah: God manifest to men. It is thus that
James thought and spoke of his own brother who died
a violent and shameful death while still in His first
youth! Surely there is a phenomenon here which may
well waken inquiry.

The attitude of Jude is precisely the same. He does

although Peter's remark on the advent of the day of God (2 P 3 12 )
makes sur.h an ascription unlikely, and it is to be noted that in the
preceding and following verses (5 10 ' 11 ) xupto$ is used of God."
3 Bengel, Bassett, Mayor.

266 The Designations of Our Lord

indeed speak of Christ in the address of his Epistle
by the simpler formal title of ' Jesus
'the Despot' ^ nr ^ st '' but * n accordance with his de-
scription of himself at that point as
the " slave " of this ' Jesus Christ/ he tends to multiply
reverential titles in speaking of Him elsewhere. To
Him our Lord is always ' our Lord Jesus Christ '
(17, 21), ' Jesus Christ our Lord' (25), ' our only
Master (£s<77r6r^c) and Lord, Jesus Christ' (4) — a
phrase, this last one, so strong that many commentators
balk at it and wish to render it c the only Master, viz.,
God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.' 4 But we cannot feel
surprised that one who pointedly calls himself in the
first verse of his Epistle " slave " of Jesus Christ,
should apply the correlative of that term, " Despotic
Master and Lord " to Jesus Christ, three verses later.
No doubt " no Jew could use " such a phrase " without
thinking of the one Master in heaven " ; 5 but that is
only evidence that this Jew thought of Jesus who was
his * Lord ' and whose " slave " he recognized himself
as being, as, in this eminent sense, his " Master in
heaven" (cf. 2 P 2 1 ). Obviously it is the testimony
of these two Epistles that Jesus was conceived by His
first disciples as their divine Lord and Master.

The designations of our Lord in 1 Peter are notably

simple, but none the less significant. Peter's favorite

designation for Him (as it is Paul's)

of r i S pe°ter Is the sim P le * Christ '' USed ' ordInarI1 y
at least, as a proper name, though of

4 See on the passage, Bigg and Mayor in he.

5 The phrase is Mayor's (in he): who notes also the use of the word
deaxofjuvm by Julius Africanus (Eus. H. E., i. 7) to denote the kins-
folk of Jesus, and justly remarks that this implies a current earlier
employment of SEfnrorvie of our Lord.

The Catholic Epistles 267

course not without its appellative significance still cling-
ing to it and in one or two instances (i 1111 ) becoming
prominent (i 11 - 11 * 19 2 21 3 15 ' 16 ' 18 4 1 ' 1344 5 1 - 10 - 14 ). Next to
the simple ' Christ ' Peter uses by predilection the sim-
plest of the solemn compound names, ' Jesus Christ '
^1,2,3,7,13 2 s 3 2i 4 ii^ In the address to the Epistle he

sets this designation in its place in the trine formula
of Father, Spirit and Jesus Christ, with the effect of
suggesting the Threefold Name, that is to say, with
underlying implication of the Trinity. 6 Similarly in
I 11 where " the Spirit of Christ," that is, most naturally,
the Spirit which proceeds from and represents Christ,
is spoken of as having resided in the ancient prophets,
the preexistence of Christ is assumed. 7 Besides these
proper names, Peter speaks of our Lord by the desig-
nation ' Lord' (2 B ' 13 3 15 , cf. 2 25 and Bigg in loc. and p.
109) and in doing so applies an Old Testament text
to Him in which ' Lord ' stands for * Jehovah,' and

6 Cf . Hort in loc. (pp. 17, 18) : "The three clauses of this verse be-
yond all reasonable question set forth the operation of the Father, the
Holy Spirit and the Son, respectively. Here, therefore, as in several
Epistles of Paul (1 Cor 12 4 - 6 , 2 Cor 13 14 , Eph 4 4 " 6 ), there is an implicit
reference to the Threefold Name. In no passage is there any indica-
tion that the writer was independently working out a doctrinal scheme:
a recognized belief or idea seems to be everywhere presupposed. How
such an idea could arise in the mind of St. Paul or any other Apostle
without sanction from a word of the Lord it is difficult to imagine: and
this consideration is a sufficient answer to the doubts which have, by no
means unnaturally, been raised whether Mt 28 19 may not have been
added or recast in a later generation. St. Peter, like St. Paul, associ-
ates with the subject of each clause, if one may so speak, a distinctive
function as towards mankind: on their relations to the Divine Unity
he is silent."

7 Cf . Bigg in loc. (p. 108), "The words rb Iv awroT? Tzvedfia
Xpiozou must be accepted quite frankly. Christ was in the prophets,
and from Him came their inspiration."

268 The Designations of Our Lord

thus assimilates Him to the divine Being. By a com-
bination of this great title and the solemn Messianic
name of ' Jesus Christ/ he calls Jesus ' our Lord Jesus
Christ' (i 3 ); 8 and it is noticeable that it is by this
significant title that he designates Jesus when he is
speaking of God as not only His Father but His God
— having reference doubtless to " the days of His
flesh" (Heb 5 7 ), that is to say, to His humiliation. 9
No other titles are applied to our Lord in this Epistle,
except that in 2 25 He is spoken of as ' the Shepherd
and Bishop of our souls,' and at 5 s ' 4 as ' Chief Shepherd,'
modes of description in which the soteriological rather
than the ontological element is prominent.

In comparison with 1 Peter, 2 Peter makes use of
more elaborate designations in speaking of Christ.

2 Peter and Not only does the simple * Jesus ' not
the Deity occur in this Epistle, but not even the

of Our Lord s i m ple ' Christ ' : and the less complex
compound ' Jesus Christ ' occurs in its simplicity only
once — in the formality of the address. The simple
1 Lord,' on the other hand, seems to be used of Christ
in a few cases (^s^- 10 - 15 ), 10 and a number of more or

8 Cf. Hort in loc, p. 30, who has a long, analytical discussion of it.

9 Cf. Bigg in loc.

10 Bigg on 3 9 : "The Lord is certainly Christ"; on 3 15 : "'Our
Lord' must undoubtedly signify Christ, to whom alone the doxology in
verse 18 is addressed." Less decidedly, Sven Herner, op. cit., pp. 44, 45:
"2 Peter has some passages about which, in our opinion, no clear de-
cision can be come to. According to 3 3 se( J- scornful mockers shall come
and say, 'Where is the promise of His coming?' It is almost the uni-
versal judgment that the reference here is to the coming of Christ.
Against the scorn of the mockers the Apostle suggests that a day with
our Lord is as a thousand years (v. 8), and therefore there can be no
talk of slackness. The Lord is not slack with His promise, but is long-
suffering to us-ward and not willing that any should perish (v. 9).

The Catholic Epistles 269

less sonorous combinations of it occur: * Jesus our
Lord' (i 2 ), 'our Lord Jesus Christ' (i 8 ' 14 ' 16 ), ' the
Lord and Saviour' (3 2 ), ' our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ' (i 11 2 20 3 18 ), with the last of which may be
connected the great phrase ' our God and Saviour,
Jesus Christ' (i 1 ). Two things that are notable in
this list of designations are the repeated use of
* Saviour ' of our Lord, and the clear note of deity
which is struck in their ascriptions. ' Saviour ' itself
is a divine appellation transferred to Christ: 11 to whom
it is applied fifteen times out of the twenty-three in
which it occurs in the New Testament. In 2 Peter

The day of the Lord, however, will come as a thief (v. 10). In verse
15 the course of thought in verse 9 is repeated, and the reader is ex-
horted to account the long-suffering of the Lord salvation. This inter-
pretation has in its favor that the expression 'our Lord' (v. 15) can
be referred to Christ. Apart from Rev 4 11 n 15 (2 Tim i 8 ) it is the
constant rule in the N. T. and in this Epistle ( x 2.8,ii.i4.ie 2 20 3 18 ) that
the pronoun ^fiibv is adjoined to xupto? only when xuptu? refers
to Christ; and already on this ground xupto? in v. 15 can scarcely
designate God. The declaration in v. 8 that a day with the Lord is as a
thousand years, causes no great difficulty, since it is no unwonted occur-
rence in the N. T. that a statement made of Lord Jehovah is referred
to Lord Christ, wholly apart from the circumstance that the statement
in question is scarcely an Old Test, citation. On the other hand, our
explanation is rendered uncertain by the expression in v. 12, 'the
coming of the day of God.' Since v. 12 speaks of 'the day of God,'
'the day of the Lord' is commonly explained in connection with it;
and as ultimate result there emerges that nothing assured can be at-
tained concerning the meaning of 38,9,10,15."

11 Cf. Isaiah 43 11 , " I, even I, am the Lord and beside me there is
no Saviour"; Is 43 s , "The Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour," cf. 45 15 ' 21
49 26 6 i6 6 3 8 t j er I4 8 s «o thou hope of Israel, the Saviour thereof in
time of trouble; Hos 13 4 , "Beside me there is no Saviour" (cf. 1 Sam
xo i9 I4 39 } 2 Sam 22 3 , Ps 7 10 17 7 106 21 ). But cf. Is 19 20 where the
Lord promises to send " a Saviour and a mighty one " : and such pas-
sages as Judges 3 9 * 15 , where the Saviour sent is a man raised up by
God for the purpose (cf. Judges 6 36 , 2 Kings 13 5 , Neh 9 2 ). The O. T.
term for Saviour is the Hiphal participle of ])&, viz., y#TD

270 The Designations of Our Lord

it occurs five times, always of Christ, and never alone,
but always coupled under a single article with another
designation, and so forming a solemn formula. In
this respect the two phrases, ' our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ' (i 11 2 20 3 18 ) and 'our God and Saviour
Jesus Christ' (i 1 ) are perfectly similar and must
stand or fall together. Not only, however, is the deity
of our Lord openly asserted in the direct naming of
Him here * our God and Saviour.' 12 It is almost equally
clearly asserted in the parallel phrase, ' our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ.' And it is implied in the con-
junction of * God ' and ' Jesus our Lord ' in i 2 as co-
objects of saving knowledge (cf. i 8 2 20 3 18 ), and in
the ascription to 'our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ'
of an eternal Kingdom (i 11 ). 13 Besides these designa-
tions, our Lord is called by Peter, as by Jude (4),
our ' Master ' (dsaTrdryc;) with the same high impli-
cations (2 1 ) ; 14 and the declaration of God the Father
at the transfiguration that He is ' God's Son,' * God's
Beloved,' is cited (i 17 ) with profound and reverential
satisfaction. 15

Perhaps nothing is more notable in the designations

of our Lord in these Epistles — James, Jude, 1 Peter,

John's Epistles 2 Peter, — than the dropping out of

and 'the sight of the title 'Son of God.' Only

Son of God.' j n tne s i n gle passage in 2 Peter in which

12 That the passage is to be taken so is convincingly argued by
Spitta, von Soden, and especially Bigg. Cf. Lightfoot on i Clem 2,
where some of the patristic parallels are noted.

13 The phrase " eternal Kingdom " is found here only in the N. T. ;
but cf. Mart. Polyc, 20, Clem. Horn., viii. 23 ; x. 25 ; xiii. 20, etc.

14 Spitta, von Soden, etc. (cf. Wetstein) take the deffitorr^ here
of God the Father; Mayor hesitates. But cf. above on Jude 4.

15 Cf. the statement of the christology of the Epistle by Bigg, p. 235.

The Catholic Epistles 271

the testimony of the Father in the transfiguration scene
is appealed to, is the term c Son ' applied to Jesus at
all. The case is very different in the Johannine Epis-
tles. Of them the application to Jesus of the title
* Son of God,' in one form or another, is preeminently
characteristic. 16 He is called, indeed, simply ' Jesus '
(1 Jno 2 22 4 3 4 15 5 1 ), and 'Christ' without adjunct
(1 Jno [2 22 5 1 ], 17 2 Jno 9) ; and also 'Jesus Christ'
(1 Jno 4 2 [4 15 ] 5 6 , 2 Jno 7) ; and even 'Jesus Christ
the Righteous' (1 Jno 2 1 ) ; 18 and He is described in
the great phrases 'Word of Life' (1 Jno i 1 ), 'Ad-
vocate with the Father ' (2 1 ) , ' Saviour of the World '
(4 14 ). But the favorite designations applied to Him
in these Epistles emphasize His divine Sonship. The
most common formula employed is the simple ' Son '
standing in correlation with God or the Father (1
Jno 2 22 ' 23 ' 23 ' 24 4 10 - 14 5 9 ' 10 ' 11 ' 12 , 2 Jno 9) ; but the full
form ' Son of God ' occurs also with some frequency
(1 Jno 3 8 4 15 5 5 ' 12 - 13 ' 20 ) and quite a variety of ex-
panded phrases appear by its side, such as ' God's only
begotten Son' (1 Jno 4 9 , cf. 5 18 ), 'Jesus, God's Son'
(1 Jno I 7 ), 'God's Son, Jesus Christ' (1 Jno i 3 3

16 Cf. Westcott, Epistles of St. John, p. 131: "The title 'the Son' in
various forms is eminently characteristic of the first and second Epis-
tles, in which it occurs 24 (or 25) times (22 or 23+2), which is more
times than in all the Epistles of St. Paul."

17 In these two passages ' the Christ ' is an appellative.

18 The designation ' Lord ' does not occur in these Epistles. Cf.
Westcott, Epistles of St. John, p. 131: "It is remarkable that the title
'Lord' (xupios) is not found in the Epistles (not 2 Jno 3). It
occurs in the narrative of the Gospel, and is frequent in the Apoca-
lypse. It occurs also in all the other Epistles of the N. T. except that
to Titus. The absence of the title may perhaps be explained by the
general view of the relation of Christ to the believer which is given
in the Epistles. The central thought is that of fellowship."

272 The Designations of Our Lord

5 20 ), 'Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father' (2 Jno 3).
By means of this constant designation of Jesus as ' the
Son of God,' John keeps before his readers His divine
dignity. He is not of the world, but has come into
the world (5 20 ) upon a mission, to destroy all that is
evil (5 8 ) and to save the world (i 7 4 1014 5 5 ), where-
unto He was sent (4 9 ' 10 ' 14 ), that all might have life
in Him (5 5 ' 1215 ) ; for God has given unto us eternal
life and this life is in ' the Son/ so that He who hath
' the Son ' hath the life (3 11,12 ) . So closely is He asso-
ciated with God the Father (i 3 3 23 ) that to deny Him
is to deny the Father (2 23 ) and to confess Him is to
confess the Father (2 23 4 15 ) and to abide in Him is to
abide in the Father (2 24 , cf. i 3 ). Obviously to John
the 'Son of God' is Himself God; and what is thus
implied in the current use of this title is openly de-
clared at the close of the Epistle, where of ' the Son of
God, Jesus Christ \ it is solemnly affirmed, " This is
the True God and Eternal Life " (5 20 ).

In this remarkable concluding paragraph the Apostle
is encouraging his readers in view of the sin which is

in the world and which they feel to be
'True God* working in themselves. "We know,"

says he, " that every one who has been
begotten of God " — that is to say, every truly Christian
man, who has been born of the Spirit — " sinneth not " :
not because he has of himself power to preserve himself
pure, but because " He that was begotten of God " —
that is to say, God's own Son, Jesus Christ — " keepeth
him and the evil one toucheth him not." This is but the
Johannine way of saying what Peter says in his way when
he assures his readers that Christians " are guarded by
the power of God through faith unto a salvation ready

The Catholic Epistles 273

to be revealed in the last time " (1 P i 5 ). But John
proceeds with his encouraging message. " We know,"
he adds, " that we are of God and the whole world
lieth in the evil one. And we know that the Son of God
is come and hath given us an understanding, that we
know Him that is true, and we are in Him that is true,
in His Son Jesus Christ." God is He that is true;
and what is said is that if we are in His Son Jesus
Christ, we are in God. Why? Because Jesus Christ
Himself, being His Son, is Himself just this God that
is true; and therefore it is just this that the Apostle
adds: "This is," he says with the emphatic de-
monstrative, — " this is the True God and Life
Eternal" (5 20 ). The upshot of the whole matter,
then, is that those who are in Jesus Christ need have
no fear in the midst of the temptations of earth: for
to be in Jesus Christ is to be in the only real God, since
Jesus Himself is this ' Real God/ and as such ' Eternal
Life.'

Here, then, are two new descriptive epithets applied
to Jesus, as the l Son of God.' He is * Eternal Life,'
— which recalls the figurative designation of Him as
\ 'the Life' in the Gospel of John (14 6 n 25 , cf. i 5,9 ,
1 Jno i 2 , cf. 1 Jno 2 8 ). And He is ' the True,' * the
Real, God,' the God who corresponds in every respect
to the idea of God, who is what God ought to be and
is. There is " only one true God," John quotes his
Master as declaring (Jno 17 3 ), to know whom is
eternal life: and now he tells us that Jesus Christ, be-
cause the ' Son ' of this only true God, is Himself this
4 True God ' and this ' Eternal Life.' 19 He then who

19 For the exposition of this passage see especially Weiss (Meyer,
1900), pp. 160, 161. But on the clause, "He that is begotten of God,"
see Westcott, p. 185, column 1.

274 The Designations of Our Lord

is in Him is in ' the True God ' and has ' the Eternal
Life, — ' the Eternal Life ' that was in the Father and
has been manifested in His ' Son Jesus Christ,' and is
now declared by the Apostle in order that his readers,
too, may enter into that fellowship which he was him-
self enjoying " with the Father and with His Son
Jesus Christ " (i 3 ). The Epistles of John, also, thus
culminate not only in calling Christ ' God,' but in so
calling Him * God ' as to throw out into emphasis
that He is all that God is. James calls Him * the
Glory ' : Peter * the great God ' : Paul * God_ over
all ' : John ' the Real God.' 20 It was because he so con-
ceived Jesus as God's unique Son (i Jno 4 9 ) that John
is able to speak of the forgiveness of sins " through His
Name" (i Jno 2 12 ), and of faith "in His Name"
securing eternal life (5 13 , cf. 3 23 ), and even (3 Jno 7)
of the whole Christian course turning on loyalty to
1 the Name,' — that is, obviously, Jesus' Name, —
without further definition. Clearly, to him, ' the
Name of Jesus ' was the Name that is above every
name. 21

Even a rapid glance like this over the designations
applied to Christ in the Epistles written by Christ's
How Our Lord's immediate companions will suffice to

Companions show that the estimate put upon His
Thought of Him personality by Paul has nothing in it
peculiar to that writer. There may meet us, as we
pass from Epistle to Epistle, varying methods of giv-
ing expression to the faith common to all: but it is
common to all to look upon Jesus Christ as a divine

20 Dr. Westcott in an additional note on i Jno 3 23 , p. 129 seq., gives
a careful study of the names of our Lord in 1 John. Cf. also p. 189
seq., where he discusses the term ' the Christ.'

21 Cf. Westcott, Epistles of St. John, pp. 129 and 232.

The Catholic Epistles 275

person. So far as appears it did not occur to anyone in
the primitive Christian community to put a lower es-
timate upon His personality than that; and writer
vies with writer only in his attempts to give his faith
in his divine Redeemer clear and emphatic expression.
If there was a more primitive conception than this of
Jesus' dignity it had died away and left no trace be-
hind it before the Christian community found a voice
for itself. Whether that can be conceived to have
happened in the course of the few years which inter-
vened between the public career and death of Jesus
and the rise of a Christian literature, — say, in James,
— or, say, in Paul, — or, say, in the evangelic docu-
ments, — each one must judge for himself. But in seek-
ing to form an opinion on this matter, it should be
borne in mind that there intervened only a very brief_
period indeed between the death of Christ and the )
beginnings of Christian literature: that much of this J>
literature credibly represents itself as the product of 3
actual companions of our Lord: and that it was all ,
written in the presence of such companions, reflects
their opinions, and was published under their eye.) That
absolutely no trace of a lower view of the person of
Christ is discernible in any portion of this literature
seems in these circumstances not only a valid sugges-
tion but a convincing proof that no such lower view
had been prevalent in the Christian community: that,
in a word, the followers o-f Jesus must be supposed to
have been heartily convinced of His deity from the very
beginning.

THE WITNESS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE
HEBREWS

The Epistle to the Hebrews enters no claim to be
the composition of one of our Lord's immediate follow-
ers. Neither does it represent the thought of a period
antedating the composition of the Epistles of Paul.
It synchronizes in its date rather with that of the later
half of these Epistles (c. A. D. 64). It comes to us
like its own Melchizedek, " without father, without
mother, without genealogy," bearing its own independ-
ent witness to how Jesus was thought and spoken of
by the Christian community in the seventh decade of
the first Christian century; or, at least, by a special
and very interesting group of Christians living at that
time, made up of those Jews who had seen in Jesus the
promised Messiah and accepted Him as their longed-for
Redeemer.

In the designations it applies to our Lord in gen-
eral, this Epistle reflects, of course, the usage of the
first age of the Church, which has al-
' Christ' ready been observed in the other Epis-
tles: but equally of course not without
its own peculiarities. As in the Epistles of Paul, the
most frequently occurring of the simple designations
is ' Christ' (3 6 ' 14 5 5 6 1 9 11 ' 14 ' 24 ' 28 n 26 ). 1 The simple
1 Jesus,' however, is employed relatively much more

1 * Christ ' is used everywhere as a proper name — even when it has
the article: cf. Davidson, Ep. to the Heb., 73, note 1. In some passages
the term ' Son ' is almost or quite a proper name : cf . Riehm 272, Da-
vidson, loc, at., note 2,

Witness of Epistle to the Hebrews 277

frequently than in Paul's letters (2 9 3 1 6 20 7 22
io 19 12 2 ' 24 13 12 ) : it occurs almost as frequently,
indeed, as * Christ.' Neither is , however, a com-
mon title in Hebrews (nine and eight times re-
spectively) , nor is the compound title * Jesus Christ,'
which occurs three times (io 10 13 8 ' 21 ), while * Lord
Jesus' (13 20 ) and ' Jesus the Son of God' (4 14 ) each
occurs once. The simple ' Lord ' also is only occa-
sionally applied to our Lord (i 10 2 3 7 14 [12 14 ]); and
no combinations of it with other designations occur
at all, except, as we have already intimated, the phrase
* our Lord Jesus ' is once met with ( 13 20 ) . 2 It is notice-
able that in two of the three instances in which the term
4 Lord ' is employed of Christ (i 10 2 3 ) it is used in
order to throw into prominence His superangelic dig-
nity. The peculiarity of Hebrews is manifested in the
free use it makes of the two designations, * the Son '
(i 2 ' 5 ' 5 ' 8 3 6 5 5 ' 8 7 28 ), or more fully the 'Son of God'
(4 14 6 6 f io 29 ), and 'the (or our) High Priest '

( 2 17 3 1 4 14,15 5 10 6 20 ? 26 gl ^1) Qr s ; mply « prf^ , ( j6

7 3,n,[i5LiT,2i [84]j IQ 2i^ whlch form reS pectively the
favorite ontological and the favorite soteriological des-
ignations of Christ in this Epistle.

It is chiefly by means of and in connection with the
title 'Son' that this Epistle (in this, like the Epistles

_ . . , of John) gives expression to its concep-
Recognition of . * c ' ° T F, _, \

Jesus' Humanity tlon of our Lords person. There is
no lack of recognition of the humanity

of our Lord. Indeed, nowhere else in the New Testa-

2 Cf. Sven Herner, op. cit., p. 41: "The usage by which xupto$ is
applied to Christ is not alien to Hebrews. We meet once (13 20 ) with
the designation 'our Lord Jesus': and at 7 14 we read 'that the Lord
springs from Judah.' In i 10 God is represented as saying to Christ,
*Xhou, Lord, hast laid the foundations of the earth,' and 2 3 speaks of

278 The Designations of Our Lord

ment do we find the reality and the completeness of
His humanity so fully expounded and so strongly in-
sisted upon. 3 But it is the transcendent conception of
Christ, which looks upon Him as ' the Son of God,'
clothed with all the attributes of God, that gives its
whole tone to the Epistle. 4 The keynote is struck in
the very opening verses, where our Lord is set as
' Son ' in contrast not merely with the prophets, the
greatest representatives of God on earth, but also with
the angels, the highest of creatures. All these are
servants of God : He is His l Son,' through whom no
doubt God works (i 2 ), but as one works through a
fellow in whom He is reduplicated; and whom He
addresses by the great names peculiar to Himself,
* God ' ( i 8 ) and — its equivalent here — ' Lord ' ( i 10 2 2 ) .
That it is what is called the metaphysical Sonship,
which is here attributed to our Lord is obvious in

itself and is put beyond all doubt by the
What 'the , . . *\ . , . . r tt-

Son' is description which is given of Him as

i Son.' 5 In this description there are as-
signed to Him divine works, in eternity and in time:
the creation of the world and the upholding of the

the salvation which the Lord has announced. Finally Hebrews has a
passage where we cannot decisively pronounce whether xupio$ refers
to God or to Christ, . . . (12 14 )."

3 Cf. Riehm, Der Lehrbegriff des Hebraerbriefes, 1867, p. 271.
" We shall see that the author emphasizes the true humanity of Jesus

^ more than is found in any other N. T. book." Accordingly, cf. §§36,
37» 38, 39, for details.

4 Cf. Riehm, pp. 270, 271 : " He sees in Christ above all the Son of
God in the eminent sense of that word."

5 Cf. Riehm, op. at., p. 276 : " There is already contained in what has
been said the solution of the second question which we were to deal
with in this paragraph — the question, namely, whether the uniquely
intimate relation of Christ to God, which is designated by the name of

Witness of Epistle to the Hebrews 279

universe. But the most striking element of it tells us
rather what the * Son ' is than what He had done or is
yet to do. He is, we are told, " the effulgence of God's
glory and the very image of His substance" — which
seems to be only a rich and suggestive way of saying,
to put it briefly, that the * Son,' as ' Son/ is just God's
fellow. He is the repetition of God's glory: the re-
iteration of His substance. By the " glory of God"
is meant here just the divine nature itself, apprehended
in its splendor: and by its "effulgence" is meant not
a reflection, but, so to speak, a reduplication of it.
The * Son ' is just God over again in the glory of His
majesty. 6 Similarly by the " substance " of God is
meant, not His bare essence, but His whole nature, with
all its attributes; and by "the very image " is meant
a correspondence as close as that which an impression
gives back to a seal : the * Son ' of God in no single
trait in the least differs from God. 7 In a word, what is

Son, is an ethico-religious or a metaphysical one. Since this name be-
longs to Christ on account of His pretemporal relation to God, the
notion ' Son of God ' is plainly in the first instance a metaphysical one.
. . . An unprejudiced exposition of the relative passages must lead
to the conclusion that according to the doctrine of the author, it is pre-
cisely the metaphysical attributes which are attributed to Christ in
i 2 se( i. that make Him the ' Son of God.' "

6 Riehm offers this illustration to clarify the notion of &7zauyao~iia:
" Should all the light which proceeds from the sun be united again in
a second body of light, which radiates it out again a second time, there
would be an aTzaoyafffxa of the sun in the sense in which the author
has used the word here. All the rays of the manifold divine glory
unite again in the Son, in order in Him, joined together in a new glori-
ous Light-Being, to present the divine glory a second time and to make
it through this second presentation visible even to the creature" (p. 288).
Cf. also Davidson in loc, who judiciously echoes Riehm.

7 Cf. Riehm, op. cit., p. 284: "What the writer wishes is to empha-
size in this second predicate that the nature of the Son corresponds
precisely with the nature of the Father; that there is no trait in the

280 The Designations of Our Lord

given to us in the * Son ' is here declared to be God as
1 Son ' standing over against God as ' Father.' 8

It can cause no surprise, therefore, when the author
declares that it was of the ' Son ' that God 9 was speak-
ing in the Psalm (45°), when He said,

His Deity " Thy throne, O God, is forever and
ever." This is only to apply directly to
the * Son ' the name which is in the whole discussion
implied to be His: for undoubtedly the very point
of the whole argument is to the effect that Jesus Christ
as the * Son of God ' stands infinitely above every crea-
ture just because He is ' God ' Himself. 10 We may
leave undecided the question whether or no the dox-
ology at the close of the Epistle is to be referred to
Christ, treated here as the God He is recognized

nature of the Father which does not find itself in perfection also in the
nature of the Son, and vice versa." Of the whole, he says (pp. 284-5) :
" The Son is then, according to the doctrine of the Ep. to the Heb., an
independently existing Divine Person, whose substance is not created
by God, but has proceeded out of the glory of the Father's nature; a
Divine Person to whom in consequence the same glorious nature be-
longs, so that every attribute of the Father repeats itself in the Son,
and every attribute of the Son repeats itself in the Father; so that
through the Son the whole nature of God is completely revealed."
Cf. the long " Note on the Son " in Davidson's Commentary, pp. 73-79.

8 It is noticeable, however, that God is not called ' Father ' as over
against the ' Son ' in this Epistle. Cf . Riehm, op. cit., p. 272 : " As the
author so frequently designates Christ as the Son of God, it is some-
what remarkable that he only a single time and that in a citation from
the O. T. (i 5 ) calls God the Father of Christ."

9 For this is the significance of the formulas of citation to which i 8
goes back.

10 So Delitzsch, in loc. (E. T., p. 76) : "The very point of the argu-
ment for the superiority of the Son above the angels, drawn from Ps
45 7 and foil., lies surely in the fact that He is here twice, or at least
once, addressed in the vocative as 6 0e6s, 99 Hofmann and even
Riehm are unnecessarily subtle here.

Witness of Epistle to the Hebrews 281

throughout the Epistle as being. Certainly there is
no reason why this author should not have ascribed
" eternal glory " to the Being he had described as in
His very nature " the effulgence of the divine glory," 11
and for that very reason it may be a matter of indif-
ference to us whether he has done so or not. Nor is
much added to this picture of the divine Christ by his
designation of Him, without qualification, as ' the
Firstborn ' (i 6 ), or by his noticing that God has " ap-
pointed Him Heir of all things" (i 2 ). 'Firstborn'
and ' Heir ' are little more than specially honorific ways
of saying ' Son.' God's 4 Firstborn ' as such takes
rank above all other existing beings: even all of the
angels shall do Him reverence. God's ' Firstborn '
is also naturally God's * Heir,' an heir whose inher-
itance embraces the universe, and whose tenure
stretches to eternity. All these declarations are bound
very closely together in their common relation to the
fundamental conception of our Lord's divine Sonship;
and constitute items by the mention of which the con-
tents of the idea of Sonship are developed. The state-
ments of the opening verses of the Epistle seem to be
arranged in a sort of climax by means of which the
glory of the New Covenant, revealed in the * Son,'
is more and more enhanced. The glory of the New
Covenant is that it has been introduced by God the
« Son ' — that ' Son ' who, despite His lowly manifesta-

"Riehm says (p. 286): "Still how can it occasion surprise that the
author in 13 21 praises Jesus Christ with the doxology, u> i) doga ej?
tod? aia>va$, which, according to O. T. notions, is due to Jehovah
only, but in the N. T. passages is also transferred to Christ? It is
recognized by all recent commentators that the relative (w) refers to
Christ and not to God." So also Bleek, Lunemann, Maier, Kurtz,
Lowrie: contra, Delitzsch: non liquet, Davidson.

282 The Designations of Our Lord

tion on earth, has been appointed heir of all things, —
that is, Lord of all : by whom, indeed, the worlds were
made in the depths of eternity, — that is, who is the
eternal Creator of all that is : who, in fact, is in Him-
self the effulgence of God's glory and the impress of
His substance — that is to say, all that God is: and by
whom, because He is all that God is, the universe is
held in being.

It is particularly noticeable that at this precise point
a mention of Christ's propitiatory work is introduced.
This ' Son of God,' whose dignity has
Titles 1 been thus expounded, "made purifica-
tion of sins." The soteriological inter-
est is present, therefore, even in this ontological
passage, and it is the soteriological interest, indeed,
which gives its importance to this ontological discus-
sion in the eyes of the writer. The soteriological titles
by which he designates our Lord are therefore nat-
urally as rich as the ontological ones. He is ' the Me-
diator of the New Covenant ' (8 6 9 15 12 24 ) : He is the
Ground of eternal Salvation (5 9 ) : He is 'the Author
of Salvation ' (2 10 , cf. Acts 3 15 5 31 ) : He is * the Author
and Perfecter of our Faith ' (12 2 ) : He is our Forerun-
ner into that which is within the veil (6 20 ) : 12 He
is ' the Apostle and High Priest of our Confes-
sion ' (3 1 ) : He is 'the Great Shepherd of the Sheep'

12 The aiTio$ of Salvation (5 s ) is merely He who is the Cause or
Producer of Salvation. The apyjtfos of Salvation (2 10 , cf. 12 2 ) is
commonly supposed to be He who has Himself trodden the pathway
over which our feet should pass, and to be so far equivalent to the izpo-
dpofio? (6 20 ). So, e. g. G. Vos in the Princeton Theological Review,
July, 1907, p. 434, who classes dpyyyos and 7rpodpop.o$ together as
implying identification in experience, in contrast with al'rcos in which
this is not present ; but see to the contrary, Cremer, ed. 3 and subsequent
edd.

Witness of Epistle to the Hebrews 283

(13 20 ) : and, above all (for this is a favorite concep-
tion of this Epistle), He is our ' Priest ' (5 s 78.11.c1w.1w
[8 4 ] io 21 ) or more specifically 13 our * High Priest'
([2 17 ] 3 1 4 14 ' 15 5 10 6 20 7 26 8 1 9 11 ). All these are great
designations: and we see at a glance that they reflect
in their substance the high estimate put upon our
Lord's person as the * Son of God.' It is only because
He is the ' Son of God ' that He may be fitly described
in His saving work by these high designations. It is
also at once observable that the Messanic conception
underlies and gives form to them all. If Jesus is con-
ceived by the writer of this Epistle in His person
fundamentally as the eternal ' Son of God'; He is
equally conceived in His work as fundamentally the
Messiah appointed of God to inaugurate the new order
of things and to bring His people safely into the ex-
perience of the promised salvation. As ' Mediator of
the New Covenant ' He gives His life for the redemption
of His people, establishing new relations between them

13 Dr. Vos (Princeton Theological Review, July, 1907, p. 432),
supposes the use of the simple ' priest ' to be due in general to the
appeal to Ps. no (5 10 being exceptional), while 'High Priest' is the
real preference of the author, resting on a reference in his mind to
the entrance of the High Priest into the Holy of Holies on the day of
the atonement, which prefigures what is to him the central act of Christ's
priestly ministry, — the entrance into Heaven. " The Saviour is a high
priest because in the discharge of His ministry He enters into Heaven.
. . . The inference lies near that the whole discussion of the subject
ultimately serves the purpose of showing the necessity of the
heavenly state of existence of the Saviour." On the other hand,
cf. Davidson, p. 147 : " According to the representation of the Epistle,
there is no difference in principle between priest and high priest";
and Denney, Hastings' B. D., iv. p. 98 a: "In the New Testament
it is only in the Ep. to the Hebrews that Jesus is spoken of as lepeu?,
figyas iepeu$ and dp/tepsu? — terms which are not to be distinguished
from each other, the last two only signifying Christ's eminence in the
priestly character."

284 The Designations of Our Lord

and God by means of His blood. As the ' Originator
of Salvation,' He tasted death for every man, receiving
in Himself the penalties due to them, not to Him. As
1 Author and Perfecter of our faith ' He endured the
cross, despising the shame that He might be not merely
our example, but our Saviour. As ' the Great Shep-
herd ' He laid down His life for His sheep. As
'the Apostle and High Priest' He is the One ap-
pointed by God to make sacrifice of Himself for the
sins of the people, — for every High Priest must needs
have somewhat to offer, and this ' our High Priest f
has through His own blood obtained eternal redemp-
tion for us.

We see that the red thread of redemption in blood
is woven into all the allusions to the saving work of the

' Son of God.' And we see that the chief
^Priest" 1 " vehicle in this Epistle for the expression

of this high teaching is the representation
of our Lord's work as priestly in its nature, and the proc-
lamation of Him as ' the great High Priest.' The
interest of this grows out of the circumstance that
here at last in the New Testament the conception of
Messiah as Priest comes to its rights. In their ab-
sorption in the conception of Messiah as King, the
Jews gave scanty hospitality to the rich suggestions of
the Old Testament of other aspects in which His office
and work might be contemplated. It was characteristic
of Christianity, under the illumination thrown back
upon the promise by its fulfillment, to gather these
neglected aspects together and note their fulfillment in
Christ. Among them was the conception of Messiah
as a priest performing the priestly work of propitia-
tion. There seems to be little trace of the currency of

Witness of Epistle to the Hebrews 285

such a conception among the Jews. There is also lit-
tle use made of it in other books of the New Testa-
ment. But in the Epistle to the Hebrews it is given
its full exposition; strikingly illustrated from the same
Psalm which declares the Messiah David's Lord not
less than David's son, — " Thou art a Priest forever
after the order of Melchizedek " ; and made the ve-
hicle for the inculcation of the fundamental doctrine
of Christianity — the propitiatory death of Jesus, the
reconciliation of God by His sacrifice of Himself, and
His eternal intercession for His people. This is the
great contribution of the Epistle to the Hebrews
to the apprehension of the nature of our Lord's
work. 14

14 On the conception of the Messiah as Priest, cf. Stanton, The
Jewish and Christian Messiah, 1867, pp. 128-9; an d esp. pp. 294
seq.; also Hastings' B. D., in., 356 b: and cf. Swete, Hastings' B. D.,
II., 406 : " The Jewish Messiah, however, was chiefly the Anointed
King; the conception of Messiah as the Prophet was less distinct, and
that of a Christ-Priest (lepebs 6 xptffros, Lev 4 5 ' 16 6 22 ) entirely
wanting, until it presented itself to the writer of the Epistle to the
Hebrews (Stanton, Jewish and Christian Messiah, p. 293 ff.)«" On the
idea of our Lord's priesthood see the " extended note on the priesthood
of Christ " in Davidson's Com. on Heb., p. 146 seq.; and cf. Denney
in Hastings' B. D., IV., 98 seq., and especially Vos, as above, pp. 423
seq., who adduces the passages which show that although the terra
' priest ' is not explicitly applied to the Messiah by the Jews, nor to
our Lord elsewhere in the N. T., the idea is not alien to either the
Jews or the N. T. writers.

THE WITNESS OF THE APOCALYPSE

The peculiarity of the Book of Revelation, as an
Apocalypse, gives it the superficial appearance of

A Summary standing apart from the other books of
View of Early the New Testament in a class by itself.

Conceptions j t requires little scrutiny of its contents,
however, to assure us that this is true only of its form.
In the matter of the designations it applies to our Lord,
for example, the cursory reader is impressed by their
novelty and astonished by the richness of their sugges-
tion; but on analyzing their content he soon discovers
that they embody in their splendid phraseology no
other conceptions than those he has been made familiar
with in the other books of the New Testament. In-
deed, there is a sense in which it would not be untrue
to say that the Book of Revelation, written as it was
at the close of the first Christian century (c. A. D.
96), gathers up into an epitome and gives vivid, and
we may say even emotional, expression to the whole
century's thought of Jesus. A certain comprehensive-
ness is thus imparted to its christological allusions
which has puzzled the critical student and been made
by him the reproach of the book and even the occasion
of denial to it of unity of composition. 1 It is in truth

1 Cf . Holtzmann, N. T. Theologie, L, 467 : " The Old Testament
and Jewish conceptions of the Messiah form no doubt the fundamental
basis of the christology, though they are on every side outvied and sur-
mounted; so that such a conglomeration of all Biblical and even
Jewish strata of doctrine results as is wholly without example else-

The Witness of the Apocalypse 287

merely a witness to the unity of the conception of
Jesus which characterized the whole Apostolic Church,
finding, indeed, varied expression according to the
idiosyncrasy of each writer, but remaining through all
variety of expression essentially the same.

The long list of designations in which this concep-
tion of Jesus is at least in part embodied in the Book
of Revelation may be perhaps somewhat
T D°e S ignaTo S ns 0f roughly divided into two classes. We
say roughly divided because the sepa-
rating line is an uncertain one and the two classes melt
insensibly into one another. These two classes may
perhaps equally roughly be discriminated as simple and
descriptive designations: simple designations, that is
to say, names merely designating our Lord, though, of
course, no one of these names merely designates our
Lord, but all have more or less of a descriptive ele-
ment; and descriptive designations, that is to say, des-
ignations which are more or less elaborate descriptions
of His nature and functions.

The simple designations are, in accordance with the
general character of the book as a symbolical Apoca-
lypse, both few and infrequently em-
Simple ployed. 2 In the formal opening of the
esigna ions ^ook we have — as in the formal open-
where in the N. T., and has become one of the chief occasions for the
current hypotheses which attack the unity of the composition." He
quotes Bousset as speaking of the christology of the Apocalypse as a
"confused conglomeration of the most diverse conceptions" (Meyer's
Com. on Rev., 161). Cf. R. Palmer, The Drama of the Apocalypse, p.
105, who complains that " the point of view of the seer is continually
changing," so that it is impossible to obtain a unitary doctrine from
him.

2 Cf. Holtzmann's enumeration, Theologie des N. T., i, 467, and
Gebhardt. Doctrine of the Apocalypse, p. 77.

288 The Designations of Our Lord

ing of several others of the New Testament books
(Mt i 1 ' 18 , Mk i 1 , Jno i 17 , Rom i\ i Cor i 1 , Gal i 1 ,
i P i 1 , 2 Pi 1 , [Jno i 3 , 2 Jno 3], Jude 1) — the full cere-
monious name, 'Jesus Christ' (i 1 ' 1 ' 5 ). In the formal
closing verses of the book the place of this solemn des-
ignation is taken by the somewhat more descriptive
designation 'the Lord Jesus' (22 20 ' 21 , cf. however, v.
r. * Jesus Christ ' in verse 21). The simple ' Jesus '
occurs more frequently ( i 9,9 12 17 14 12 17 6 19 10 ' 10 20 4
22 16 ), and, if we may be allowed the expression, ap-
pears to be the more emotional, as distinguished from
the more formal, simple designation of our Lord in
this book. The simple * Christ ' occurs only twice
(20 46 ), although in what we may call its more descrip-
tive form — that is in its appellative use — ' the Lord's
Christ (Anointed),' ' God's Christ (Anointed),' — it
occurs twice more (at n 15 12 10 ). The term 'Lord'
seems to be a designation of Christ at 14 13 : and His
Lordship is of course copiously recognized elsewhere,
not merely by implication as in the designation of a
day as " the Lord's day " ( i 10 ) , 3 but in a series of elab-
orately descriptive designations the simplest of which
is perhaps ' the King of Kings and Lord of Lords '
(19 16 ), varied to 'the Lord of Lords and King of
Kings ' (17 14 , cf. i 5 2 1 ' 12 3 7 5 5 ). Of the more common
Messianic designations, besides the fundamental ' the
Christ' (n 15 12 10 ; and in compounds i 1>2>5 ) and
' Christ ' ( 20 4 ' 6 ) , only ' the Son of God ' occurs, and that
but once (2 18 , cf. ' my Father,' 2 27 3 521 ; ' His God and
Father,' i 6 ; 'my God,' 3 2 ' 12 ), and accompanied by

3 Such a phrase as ij xuptaxy ijfiipa could not have been framed
unless Jesus had been to His followers 'the Lord' by way of eminence.
Cf. 1 Cor n 20 , 'the Lord's Supper.'

The Witness of the Apocalypse 289

descriptive adjuncts which give it its very highest
connotation. Our Lord's own ' Son of Man,' how-
ever, has its echo in the description of Jesus in two
visions as " one like unto a Son of Man " (i 13 14 14 ) :
and by the preservation in this designation of the " like
unto " of the Danielic vision (7 13 ) — strengthened from
the simple <k to the emphatic ofioiov, — the seer man-
ages to assert with great strength the essential deity of
our Lord. He was not a son of man but only " like
unto a son of man." 4 He even enhances this im-
plication by interweaving into the description traits
drawn not only from Daniel's " Son of Man," but also
from his " Ancient of Days." 5 The Johannine desig-
nation of * the Word of God ' ( 19 13 ) also occurs as the
name of the conquering Christ, apparently with the
implication that in Jesus is manifested the definitive
revelation of God in which He addresses Himself to
man with irresistible power. 6 Probably the " man
child" (or "son") of 12 5 (cf. 12 13 , "the man")
(ultimately refers to our Lord: and if so it also is
doubtless Messianic, taking hold at once of Is 66 7 and
Psalm 2 9 , possibly even of Gen 4 1 : in any event the
allusion is to the conquest of evil by this Son of the
woman.

* Cf. Gebhardt, Doctrine of the Apocalypse, pp. 78-9: " De Wette and
Hengstenberg find in the expression the superhuman glory of Christ;
for, as De Wette remarks, to affirm of a man that he is like a man is
to say nothing; or as Hengstenberg expresses it, if Christ only resem-
bles a Son of Man, there must be another side of His nature which
surpasses the human."

5 Cf. Holtzmann, op. cit., pp. 467-8: "The Danielic Son of Man,
J7.13 I4 14 an d e ven the Danielic ' Ancient of Days,' i 14 , shine through."

6 The vision is the vision of the spiritual conquest of the world, and
in such a vision the designation of our Lord as 'the Word of God' is
peculiarly appropriate.

290 The Designations of Our Lord

The more elaborate descriptive titles which are ap-
plied to our Lord embody the same circle of ideas as

are more briefly suggested by the sim-
Descnptive j er designations; and only more viv-
Designations f „ , . , 1 ■ •

idly and richly express their contents.

Some of these have for their burden the saving activi-
ties of our Lord and may therefore fitly be called
soteriological. A good example of these is provided
by the direct description of Llim as " Him that loved
us and loosed us from our sins by His blood" (i 5 ).
But the most striking and at the same time the most
frequently employed descriptive designation of this
class is that which calls Him " the Lamb that hath
been slain" (5 12 13 8 , cf. 5 6,9 7 14 ), or more commonly
simply " the Lamb " without express but always with
implied reference to the actual sacrifice (5 8 ' 13 6 1,18

^9,10.14.17 I2 H I4 M.4,10 j^S ^14 ^7,9 2 j9.14.22.27 22 1,3) 7

Indeed, we understate the matter when we say this is
the most frequently employed descriptive designation
of Christ of its class. It is in fact the most frequently
employed designation of Jesus of any
'The Lamb* kind, and must be looked upon as em-
bodying the seer's favorite mode of
conceiving of Jesus and His work. He even uses it
in such a manner as to suggest that it had acquired for

7 The word is dpviov, which is used 26 times of Christ in Revela-
tion (in 13 11 it is otherwise used). It is found elsewhere in the N. T.
only at Jno 21 15 (plural), where it represents Christ's followers.
Jesus is called * Lamb ' («//.vo?) in Jno i 2 9.s 6 , Acts 8 32 , 1 P i 19 , and
nowhere else except in Rev. (apviov\ In the whole N. T. 'lamb '
(whether d/ivo? or Apviov) occurs only of Christ except at Jno 21 15
(apvia) [cf. Lk io 3 (apyv)]. On the use of the diminutive apviov
of Jesus see A. B. Grosart in the Expos. Times, II. p. 57, and cf. Geb-
hardt, p. 112; Swete, p. 77.

The Witness of the Apocalypse 291

him much the status of a proper name, and suggested
itself as a designation of Jesus even when the mind
of the writer was dwelling on other aspects of His
work than that most closely symbolized by this title. 8
There could be no more striking indication of the high
significance the writer attached to the sacrificial death
of Christ, and to the dominance of the fifty-third chap-
ter of Isaiah in the framing of his Messianic concep-
tions; matters which are otherwise copiously illustrated
by his language. 9 Other prevailingly soteriological des-
ignations advert especially to our Lord's resurrection, —
such as that by which He is spoken of as ' the First-
born of the Dead' (i 5 ) ; and others still to His trust-
worthiness, such as when He is called ' the Faithful
and True' (19 11 ), or 'the Faithful Witness' (i 5 ),
and more elaborately * the Amen, the Faithful and
True Witness, the beginning of the creation of God '
(3 14 ) ; or again, ' He that is holy, He that is true,

8 So Hoekstra, De Christologie der Apocalypse, in the Theologisck
Tijdschrift, III., 1869, p. 4; and even Gebhardt, Doctrine of the Apoca-
lypse, 1873, pp. 113, 114: "The seer in the course of his representa-
tion unquestionably often uses the expression ' the Iamb ' without any
special signification, but only as a standing designation of Christ
(cf. 17 14 ) "

9 Cf. Holtzmann, op. ciU, I., 472: "This 29-O7-] times occurring
Lamb, the most individual christological conception of the author (see
Vol. II., 478) refers back most probably to Is 53 7 ." Perhaps we ought
to say it refers back proximately to Jno i 29 , and forms one of those
subtle indications that this book is the composition of John — who was
one of the two disciples (Jno i 35 ) to whom the Baptist pointed out
Jesus as " the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world."
It has been too little observed to what an extent John (both in Gospel
and Epistles and in the Apocalypse) was influenced in his conceptions by
the Baptist. The thesis might be defended that the Baptist was his first
and most impressive teacher in theology. In any event it is important
to observe such hints of an underlying unity between Gospel and
Apocalypse.

292 The Designations of Our Lord

He that hath the keys of David, He that openeth and
none shall shut and that shutteth and none shall open '

(3 7 )-

The transition from these soteriological designations
to those which are more purely honorific, or perhaps

we might better say, ontological, is very
D^n^ions gradual, or indeed insensible: and

nothing is more characteristic of the
book than the sharp contrast into which designations
of the two classes are brought by their immediate con-
junction. Thus, for example, we read: " And I
wept much, because no one was found to open the
book, . . . and one of the elders saith unto me,
Weep not, behold the Lion that is of the tribe of
Judah . . . hath overcome to open the book. . . .
And I saw in the midst of the throne, and of the four
living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb
standing as though it had been slain, . . . and
he came and taketh the book . . . " (5 4seq ).
There is no question of mixed metaphors here: there
is only question of bringing together in Jesus by the
most varied of symbols all the aspects of the Mes-
sianic prediction, and the exhibition of these all as
finding their fulfillment in Him. All these designations
are distinctly Messianic in their ground tone, and the
Messianic ground tone is taken from all forms
of the Messianic expectation, but perhaps prevail-
ingly from that associated in the Gospels with the
title of ' Son of Man,' to which there is manifest
allusion even in passages in which there is not only
no adduction of that title, but no direct designa-
tion of our Lord from that point of view (i 7 ). The
great opening description of our Lord as * Jesus

The Witness of the Apocalypse 293

Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the
dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth' (i 5 )
unites already nearly all forms of designating Him
employed in the book. Here is the simple name, the
recognition of His dependableness, and the ascription
to Him of the inauguration of life and of universal
sovereignty. The Messianic ground tone is especially
prominent in such designations as those which call
Him 'the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of
David' (5 5 ), or 'the Root and the Offspring of
David, the bright, the morning Star ' (22 16 ) , but passes
more into the background in such as those which speak
of Him as ' the Son of God who hath eyes like a flame
of fire and His feet are like unto burnished brass '
(2 18 ), or 'He that holdeth the seven stars in His
right hand, He that walketh in the midst of the seven
golden candlesticks ' (2 1 ), or ' He that hath the seven
spirits of God and the seven stars' (3 1 ). It is His
Messianic function of judgment which is thrown for-
ward in the description of Him as ' He that hath the
sharp two-edged sword' (2 12 ) ; 'He that is the ruler
of the kings of the earth' (i 5 ), 'whose eyes are like
a flame of fire' (2 18 ), and who, since His dominion
is universal, is ' the Lord of Lords and King of Kings '
(17 14 19 16 ) — although a greater than a Messiah is
obviously here. The climax is attained in the descrip-
tion of Him as ' the First and the Last, which was dead
and lived again ' (2 8 ), ' the First and the Last, and the
Living One' (i 18 ), 'the Alpha and Omega, the First
and the Last, the Beginning and the End' (22 13 ), in
whose hands are the destinies of men (i 18 3 7 ) . 10

10 Cf. A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the O. T., p. 165, on the
high meaning of these phrases here applied to Jesus : " ' The first and

294 The Designations of Our Lord

It seems scarcely necessary to draw out in detail the

wealth of implication of deity which these designations

contain. The Apocalypse does not

c ^ t 1 V * apply to our Lord directly the simple
of Our Lord f K J . _, , , _ J . f

designation Uod. but everything

short of that is done to emphasize the seer's estimate
of Him as a divine Being clothed with all the divine
attributes. 11 This is generally allowed; and those who
are set upon having the Apocalypse witness to a lower
christology commonly content themselves with the re-
mark that its language must not be taken at its face
value. Baur, for example, contends that although the
highest predicates are ascribed to Jesus, they are " only
names borne outwardly by Him, and are not associated
with His person in any inner unity of nature "; that

last' (Is 44 6 ) is a surprising generalization for a comparatively early
time. It is not a mere statement that Jehovah was from the beginning
and will be at the end. It is a name indicating His relation to history
and the life of men. He initiates it, and He winds it up. And He is
present in all its movements. 'Since it was, there am I' (48 16 ). Even
the last book in the N. T. has nothing loftier to say of Jehovah than
that He is ' the first and the last ' : ' I am the Alpha and the Omega, the
first and the last, saith the Lord, the Almighty' (Rev i 8 )." It is by
these lofty designations that Jesus is spoken of in the Apocalypse. Cf.
Swete on the passage.

11 Cf. the brief but instructive sketch of the christology of the Apoca-
lypse in Swete, pp. civ. seq., especially the summary of the relations of
Christ to God on p. clvii.: " (1) He has the prerogatives of God. He
searches men's hearts (2 23 ) ; He can kill or restore life (i 18 2 23 ) ; He
receives a worship which is rendered without distinction to God (5 13 ) ;
His priests are also priests of God (20 6 ) ; He occupies one throne with
God (22 1 ' 3 ), and shares one sovereignty (n 15 ). (2) Christ receives
the titles of God. He is the Living One (i 18 ), the Holy and True
(3 7 ), the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and
the End (22 13 ). (3) Passages which in the O. T. relate to God are
without hesitation applied to Christ, e.g. Deut io 17 (i7 14 )> P r <> v 3 12

The Witness of the Apocalypse 295

" inner connection between the divine predicates and
the historical individual who bears them " is lacking. 12
In point of fact these divine predicates are there; and
whether the seer means anything by them may be safely
left to the reader to decide. Jesus is represented as
emphatically as God Himself, as the living one (i 18 ),
eternal (i 18 ), omniscient (i 14 2 18 19 12 ), the searcher
of the reins and hearts (2 23 ), in whose hands
are the keys of death and hell (i 18 ). If in
reminiscence of Is 44 s where the Lord, the King
of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts, de-
clares of Himself: " I am the first and the last: and
beside me there is no God," — God is represented as
announcing: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the
beginning and the end" (21 6 , cf. i 8 ), Jesus equally
(despite the strong monotheistic assertion of the orig-
inal passage) is represented as announcing: " I am the
first and the last, and the living one " (1 1748 , cf. 2 8 ),
" I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the

(3 19 ), Dan 7 9 (i 14 ), Zech 4 10 (s 6 ). Thus the writer seems either to
coordinate or to identify Christ with God. Yet he is certainly not
conscious of any tendency to ditheism, for his book is rigidly mono-
theistic; nor, on the other hand, is he guilty of confusing the two
Persons."

12 So also substantially Kostlin and Hoekstra. See the refutation in
Gebhardt, pp. 86 seq. Bousset (Meyer's Com. on Apoc.) y while repre-
senting the christology of the book as " a confused conglomeration of
the most diverse conceptions" (280), has yet to recognize that it is (in
some of its elements at least) " apparently the most advanced in the
whole N. T." (280). He says: "We have in it the faith of a layman
unaffected by any theological reflection, which with heedless naivete
simply identifies Christ in His predicates and attributes with God,
while on the other side it calmly incorporates also wholly archaic
elements."

296 The Designations of Our Lord

last, the beginning and the end" (22 13 ). 13 Indeed, in

the opening address we have one of
Trinitarian , r^ . . . 1 • 1

Background those Trinitarian arrangements which

betray the real underlying conception
of deity in others, too, of the New Testament writers:
" Grace to you and peace from Him which is and which
was and which is to come " — that is Jehovah, of which
this is an analysis, — " and from the seven Spirits " —
that is the Holy Spirit set forth in His divine com-
pleteness, — " and from Jesus Christ who is the faith-
ful witness, the firstborn from the dead and the ruler
of the kings of the earth" (i 4seq ). In the presence
of such pervasive and universally recognized ascrip-
tions of deity to our Lord we need not stop to ex-
pound the significance of such designations as that
by which He is called not merely the ' Amen 14 and the
faithful and true witness,' but ' the principle of the

13 Dr. B. W. Bacon, Hastings' D. C. G., I., 43 seq., endeavors to ex-
pound the application of these phrases to Christ as an eschatologico-
soteriological adaptation, in which the metaphysical implication is lost:
in them Christ would say "I am the primary object and ultimate ful-
fillment of God's promise" (4 3 ). What is in its application to God,
therefore, " a solemn designation of Divinity " becomes when trans-
ferred to Christ only an assertion that in Him the promised redemption
is accomplished: "It is only in the eschatological sense that Christ be-
comes the original object and ultimate fulfillment of the Divine pur-
poses and promises, ' the Yea and Amen,' ' the Alpha and the Omega,
the first and the last, the beginning and the end'" (p. 45). The arti-
ficiality and inadequacy of this construction is manifest. Cf. on the
other hand A. E. Ross, art. "First and Last," Hastings' D. C. G., I.,
595 seq., who frankly allows " that the title ' the First and the Last ' as
applied to Christ in Rev. recalls and attributes to Him all that the O. T.
writers had realized of the nature of God" (596 a). Cf. Dr. David-
son, as above, p. 318, note, on the essential significance of the phrases.

14 On the 'Amen' as a designation of our Lord, cf. J. S. Clemens,
Hastings' D. C. G., I., 51 a., and J. Massie, Hastings' D. B., 1., 81 a.

The Witness of the Apocalypse 297

creation of God' (3 14 ) 15 — that is to say, the active
agent in creating all that God creates. It is abundantly
clear that the Christ of the Apocalypse is a divine
person. 16

15 Cf. Gebhardt, p. 93, and Diisterdieck, in loc.

16 Cf. T. C. Porter in Hastings' B. D., iv., 263 a: "While angels
are classed with men, Christ is classed with God ; and various titles
and expressions carry us beyond not only the Messianic but also the
angelogical speculations of Judaism. He is once called ' the Son of
God' (2 18 , but see also 2 27 3 5 ' 21 , cf. i 6 14 1 ) ; once 'the beginning of
the creation of God' (3 14 ), as only the Divine Wisdom is called in
O. T. (Prov 8 22 ), and as Christ is called only by St. Paul in the N. T.
(Col i 15 ). He is called once also the 'Word of God' (19 13 ), and
even this Johannine (Hellenistic) title is surpassed by the title of eter-
nity, 'the First and the Last' (i 1 ? 2 8 22 13 )." Cf. Stanton, The Jewish
and Christian Messiah, p. 163.

THE ISSUE OF THE INVESTIGATION

We have now passed in review the whole body of

designations which are applied to our Lord in the

Fundamental pages of the New Testament. We

thTchr^ian cannot faI1 t0 be impressed with the
Community variety of these designations and the
richness of their suggestion. It would be a pleasant
task to develop all their implications. This would,
however, take us too far afield for our present pur-
pose. Let it suffice to observe that at bottom they
seem to be charged with three specific convictions on
the part of the Christian community, to which they
give endlessly repeated and endlessly varied expres-
sion. Christ is the Messiah; Christ is our Redeemer;
Christ is God: these are the great asseverations which
are especially embodied in them. All three are already
summed up in the angelic announcement which was
made to the shepherds at His birth : " I bring you
good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the
people: for there is born to you this day in the city
of David the Saviour, who is Christ the Lord" (Lk
2 11 ). The whole New Testament may be said to be
an exposition and enforcement of that announcement:
and in the course of this exposition and enforcement it
teaches us many things. Above all, it places beyond
dispute the main fact with which we have now to deal,
this fact, to wit, that the whole Christian community,

The Issue of the Investigation 299

and that from the very beginning, was firmly convinced
that Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh.

There really can be found no place for doubt of this
fact. But upon its emergence as an indubitable fact
This Conviction it becomes plain that it is freighted with

Our SU Lord' e s S S reat significance. The fact that the
Teaching whole Christian community from the
very beginning held, as to its fundamental principle,
to the deity of its founder, is a very remarkable fact,
and surely needs accounting for. And it will be found
difficult to impossibility adequately to account for it
except upon the assumption that the founder of Chris-
tianity really was a divine person. This universal
and uniform conviction of the deity of Christ in the
primitive Christian body in a word implies the actual
deity of Christ, as its presupposition. It cannot be
supposed that the whole body of the first Christians
firmly believed in the deity of their Master without
evidence — without much evidence — without convincing
evidence. The primary item of this evidence was no
doubt our Lord's own self-assertion: and this is a
fact of the first importance which is immediately given
in the fact of the universal and uniform belief in our
'^Lord's deity which characterized the first age of the
Church. That belief cannot possibly be accounted for
except on the supposition that it was founded in our
Lord's teaching. As certain as it is then that the primi-
tive Christians were firmly and without exception con-
vinced of our Lord's deity, so certain is it that our
Lord — as indeed He is represented to have done in the
uniform tradition — asserted Himself to be a divine
person. And now we must go further. As certain
as it is that these two things are true, that the whole

300 The Designations of Our Lord

Christian community believed their Lord to be divine
and that Jesus taught that He was divine, so certain
it is that neither of them could be true if it were not
true that our Lord was divine.

We have already remarked that the Christian com-
munity cannot be supposed to have formed and im-
v^And Something movably fixed in their hearts the con-
More than His viction that their Lord was divine
Teaching without evidence — much evidence —
convincing evidence. We have also pointed out that
the primary item of this evidence was our Lord's own
assertion. But there certainly must have been more
evidence than our Lord's bare assertion. Men do not
without ado believe everyone who announces himself
to be God, upon the bald announcement alone. There
must have been attendant circumstances which sup-
ported the announcement and gave it verisimilitude, — ■
nay, cogency — or it would not have had such power
over men. Our Lord's life, His teachings, His char-
acter, must have been consonant with it. His deeds
as well as His words must have borne Him witness.
The credit accorded to His assertion is the best possible
evidence that such was the case. We can understand
how His followers could believe Him divine, if in
point of fact He not only asserted Himself to be
divine but lived as became a God, taught as befitted a
divine Instructor, in all His conversation in the world
manifested a perfection such as obviously was not
human: and if dying, He rose again from the dead.
If He did none of these things can their firm and pas-
sionate faith in His deity be explained?

Possibly we do not always fully realize the nature
of the issue here brought before us. Here is a young

The Issue of the Investigation 301

man scarcely thirty-three years of age, emerged from
obscurity only for the brief space of three years, living
Including during those years under the scorn of the
Something world, which grew steadily in intensity
Very Conclusive anc [ finally passed into hatred, and dying
at the end the death of a malefactor: but leaving behind
Him the germs of a world-wide community, the spring
of whose vitality is the firm conviction that He was
God manifest in the flesh. If anything human is ob-
vious it is obvious that this conviction was not formed
and fixed without evidence for it of the most convinc-
ing kind. The account His followers themselves gave
of the matter is that their faith was grounded not
merely in His assertions, nor merely in the impression
His personality made upon them in conjunction with
His claims, — but specifically in a series of divine deeds,
culminating in His rising from the dead, setting its
seal upon His claims and the impression made by His
personality. This is the account of the great place the
Resurrection of Christ takes in the Apostolic propa-
ganda. It is the seal set by heaven upon the truth of
His deity as proclaimed in His teaching. It is safe
to say that apart from evidence so convincing the high
claims of Jesus could not have been met with such firm
and unquestioning faith by His followers. This very
faith becomes thus a proof of the truth of His claims. 1

1 Cf. Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah, pp. 252, 253:
" It appears to me that without the cooperation of the two main causes
here indicated, first the impression made by the personality of Jesus,
His works and His claims for Himself, before His crucifixion, and
then the evidence which convinced His disciples of His resurrection,
faith in Him as a supernatural Christ could not have been established
so universally from the first."

302 The Designations of Our Lord

And so, in fact, is the mere fact that He made these
claims. We have seen that the fact that He made
Not Supposable these claims is not only asserted by all
that Jesus made His followers, but is safeguarded by
False Claims their faith in His deity, which were in-
explicable without it. But it is evident that He could
not have made such a claim unless what He claimed
was true. We are not absurdly arguing that the claim
to be God is one which cannot be made by a human
being untruly. What is it that the folly or wickedness
of men will not compass? But why should we absurdly
argue that Jesus may be supposed to have done what-
ever we think within the compass of human folly or
human wickedness? Was Jesus the silliest of men;
or the most wicked? The point is not that no man
could make such a claim untruly, but that Jesus could
not make it untruly! Many men there have been,
and are, who might do so; some have done so —
men who were vilely impostors or wildly insane. Is
Jesus to be classed with these men? Are we to ask
with Renan how far Jesus may be supposed to have
gone in assuming a role He knew He had no claim
upon? Are we to ask, with Oscar Holtzmann, was
Jesus a fanatic? These are the alternatives: grossly
deceiving; grossly deceived; or else neither deceiving
nor deceived, but speaking the words of soberness and
truth. He, the flower of human sanity; He, the ripe
fruit of human perfection; can He be supposed to
have announced to His followers that He was above all
angels, abode continually in equal intercourse with the
Father, shared with Him in the ineffable Name — and
it not be true? As Dr. Gwatkin 2 crisply puts it,

2 The Knowledge of God, I., 120.

The Issue of the Investigation 303

" There is a tremendous dilemma here which must be
faced: assuming that the tremendous claim ascribed
to Him is false, one would think it must have disor-
dered His life with insanity if He made it Himself,
and the accounts of His life if others invented it."
This witness is true. Neither Jesus nor His follow-
ers could have invented the claims to deity which Jesus
is reported to have made for Himself: for the truth
of these claims is needed to account both for Jesus and
for His followers.

We have no intention of stopping here to argue these
points; if indeed to establish them they need more
The Issue the argument than their mere statement. It
Evktenc e nt of was necessary, however, to suggest
the Source them in order to indicate the gain we
register upon ascertaining, as we have ascertained, that
the entire Christian community from the very first was
firmly convinced of the deity of its Lord. That fact
established, it carries with it the truth of the convic-
tion. For the conviction, in the circumstances in which
it was formed and held, cannot be accounted for save
on the assumption of the existence of compelling evi-
dence for it, and this compelling evidence must include
in it the claims of Jesus, which in turn cannot be
accounted for save on the assumption of their truth.
Grant that Jesus was really God, in a word, and every-
thing falls orderly into its place. Deny it, and you
have a Jesus and a Christianity on your hands both
equally unaccountable. And that is as much as to say
that the ultimate proof of the deity of Christ is just
— Jesus and Christianity. If Christ were not God,
we should have a very different Jesus and a very dif-
ferent Christianity. And that is the reason that mod-

304 The Designations of Our Lord

ern unbelief bends all its energies in a vain effort to
abolish the historical Jesus and to destroy historical
Christianity. Its instinct is right : but its task is hope-
less. We need the Jesus of history to account for the
Christianity of history. And we need both the Jesus of
history and the Christianity of history to account for the
history of the world. The history of the world is the
product of the precise Christianity which has actually
existed, and this Christianity is the product of the pre-
cise Jesus which actually was. To be rid of this Jesus
we must be rid of this Christianity, and to be rid of
this Christianity we must be rid of the world-history
which has grown out of it. We must have the Chris-
tianity of history and the Jesus of history, or we leave
the world that exists, and as it exists, unaccounted for.
But so long as we have either the Jesus of history or the
Christianity of history we shall have a divine Jesus.

INDEXES

These Indexes have been, with great kindness, prepared by
the Rev. Dr. John H. Kerr, Secretary of the American Tract
Society. Thanks are due to Dr. Kerr also for whatever ac-
curacy has been attained in printing the text of the book.

INDEXES

I. Index of the Designations of our Lord.

Advocate (the), 193; See Paraclete.
Advocate with the Father, 220.
Alpha and Omega (the), 292, 295.
Amen (the), the Faithful and True Witness, 290, 295.
Apostle (the) and High Priest of our Confession, 281.
Author ( dLpyyiyds ) of Life (the), 217; — of Salvation, 281;—
and Perfecter of our Faith, 281; — and Saviour, 217.
See Captain, Prince.
Beginning (the) and the End, 292, 295.
Beginning (the) of the Creation of God, 290.
Beloved (the), 13, 22, 83, 117, 126, 128, 150, 245, 269.
Bishop (the) of our Souls, 267.
Bread (the) of God, 193.

Bridegroom (the), 12, 13, 45, 50, 84, 91, 123, 126, 150, 194.
Captain of Salvation (the) 281. See Author, Prince.
Chosen One (the) of God, 113, 117, 126 [192]. See Elect

(the) of God.
Christ, 4, 13, 15, 16, 23, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 65, 75 sq„ 91, 108,
in, 125, 126, 150, 152, 176, 179, 182, 190, 214, 217,
222, 239, 250, 259, 265, 270, 275, 287.

The Christ of God, 15, in, [287].

Christ the Lord, 107, 126, 131, 145, 297.

Christ a King, 65, in, 112.

The Christ the King of Israel, 16.

The Christ the Son of the Living God, 15, 129.
Christ Jesus, 15, 205 sq. t 214, 239, 241, 259.

Christ Jesus our Saviour, 243.

Christ Jesus the (or our) Lord, 238, 239, 242.
Coming One (the), 59, 76, 125, 129, I54> 178, 183, 190 sq.
Comforter (the). See Advocate, Paraclete.
David, He that hath the Keys of, 290.
David, the Root and Offspring of, 292.
David, the Son of. See Son of David.
Despot (dsffTtoTys) , 265, 269. See Master.
Door (the), 193-

307

308 The Designations of Our Lord

Elect (the) of God, 113, 117, [126]. See Chosen One.
Eternal Life, 271 sq. See Life.
Faithful (the) and True, 290.
Faithful (the) and True Witness, 290.
Faithful Witness (the), 290, 295.

First (the) and the Last and the Living One, 292, 294.
Firstborn (the), 280.
Firstborn (the) of the Dead, 290, 295.
Glory (the), 263. Cf. Lord of Glory.
Glory, the Effulgence of God's, 278.

God, 177, 181, 187, 199 sq., 218, 238, 244, 250, 254, 268, 271
sq., 273, 277, 279, 297.

God only-begotten, 178, 195, 199.

Our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, 268, 269.

Our Great God and Saviour, 244, 254, 260.

The true God and Eternal Life, 271 sq,

God over all, 238, 250, 254, 258, 260.
God's Christ, 257. See The Christ of God.
God's Own Son, 218.

God's Son Jesus, 270; — Jesus Christ, 270.
Good Shepherd (the), 193.
Good Teacher, 8.

Guide (xaOqrynlv) , 67, 125. See Master.
Heir (the) of all things, 280.
High Priest, 276, 281, 282 sq. See Priest.
Holy One (the) of God, 14, 20, 113, 126, 158, 191.

Holy One (the), 217.

Holy Thing (that), 1 10.
Holy and Righteous One (the), 216.
Holy and True (He that is), 290.
House-Master ( ohodetncorr}? ) , 67, 68, 91, IOO, 125. See

Master of the House, Master.
Image of God (the), 253; — Image (the) of God's Sub-
stance, 278.
Immanuel, 88, 126.

Jesus, 3, 5, 6, 35, 57, 58, 59, 63, 91, 97, 98, 125, 179, 180,
203, 222, 239, 270, 275, 287.

Jesus the Son of Joseph, 180.

Jesus of Nazareth, 6, 35, 97, 125, 153, 180, 204.

Jesus the Nazarene, 5, 58, 63, 125, 204.

Jesus the Galilean, 58, 64, 125.

Jesus the Prophet from Nazareth of Galilee, 64, 125

Index of Designations 309

Jesus Master, 98, 125.

Jesus our Lord, 238, 268, 289.

Jesus the Son of David, 5, 6, 98, 125.

Jesus the King of the Jews, 58, 64, 125.

Jesus, the Son of God, 98, 270, 276.

Jesus, the Son of the Most High God, 5, 6, 125.
Jesus, surnamed Christ, 58, 61, 64, 125.

Jesus Christ, 5, 14, 15, 57, 58, 59, 63, 74, 125, 177, 178, 183,
184 sq., 205, 212, 239, 24O, 242, 263, 265, 266, 267,
270, 276, 287.

Jesus Christ the Nazarene, 204, 205.

Jesus Christ, the (or our) Lord, 239, 242, 265.

Jesus Christ our Saviour, 243.

Jesus Christ the Righteous, 270.

Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, 270.
King (the), 77, 91, 112, 125, 131, 215.

King of the Jews (the), 13, 17, 77, 112, 125, 189.

King of Israel (the), 13, 16, 18, 77, 125, 132, 189, 190.

King of Kings and Lord of Lords, 287, 292.
Lamb (the) 289, [291].

Lamb of God (the), 192.

Lamb (the) that hath been slain, 289, 291.
Life (the), 271.
Life, Eternal, 272 sq.
Light, 178.

Light of Man, 193.

Light of the World, 193.
Lion (the) that is of the Tribe of Judah, 291, 292.
Living One (the), 294.

Lord ( xupto? ), 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 35, 36, 46, 47, 66, 69 sq., 91,
97, 99, IOI sq., 108, 125, 131, 133, 140 sq., 150, 152,
154, 156, 179, 180, l8l sq., 203, 207 sq., 209 sq., 222
sq., 230 sq., 236 sq., 240, 259, 263, 265, 266, 267, 276,
277, 287.

Lord Jesus, 5, 206, 207, 217, 238, 259, 276, 287.

Lord Christ, 238, 239.

The Lord's Christ, 97, 104, 144, 287.

The (or our) Lord Jesus Christ, 205, 207, 209, 214, 238,
241, 259, 262, 263, 265, 267, 268.

Lord and Christ, 212.

The Lord and Saviour, 268, 269.

Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, 268, 269.

310 The Designations of Our Lord

Lord of Lords and King of Kings, 287, 292.

Lord and God, 181, 187, 200.
Lord of Glory (the), 223, 264.
Lord (the) of the House (6 xuptos t9]$ oixtas), 11, cf. Master

of the House, House-Master.
Loved us (He that) and loosed us from our sins, 289.
Man, 180, 218, 246 [288]. — Man Child, 288.

Master (iTtCffrdr^), 3, 99, IOO, 125. See Guide ( xadrjyrjrr)^ ),
Teacher ( dtddaxaXos) , Despot ( <5e<nror^? ) , Master of
the House or House-Master ( olxodeeitorrjs ) .
Master of the House (oixode^or^). See House-Master.
Master (SeexoTys) and Lord Jesus Christ (our), 265.
Mediator of the New Covenant, 281, cf. 246.
Messiah, 183, 192, cf. Christ.
Nazarene (the), 63, 125.
Only-begotten, 178, 195-

Only-begotten Son, 179, 188, 195, 198.
Only-begotten from the Father, 178, 199.
Only-begotten Son of God, 270.
Only-begotten God, 178, 195.
Paraclete, 193. See Advocate.
Priest, 276, 282 sq. See High Priest.
Prince ( apxw°* )» 217. See Author, Captain.
Prince of Life, 217.
Prince and Saviour, 217.
Principle of the Creation of God, 296.
Prophet, 12, 58, 64, 73, 106, 125, 190, 215, 216.
Rabbi, 3, 6, 7, 35, 66, 125, 180.
Rabboni, 7, 125, 180.
Resurrection (the) and the Life, 193.
Righteous One (the), 216, 217, 270.
Root (the) and Offspring of David, 292.
Ruler (the) of the Kings of the Earth, 291, 292, 295.
Saviour, 107 sq., 126, 131, I44> 217, 243, 245, 268.
Jesus Christ our Saviour, 243, 297.
Christ Jesus our Saviour, 243.
Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, 268, 269.
Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ, 244, 254, 260, 268,

269.
The Saviour of the World, 270.
Servant (iraT?) of God (the), 84, 126, 215, 216.
Sent of God (the), 186.

Index of Designations 311

Shepherd, 12, 84, 126, 193, 267, 281.

The Shepherd and Bishop of our Souls, 267.
The Great Shepherd of the Sheep, 281.
Son of Abraham, 58, 126.
Son of David, 5, 10, 13, I5» 16, 18, 23, 58, 112, 125, 126, 131,

132, 150, 248.
Son of Joseph, 180.

Son (of God), 21, 23, 37, 78, 80^91 sq., 117, 126, 128, 130,
134, 139 sq., 150, 152, 153, I70, 172, 183 sq., 195, 196
sq., 206, 251 sq., 269, 270, 276, 277 sq.
Son of God, 14, 19, 21, 42, 78, 91, no, in, 116, 128, 133,
134, 137 sq., 150, 154, 164, 168, 176, 179, 183, 188,
I90, 195, 212 sq., 215, 2l8, 246, 248, 250, 258, 260,
269, 270, 271, 276 sq., 287.
Son of the Blessed, 14, 16, 19, 126.
Son of the Living God, 15, 79, 126.
Son of the Most High, 116, 126.
Son of the Most High God, 5, 14, 19, 43, 1 10, 116, 126,

139, 153.
Son of Man, 4, 14, 15, 16, 24 sq., 38 sq., 51, 54, 84 sq., 91,

119 sq., 126, 133, 135 sq., 150, 152, 153, 154, 156, 166,

167, 169, 172, 194, 212, [288].
Star, the Bright and Morning, 292.
Stars, He that hath the Seven Spirits of God and the Seven,

292 ; — He that Holdeth the Seven, 292.
Sword, He that hath the sharp, two-edged, 292.
Teacher ( dtddtrxaXos ) , 3, 7, 8, 35, 36, 66, 99, 125, 180, 181.

See Master.
True God and Eternal Life (the), 271 sq.
Word (the), 177, 178.

The Word of Life, 270.
The Word of God, 288.

II. Index of Passages of Scripture

(The superior figures in this Index indicate the number of times a pas~
sage is cited on a given page).

GENESIS

PAGE

PSALMS

PAGE

135, 215

289

2:2

IO9, 2l6

135

EXODUS

7:10

269

16: 10

217

17:7

269

LEVITICUS

29: 1

224

285

40:7

285

45:6, 7

280

285

89:27

135

219

106: 21

269

219

no
118: 26

46,

47, 143, 283

NUMBERS

217

130:8

PROVERBS

88, 91

DEUTERONOMY

187

3:12

294

8:22

297

294

ISAIAH

215

9:1, 2

193

19: 20

269

35 = 4

132

JUDGES

269

40: 1

84, 132

1-11

269

49, 143

269

42: 1

"3, 215

I SAMUEL

43:3, "

269

44:6

295

269

45:15, 21

269

2 SAMUEL

226 a , 233

•

269

48:16

294

I KINGS

49:20

269

54, 132, 192

2 KINGS

53:7

291

269

60: 16

269

NEHEMIAH

61:1

31, 154, 190

269

63:8

269

JOB

66:7

289

312

Index of Passages of Scripture 313

JEREMIAH PAGE PAGE

2:20 45 3:11 40, 76, 130

14:8 269 14 128

EZEKIEL 17 78 s , 79, 80, 84 s , 90, 99, 128,

16:38, 60, 63 45 130, 139, 246

34:" 141 4:3, 6 78, 128, 129, 134, 139, 154

DANIEL II 137

7 133 16 193

7:9 294 18 6l 8

13 24 s , 30, 38 s , 39, 42, 116, 122, 5:17 77 2

132, 133, 136 2 , 221, 289, 6:24 70

295 7:21 69, 70 3 , 71 3 , 129, 141, 142,

14 30, 38 2 , 42, 136 2 , 221 154

22-27 132 7:22 142

10:16 102

29 129

HOSEA 8:2, 6 69, 70 a

2:19 12, 45, I24 a 8 69, 70 2 , 154

20 13 17 128

13:4 269 19 67, 69

ZECHARIAH 20 85, 87, 129, 135 2 , 154, 166

2:5 265 21 69 2 , 70 2

4:10 295 25 69 2 , 70 2 , 71 2

9:9 189 27 79, 99

x 3:7 12 29 78, 129, 139

MALACHI 9:3 99

3:1 76, 217 6 61, 87, 129

4:5, 6 217 9 62

MATTHEW 11 66

1:1 14, 17, 57 3 , 5 8 5 , 59, 62, 63, 13 77

73, 78, 240, 243, 288 15 13, 84

16 17, 57, 58*, 59 s , 6i*> 62 2 , 74, 27 18, 69, 78, 129

240 28 69, 7o a

17 57, 58, 59, 60 8 , 61, 62 s 74 36 13

18 14, 17, 57 2 , 58 a , 59, 62, 63, 10:2 61 8

73, 184, 240, 242, 243, 288 22 154

18-25 80 23 85, 86

20 131 24 67", 69, 71, 142 2

21 57, 58 2 , 59, 64, 9i, 107 2 , 131, 25 67 s , 69, 71, 91

144 33 129

23 63, 88, 90, 132 34, 40 77 a

25 58, 59 11:2 5 8 2 , 59 2 , 60 2 , 62 2 , 65, 74 a

2:2 77, 131 3 60, 74, 76 s , 77, 128, 129, 130,
4 59, 76 154, 190

15 78, 80 10 11

23 61, 63 14 76

3:3 II, €3, 73, 91, 143 19 85, 87, 129, 135, 154

9 112 25 70, 82 a

314 The Designations of Our Lord

PAGE

11: 25-30

85 S , 87, 153

: 10

76, 85, 217

77, 79, 81, 82, 8 3 3 , 88, 90,

8 5 2 , 87, 152

9i,

92, 140, 155, 156, 169,

69, 70 s , 71

200

8 5 3 , 8 7 a

12:8

72, 87, 128, 129

85, 87, 154

84, 246

154

78, 79

69, 70 2

25,

26,

85, 87, 129

31,

32,

154

:i6

66, 67, 69

66, 69

86 2 , 136, 265

85 s , 87, 129, 154

: 1

13:24

68 3 , 91

68, 91

8 5 3 , 8 7 a

69, 85, 87

137

77, 85, 8 7 2 , 152

86 a , 129, 137

18,

58,

59, 69, 70 2 , 71, 78

18, 70 2 , 7 i z , 7 X

69, 70 2 , 71

54,

55, 56

: 1

58, 59

', 72, 102, 141, 210

14:1

58, 59

28,

69, 70*

10, 72, 77

79 3 , 129, 137, 138

18, 77, 78 2 , 79

15:2

$, 69, 70 2 , 71, 78, 129

12, 58, 64, 73, 99

7 o a

58, 59

69, 70'

18, 78=-

16: 13

15, 21, 74, 79 s , 85, I29 a ,

81, 134, 139

134,

137, 138, 243

81, 99

75, 129

68, 70

63, 75, 85

14, 57

, 58*, 59, 63, 74, 184,

12, 73

240

22:

84, 9i, 139

69, 70"

45, 81

86 3 , 87, 91, 137, 265

16,

24,

66, 67

86, 87

41-46

17:4

69, 70 a , 7 1 3

5 80, 84,

90, 99, 139, 215, 245

77, 9i, i43

58 a

43-45

70, 72

Index of Passages of Scripture 315

PAGE

:44
45

70, 91
18, 47

26 : 49
51

66, 69
58, 59

: 1-12
2

7-10

65
6

6 7 a , 75

63 43

69, 71
75
27:7-10

> 74, 75, 79 2 , 85, 137

75, 8 5 2 , 86 s , 91, 212

58 s , 64

58, 59

■5
27

75, 185

85 s , 86

11
16

17 17, 58 3

, 61 4 , 62, 64, 75, 185,

85,

, 86 a ,

91, 265

240

86 3 ,

87", 137

17-22

156

22 17, 58 s

, 61 1 , 62, 64, 75, 185,

81,

86,

88,

140, 153

240

85, 86

61, 62

70,

72, 141

58', 64, 77, 99

67, 68

79, 80, 137

:, 85, 86

45, 46,

48,

80, 134, 137

: 1

I 3 , 45, :

5, 6, 10

13, 84

99, 138

70 2

7o'

18, 19

28:5

58, 59"

20, 21,

23, 24,

7i"

58, 59

3i 7i a

> 73

', 86 a ,

87,

91, 136,

i37 a ,

265'

18-20

81, 83, 88, 92, 94

13, 208

19 140, 1

56, 170 2 , 171, 200,

7i, 77

267

» 7i,

91, 142

7i, 77

MARK

7o,

71,

91, 142

1:1 5, 14, 15

. 17, i9 f , 32, 52, 57.

58, 150,

152 3 , 184, 240, 243,

3, 14

61, 62

288

67, 210

3 9*, "', 12, 55, 143, 151

66,

69, 70 a

66, 69

13, 84

151

31-46

" 13, 21,

22*, 33, 44, 52, 128,

61, 62

134, 139, 150, 152, 246

85, 153

37, 128, 137

154

9, 33, 5i, 52, 128

3 1 6 The Designations of Our Lord

PAGE PAGE

1:24 5, 6 2 , 20 3 , 44, 55, 114 2 , 128, 9:7 13, 21, 22 2 , 44, 52, 99, 134,

129, 151, 153, 217 J39, 150* 152, 246

25, 26 21 9 24, 28, 152, 153

27 9, 33, 34, 5i, 52, 129 n 40'

34 20, 44, 128 130, 152 12 24, 28 2 , 55, 152 2

35 40 17 8 » 7i
38 39, 4<A 52, 128 25 52
41 32 31 24, 28 3 , 53, 151, 152

2:5 137 38 8 2 , 69

7 29, 41, 99 41 15, 16, 23, 185

8 209 10:17, 20 8
10 24, 29, 33, 41, 51, 52, 128 2 , 33 24, 28, 53, 151, 152 2

136, 151 2 , 152, 208 34 28 2 , 151

n 52 35 8 "

17 39, 40, 52 37 I5ii 265

18 12 45 24, 28 3 , 39, 40, 52 2 , 55, 135,
19, 20 12, 13, 45, 151 152 2

28 9 3 , n a , 24, 29, 33, 41, 51, 52, 47 5 3 , 6 2 , 18, 150

i28 a , 136, i50 a , 152 48 18, 150

3:11 19 3 , 20, 43, 44, 114 3 , 129, 49 18

134, 139, 152 51 7, 9, 18, 71

20-30 34 52 18

27 51 11: i 152
4:38 7, 8 2 , 69 3 9 2 , 10, 11 2 , 12, 52, 102, 141,

41 33, 51, 52, 99, 129 150, 210

5 : 7 5, 6, 19 2 , 44, 129, 130, 134, 9 10, 39

139, 1 50 > 152, 153 10 10, 18 2 , 39

19 9 21 7, 69
35 8 12 21, 42

42 33, 5i 2, 4 42

43 52, 128 6 21, 22 2 , 23, 42, 44, 45, 52,
6:2, 3 99 139, 150, 178

4, 15 I2 a 7 42, 99, 150

34 13 9 9

51 138 14 8

* 7:15-19 12 17 151

28 7, 9, 12, 152 19 8
8:28 12 2 , 151 25 152

29 15 s , 17, 23 150, 151, 152 32 8

30 15 35 1 5 2 , 16 3 , 18 2 , 23, 46, 52, 150,

31 16, 17, 2 4 2 , 28 3 , 152, 153 151

32 17 36 9 3 , 10, 11 2 , 12 2 , 143, 224
38 21, 22, 24 a , 26, 28, 29 s , 30, 37 9 3 , 10, 11 3 , i2 a , 16, 47, 143,

37, 41, 136, 137, 151, 168, 224

265 13:1 8, 69

9:5 7, 69, 71 20 151

Index of Passages of Scripture 3 1 7

PAGE

13:21

i5 2 , 23, 152

1:76

IO5 3 , 106

24 s , 28, 30, 41 3 , 151, 265

2:9

145

28, 29 3 , 30, 37, 137

17, 102,

IO3, 104, 105, 107,

2i a , 23 2 , 28, 36, 44, 45, 50,

112, 130, 131, 141, 144, 145,

140, 152, 153, 156, 171

298

9, 11 2 , 12, 52, 141

J 5

145

14:14

8, 210

151

114, 115

24, 28 2 , 55, 152

97, 109, 130, 145

12, 13

107

21, 22

193

24, 28, 152 2

100

15 s , 16, 19, 24, 44 2 , iso 2 ,

118, 128

i 5 2 a

15, 16 2 , 19, 20, 21, 24 s , 28 2 ,

3:4

104, 105, 106

30, 41, 43, 44. 45, 136,

107

137, 150, 151 2 , 152, 168

112

16, 20, 43

100

5 2 , 6

76, 122

15:2

18, 150

61, 62

"5,

117, 128, 139, 246

15 2 , i6 a , 18 2 , 150, 152

19, 44 2 , 45, 99, 134, 138,

4:1

152

3, 9 "6

, 128, 129, 139, 154

16:6

5, 6

128

5, 98, 206

123, 128

107
128

LUKE

20, 98,

99 2 , "3 2 , "4, 122,

1:16

106

128, 153, 217

IO5 2 , 106

97, "I,

116, 128, 129, 139

131

40, 123 2 , 128

97, 98

100

32 99, no, 112, 116, 117, 130,

ioo 4 , 101 2 , 142

131, 139, 144

97,

101 3 , 102, 128, 142*

no, 131

IOI

35 78, no, 114, 116, 117, 130,

139, 144

120, 121, 129

123

122

102, 105, 142

34,

123

103, 144

6:5

120, 121, 128, 129

47, 68-79 107

120 2 , 129

112

IOO

3 1 8 The Designations of Our Lord

PAGE

6:46

101, 141, 154

12:8

I20 a , 121*

7:6

101, 154

9, 10

I20

97, 102, 103

106, 107*

I02, 121, 122, 142 2

I20, 121*

*9 76, 97, 102, 103, 122 2 , 128,

IOI

154, 19c

97, io2 a , 103

122, 190

102, I42 Z

102

13:15

97, 102, IO3

122

23,

IOI

120,

121, 129, 154

33,

IO7

99 2 , 106

14: 21

IOI

40, 49

15:2

8:24

71, 100

16: 15

208

28 98, 99,

1 1 6,

129, 139, 153

17:5, 6

97, 102, 103

98, 100 2

100

22,

I20, I2i a

121

9:8, 14

106

26,

I20, 121

15, 109, in

IOI

120, 121 2 , 153

18:6

97, I02, I03

26 120,

121 4 ,

122 2 , 137, 265

I20, I2I 2 , 122

71, 100

I20, I2i a

7i, 99

I20

120, 121

121

123

97 3 > 98, 99

100

98, 112

112

120,

121, 129, 154

59, 61

IOI

zo: 1

97, 102, 103

19:8

97, 101, 102, 103

192, 290

IO7, I20 2 , 122, 135

123

IOI

io2 a , 106, 141 s , 210

II8 3

I02 2 , 141

22 1 1 8",

140,

155, 156, 169

112

118

20: 13

"7» 139, 178

97, 103

99, "7

101, 102

103, in, 112

97, 102, 103

21:7

13 : 1

IOI

120, 121 2 , 122

I20, 121, 154

120, 121

97, 102, 103

22: 11

99, 210

Index of Passages of Scripture 319

PAGE

22:22

I20, 121

1:8

178, 193

178,

I90, 193, 273

118 2

76, I90

102

177,

178 4 ,

195,

197, 199, 225,

33,

101

265

190

61, 154

14,

57,

t77,

183, 184, 243,

97,

120, 121

288

IOI

178,

195, 197, 199*

183, 217

97 2 ,

102 2 , 103 2

217

in 3

181

I20, I2I 3

183

Il6, 137

76, 190

23:2

16, 17

99,

III 4 , 112

I92 a , 290, 291

112

I80 2 , 190

4, H

99°

180

18,

22,

180, 192, 195

291

118

I92 2

"3, "4

7, 69, i8o a

112

183 2 , 192

99, "2

100

HI 2

180, 217

69,

180,

189, 190, 195 2

209

2: 11

225, 265

118

245

24:3

98,

102 2 , 206

196

I20 3 , 121*
99

3:2
15

6, 7

, 69, 180 2 , 181
194

178,

195,

196, 197, 198

130

16-:

179

12,

97,

98, 99

, 106

, 107, 218

91, ]

95 2 ,

196 2 , 197, 199

65, 107

178

130

190, 193

in, 265

193

102, io3 a

193, 197

in a

i8o a

118

183

JOHN

12, 13', 45, 194

1: z

177 1

I78 S ,

182,

199, 240

3i,

191

180

"9,

195, 196 s , 198

178, 193

195 2 , I96 a

5
7

178,
40 2 ,

193, 273
178, 193

4:1

179, 181
61

320 The Designations of Our Lord

PAGE

4:11,

69,

l8l

^53

19-1

12, 69, 181,

l82

194

21,

196

183 2 ,

I90 3

69,

181, 217

183

20 2 , II3)

114, 191

180 2 , 183,

193

2, ^3

69,

180

191

16,

191

107, 180,

193

180

182

180, 183

l8l

183, 190

5:2

28,

191

69,

l8l

180

, 183, 190;

180

191I

196

180] |

187, 196, 197,

198

12, 180,

182, 217

195 3 , 196',

197

180, 183 2 ,

193, 217

20,

21, 22

195, 196 2 ,

197

183

191, 195 2 ,

196*

46,

180 2

191

182

194,

196

: 12

193*'

191

14-

191

36,

191,

196

16,

191, 196

190,

196

119,

187, 196 3

187

191

196

6: 14

12, 76,

180, 182, 190 2 ,

217

195, 196

189,

217

191

179,

l8l

195, 196

180

i 9 6 a j

20, 192, 194 3 ,

196

180 1

191

40 3 , 191 2 ]

196

49,

196

193

69, 180 I

69,

l8l

191

193

196

ii,

180 3

38,

191

12, 182

195, 196,

197

183

193

180 3

180

191,

196

195 2 , 196

196

36,

69, 181

119, 180,

196*

190

193

10: 2

13, 193

50,

180

193

Index of Passages of Scripture 321

PAGE

10: 10

190

13:13

180

3 , 18]

t 2 , 2IO, 224

II,

193

13-

119, 187,

I96 a

l8o 2 , 181 s8

193

180

*7,

196

40, 191

183

69, 181

25,

196

194

119, 1:

87, 196

, 197, 198

, 200

69, 181

196

181

•

180,

196

14: 2

196

20 2 , 21

i95 a ,

, "4 a ,

196 2

134, 191,

192,

5
6

69, l8l
I96, 273

196

187, 196

I96 a ,

197, 198,

200

69, l8l

11:2

179,

l8l

119

, 187,

196,

197.

198, 200,

69,

l8l

225

21, I95 2 ,

196

10,

11,

196

69,

180

195, 196"

9, :

193

193, 196

69,

l8l

20,

196

69, 181

69,

l8l

196

25,

193,

273

191, 196

69,

181,

183, 190,

i95 a

196

180,

181

196,

197 2 , 198

32,

69,

181

i 9 6 a

180 2

15:1, 8

, 9,

196

69,

181

191

180, 196

47,

180

196

180

12: 13

l8l, 189,

190

191

190

IO, 189,

190

24,

26,

196

70,

181

16:3

196

194

191

26,

27, 28

196

24, 183,

194

119, 196

35,

193

17,

23,

25,

26,

196

181

191, 196"

44,

191

196

46,

I9I 2 ,

193

17:1

184,

195, i96 a

191,

196

184,

185, 197

196

3 1

177,

179, >

:8 3 2 ,

184, 191,

13:1, 3

196

240, i

>43 a

, 273

6, 9

69,

181

196,

225, 265

322 The Designations of Our Lord

PAGE PAGE

17:6 119 H7 213"

8 191 3 ii, 14, 16 204

10 119 21 98, 209, 210

11 196 24 2o7 a , 2o8 a , 211

18 191 2:20 210, 226

21 191, 196 21 210, 219

22 265 22 204, 218

23 191 22-36 212

24 196, 265 25 226

25 191, 196 27 216, 217
18: 5, 7 180 30 216

11 196 31 210
14, 17, 29, 30 180 32 204, 2i4 a
33 l8 9 33 210, 213
37 189 3 , 190 34 209, 210, 211
39 189 36 104, 109 s , 204, 209, 210 2 ,

19:3 189 211 3 , 212, 214

5 180 38 14, 186, 205, 208, 219

7 x 95 47 209, 211

12 189 3:2 61, 62

13 61, 62 3 217
14, 15 189 6 14, 186, 204, 205, 219 2
17 62 13 204, 212, 215

19 180, 189 14 215, 216 2 , 217
21 189 15 210, 217, 225, 282

20:2, 13 181 16 210, 219

15 70, 181 18 214, 216

16 7, i8o a 20 14, 204, 205, 206 5 , 214, 242,

17 196 243

18 181 21-26 216

20 179, 181 22 12, 215, 216, 217

21 I9i a , 196 23 216

24 61 26 212, 2i5 a , 216

25 181 4:2 204

28 181, 187, 200 7 219

29 200 8-12 212
31 176, 179, 183, 189, i95 a , 10 14, 186, 204, 205, 219 2

240 12 210, 219

21:2 61 13 204

7, 12 179, 181 17 219

15 181, 192, 290* 18 204 2 , 219

20, 21 l8l 19, 24-30 208

ACTS 25-27 2l6

i:i 203, 204, 207 26 109

4 21 3 a 27 204 a , 215, 21 6-

(t 210 28 2Q4 a , 215, 216, 219

Index of Passages of Scripture 323

PAGE PAGE

4:33 98, 206, 209, 2IO 10:36 14, 205, 2I0 3 , 2II 3

5: 14 209, 211 38 204 a

28 219 42 217, 2l8, 25O

29-32 212 43 208, 2l8, 219

30 204 48 24, 205, 2IO, 219

31 I07, 2o8, 217, 282 Ii:i6 209,210

40 204 a , 219 17 i4> 98, 205 s , 207, 209, 2IO

41 21 9* 20 98, 206, 209, 210

42 14, 204, 205, 206, 214, 242 21 209 3 , 21 1 3
6:4 6l 23 209, 211

14 204* 24 211

7: 37 I2» 17 26 63

52 212, 2l6, 217 I2:il, 17 209

55 204 13:2, IO, II, 12 209, 211

56 212, 2l8 16-41 212

59 98, 207*, 208, 209, 2IO 23 IO7, 204, 217

60 207 a , 208 4 , 210 24 217
8:5 212, 214 33 204, 213, 218

12 14, 186, 205, 219 35 216, 217

16 98, 206, 209, 2IO, 219 44, 47, 48 211

22, 24 209 49 209, 211

25 209, 211 14:3 209, 211

32 192, 240 IO 2IO
35 204 23 209, 211
37 14, 186 15:8 208
39 211 II 207, 209, 2IO

9: I 209, 2IO 14, 17 219

5 204 3 , 207, 2IO Z 26 14, 98, 205 3 , 207, 209, 2IO,

6 2io a 219

10 207, 209, 2io a 35» 36 209, 211

11 209, 210 40 209

13 207, 210 16: 10 210

14 219 14 209, 211

15 209, 2IO, 219 15 211

16 219 18 14, 205, 219

17 204, 209, 2IO 31 98, 207, 209, 2IO, 217

20 204 3 , 212, 213, 215 32 209, 211

21 219 17:3 i4 a > 204, 205, 206, 214

22 213, 214 7, 18 ^ 204

27 204 3 , 209, 210, 219 31 21 8 2 , 250

28 2IO 18:5 14, 204, 205, 206, 214

29 209 8, 9 209, 211
31 209, 211 25 204, 209, 210, 211
34 205 28 14, 204, 205, 206, 214
35, 42 209, 211 19H 204

10:34-42 210 5 98, 206, 209, 210, 219

324

The Designations of Our Lord

]

PAGE

19: 10

211

5:19

247

98, 204 2 ,

206, 209, 2IO,

219

232

204

241,

253

98,

206, 209, 2IO,

219

8, 9

241

209,

211

239

20: 19

209,

211

7:4

98, 205",

207, 209, 2IO,

217

8:3

225,

233,

250,

251 3

98,

207, 209, 2IO,

217

9, 10

241

2IO, 2l8 2 , 245,

248

253

241

9 S

1, 207, 209, 2IO,

217

251

21 : 13

98, 207,

, 209, 2IO, 217,

219

250,

251 3

211

232

22:8

204 8 , 207,

2IO

239

207,

2IO a

9:1

241

2l6,

217

5 211,

236'

, 240,

248,

250,

254,

208, 2IO,

219

255. 259

207,

2IO

251

23: 11

209,

2IO

10:4

241

24:24

14, 205, 2o6 a ,

242

6, 7

240,

241

25:19

204

225,

226 a

26:9

204',

219

223, 227

. 231

, 232

2IO

226*,

231,

232

204, 207, 209,

2IO

24I

2IO

11: 1, 2, 3

, 8

227

214,

217

12:5

24I

28: 23

204

227

14, 98,

205 a , 207, 209,

2IO

14:4
6

227
233

ROMANS

224

, 231;

, 241

1: 1

242,

288

226 2 ,

227,

233

248, 25I 2 ,

259

241

4 223, 225 3 ,

248, 249 s , 251 2 ,

259

15:6

233,

252

227,

253

8, 18,

24I

251

230 a

2: 16

232

16:5, 7, 9

, 10

241

3:22

232

239

233

235

I CORINTHIANS

5:1

232

1: 2

232

6, 8

24I

227,

252,

253

8-10

252

233

233, 251,

252 a

251

232,

252

12, 17,

23, 24

241

247 a

226 3 ,

232

2:8 223,

224,

231,

236,

248,

265

Index of Passages of Scripture 325

PAGE

2:10

241

3:3, J

241

232

226 2 , 232

3:1

24I

4:4

225,

250, 254 z

227

225,

226 2 , 239

233,

241*

241

4: 1, 10, 15

241

5:10

233

227

240, 241

5*7

241

6:15

241

233, 241

7:17

227

19,

241

24I

6:15

241

8:4

188,

235

8:9

225,

233)

, 250, 259

4-6

228

232

187

, 227

10: 7

2 4 I 3

6 223, 227

, 228,

229,

232,

253

226, 232

11, 12

241

11:2

9:21

241

10,

13, 23

241

10:9

226 2

233

16, 22

232

12: 2,

10,

241

226

13:13

267

233

I70,

188, 230*

11: 1

241

233

GALATIANS

288

1 : 1

288

224,

239

227, 253

224

253

252

6, ]

241

12:3

226 2 ,

227,

239

251 3

4-6

230,

267

241

24I

2: 16

241

15^3. 12, 13,

14, 16

241

240, 241 s

17, 18, 19,

, 20

241

241 2 , 251*

247

241

3: 13,

241

253

235

233

24,

27,

241

233

251,

253 a

4:4

225,

25i 2 , 252

239

4-6

253

45, 47, 48,

247

6
19

251, 253"
241

2 CORINTHIANS

5:1, 2

, 4

241

i:2

227

233,

253

EPHESIANS

251

1:2

227, 253

241

222

, 234

, 241, 252

2:10, 15, 17

241

233

326 The Designations of Our Lord

PAGE

1:6

245

1 :

246,

25i 3 , 2 5 3 3

233.

234,

253

254 a , 297

233

15-19

250

2: II

16, 17

224

241

233

253

27, 28

241

3-i

242

2, 5

241

239,

242

239, 242

253

241

4:1

231

236

230

233

4-6

267

231

227

241

233,

253

; 11

241

8, :

232

253

250,

25l"

226, 239

15,

241

: 1

231

5^ 5

245

233

244,

253

THESSALONIANS

24I

1 :

: 1

227, 230,

, 243, 253

253

241

187

6:4

22 e

240, 251'

231

241

227,

253

206, 243

PHILIPPIANS

: 1

243

1:2

227,

253

227, 253

10,

13,

I 7 , 18

241

233. 253

20,

21,

23, 29

241

232

2: 1

241

225 3 ,

248,

251

: 2

233

225,

235,

248

243

248

206, 243

224 2 ,

250

23, 28

243

224,

226 3

► 232,

1 233

223,

224,

226,

253

THESSALONIANS

16,

241

: 1

227, 253

3:8

239,

241

227,

230, 253*

241

233

244

232

225,

233

226 2 , 232*

4: 20

253

233"

COLOSSIANS

227

, 232, 245

1: 2

241,

253

233

253

Index of Passages of Scripture

327

I TIMOTHY

PAGE

1: 1

244, 245

5:5

276, 277

227, 253

277, 283

2:3

244, 245

268

232,

235, 247 2

277

3: 16

265

288 2

4: 10

244

10
6:1

277, 283*
276

2 TIMOTHY

277

1:2

227, 253
269

277 2 ,

282 2 , 283

7:3, "

277 2 , 283

10
2: 19

244

226 a

15, 17, 21

277*
277, 283

22
4:14

232
226'

22
26

277
283

232

277

TITUS

8:1, 4

277, 283

1:3

244, 245

282

227

, 244

, 245, 253

9:11

276

, 277, 283

2: 10
13

244,

245 2 >

244
2 55 2 , 265

14
15

276
282

3-4

244, 245

24, 28

276

233,

244, 245

10: 10
21

277*
277, 283

PHILEMON

277

253

11: 17

197

6, 8, 20

241

276

HEBREWS

12: 2

277, 282 a

1:2

277,

278,

279, 281

278

265

277, 282

37, 43

13:8, 12

277

277 2 , 280

277 8 , 283

281

277, 281

277, 278

JAMES

277 s , 278

1 : 1

264 s

2:2

278

2: 1

264"

277 3

5:7, 8

264*

10, 11

265

265, 277

14, 15

264 s

282*

I PETER

277, 283

1 : 1

267, 288

3:1

277 s

, 282, 283

267

43,

276, 277

267, 268

276

273

4:12

178

7, ", 13

267

277 s , 283

192,

, 267, 290

277, 283

2:3, 5, 13, 21

> 25

267

323

The Designations of Our Lord

PAGE

PACE

3:15

226, 267 J

5^3

271, 274

16, 18, 21

267

272

4:1, n, 14

267

271

265, 267

20, 217,

271, 272 3 , 273

5:1, 10, 14

267

2 JOHN

2 PETER

271 2 , 238

1: 1

245,

1 269

, 270, 288

7, 9

271

2, 8

269*, 270

3 JOHN

245,

269*, 270 2

2i9 a , 274

14, 16

269*

JUDE

270

263, 264, 288

2: 1

245, 270

245, 266, 270

245,

269 2 , 270*

17, 21, 25

266

3:2

245, 269

268

THE APOCALYPSE

8, 9, 10

268 2 , 269*

1: 1

288 a

265, 269*

296

268 2 , 269 s

288",

290, 291 2 , 293 s

245»

269 s , 270 2

288, 297

289, 292

I JOHN

294, 295

1: 1

178, 271

9, 10

288

273

289 s

271,

272 s

, 274, 288

289, 295 1

271, 272

295, 297

2: 1

271"

293 a ,

294 a , 29 5 4 , 296

273

2: 1

288, 293

274

293, 295, 297

20, 217

288, 293

271*

288,

293*, 295, 297

3:8

271

294 2 , 295

11, 12

272

288, 297

271,

272, 274

3:1

293

4:2> 3

271

288

9 l

78, 197, 271

, 272, 274

288, 297

271, 272

20, 217, 288, 292, 293, 294

10-14

272

288

271

291, 297'

14, 15

271', 272

*95

5:1

271 1

288, 297

271, 272'

4:3

296

271

269

272

5:4

292

9, 10, 11

271

288, 293

27i a , 272

290, 295

Index of Passages of Scripture 329

PAGE PAGE

5:8, 9, 12 290 17:14 288, 290, 291, 293, 294

13 293, 294 19:7 13, 45. 290

6:1, 16 290 9 290

7:9 290 10 288*

10 244, 290 11 291

14, 17 290 12 295

11:15 269, 2 %%\ 2 94 13 178, 289

12:5 289 16 288, 293

10 288 a 20:4 288 3

11 290 6 288 2 , 294

13 289 21:2 45
17 288 6 295

13:8, 12 290 9 45, 290

14:10 290 14, 22, 27 290

12, 13 288 22:1, 3 290, 294

14 289 s 16 288, 293
15:3 290 20 288
17:6 288 21 288"

III. Index of Authors Cited

{The superior figures in this Index indicate the number of times an
author is quoted on a given page)

Abbott, Ezra, 255
Abbott, E. A., 149, 168
Africanus, Julius, 266
Alexander, J. A., 8, 10, 47, 60, 65,

208
Allen, W. C, 43, 77, 80, 81, 83, 84,

90, 113, 171
Ambrose, 105

Bacon, B. W., 295

Barde, 206, 208, 219

Bartlet, 55

Bassett, 265

Baumgarten-Crusius, 40, 208

Baur, 223

Beda, 105

Bengel, 40, 105, no, 143, 208, 265

Berlin Aegypt. Urkunden {The),

70
Beyschlag, 234, 235
Bigg, 266, 267, 268 2 , 270 3
Bisping, 105, 106, 208
Blass, 59 s , 67, 106, 208, 219
Bleek, 108, no, 281
Blom, A. H., 206 2 , 208 2 , 212, 213,

215, 216 s
Bornemann-Meyer, 240
Bousset, 26, 41, 113, 126, 134, 158,

163, 164, 165, 166 3 , 167, 174,

193, 256 s , 257, 259, 287, 295
Brlggs, 41, 42
Bristow, J. B., 115
Bruce, 172
Burkitt, 153
Castalio, 105
Charles, 13, 4 z 2 , 55 2 , 56, 84, 113,

126, 247

Chase, F. H., 172, 219
Cheyne, 24
Clemens, J. S., 296
Clementine Homilies, 270
Conybeare, 171 s , 173, 219
Cremer, 171, 173, 282

Dale, R. W., 1

Dalman, f, 8, n a , 16 2 , 17 2 , 18, 19 2 ,
23, 26 3 , 27, 37, 38 s , 39 a , 41 2 , 46,
47 2 , 55, 61, 65, 67 s , 88, 101,
104 3 , 129, I33 2 , I34» 135, 166,
168, 169 2

Daplyn, E., 84, 247

Davidson, A. B., 49 s , 276 s , 279, 280,
281, 283, 285, 293, 296

Delitzsch, 6, 16, 47 2 , 67, 280, 281

Denney, 283, 285

De Wette, 109 2 , 208, 219, 289 s

Drummond, R. B., 126, 255

Diisterdieck, 296

Dwight, 255

Ebrard, 186
Edersheim, 76 s
Edwards, T. G, 224, 235
Encyclopedia Biblica, 168
Eusebius, 172, 173, 203, 266
Euthymius Zigabenus, 40, 105
Evans, 235
Ewald, 108

Feine, Paul, 206, 223, 226, 232, 234,

240 2 , 242, 24 3 2
Felton, 208
Fritzsche, 16, 62
Friizsche, Volkmar, 24, 166, 170

33o

Index of Names

331

Gabler, 211

Gebhardt, 287, 289, 290, 291, 295,

296
Geden and Moulton, 58
Gess, 124, 251
Giesebrecht, 219
Gloag, 206, 208, 219
Godet, 102, no, 117, 119, 124", 186
Goebel, Siegfried, 24
Gray, G. B., 219
Gressman, Hugo, 24
Grosart, A. B., 192, 290
Grotius, 40
Gwatkin, 302

Hackett, 208, 219

Hahn, 20 3 , 105, 108, 109, no, 112,

117, 119
Harnack, 153 2 , 170, 171 2 , 202 2 , 203 2 ,

211, 237, 241 3
Hase, 119
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible,

12, 63, 172, 247
Hastings' Dictionary of Christ and

the Gospels, 217
Haupt, 106
Hausleiter, 240
Hawkins, 16
Heinrici-Meyer, 224, 239
Hellwag, 136, 137
Hengstenberg, 289 2
Herner, Sven, 9, n, 49, 102, 105,

2o8 a , 209, 210, 227, 264 s , 268,

277
Hoekstra, 291, 295
Hofmann, 108, 119, 280
Holtzmann, 5, 6, io 2 , n, 14, 15, 18,

20, 40, 59, 67 s , 108 2 , 109, no,

112, 114, 166, 171, 286, 287,

289, 291
Holtzmann, O., 302
Hort, 82, 172, 218, 267, 268

Irenaeus, 237
Issel, Ernst, 114

Julicher, 259

Kalthoff, Albert, 163, 164, 165

Keil, 16, 20, 62, 108, 113

Keim, 6, 119, 167

Knowling, R. J., 116, 220, 221, 223,

2 5 i a

Kostlin, 295
Kiibel, 61
Kiinoel, io6 a
Kurtz, 281

Lange, 40
Lechler, 208
Lightfoot, 249, 270
Loisy, Abbe, 170
Lowrie, 281
Liinemann, 281
Liitgert, 145
Luthardt, 186
Luther, 109

MacFarland, Charles S., 159

Maier, 281

Maldonatus, 40

Martineau, 37, 169

Mason, A. J., 23

Massie, 296

Mathews, Shailer, 21 3 , 131 2 , 133,
160, 168 2 , 169, 175

Mayor, 263, 264, 265, 266 3 , 270

Meyer, 6, 10, 16, 18, 19, 23 s , 40 2 ,
43, 47, 57, 61, 99, 106, 107,
108 2 , 109, no, 178, 187, 208,
2ii, 219 2 , 225 s , 246, 251, 287

Moulton, J. H., 59

Moulton and Geden, 58

Moulton-Winer, 59 s

Nestle, 223

Nosgen, 61, 108, 208

Oehler, 48
Olshausen, 106, 208

Palmer, R., 287
Paulus, 108 2 , 109
Pfleiderer, 162, 165

332

The Designations of Our Lord

Plummer, A., 66, 98, 99, 100, 102, Streatfeild, G. S., 40 s , 46, 101 s

106 2 , 107, n6 d , 118, 119, 171,

211
Polycarp, Martyrdom of, 270
Porter, T. C, 297
Preuschen, 171

Rackham, 206, 208

Rashdall, 219

Renan, 302

Rendall, 208

Riehm, 276, 278 s , 279 s , 280 s , 281

Riggenbach, E., 171, 173

Robinson, J. Armitage, i3 a , 22 2 , 80,

84, 115, 222, 223, 247, 250
Ross, A. E., 296
Rushbrooke, W. G., 149

Salkinson, 67
Salmond, 42
Sanday, 82, 119, 133, 169, 172, i74>

195, 198, 223, 229, 230, 240 s ,

242, 249
Sanders, Frank K., 159
Schaeder, Erich, 145
Schanz, 105, 106
Schegg, 105
Schenkel, 18, 167
Schlatter, 145, 171, 173
Schmidt, N., 24, 37, 160, 166, 169,

170
Schmidt, Richard, 234, 236
Schmiedel, 36, 160, 162, 168, 170,

171. 174
Schmiedel-Winer, 59, 240, 245
Schmiedel, O., 146
Schoettgen, 7
Schiirer, 113, 126
Schwartzkopff, 166
Smith, W. B., 163, 165
Somerville, D., 47 s , 227, 228, 234
Spitta, 270 2
Stanton, 41 s3 , 42, 47, 48, 55, 67, 107,

133, 136, 167, 173, 217, 222,

285, 297, 301
Stead, F. Herbert, 243
Steck, 259
Stier, 186
Strauss, 18

Stuart, Moses, 211

Suetonius, 65

Swete, 6, 7 a , 8, 12, 13, 16, 19, 22,

23. 40, 43, 47, 52, 244, 285,

290, 294 s

Talmud, Babylonian, 17
Tertullian, 237
Thayer-Grimm, 76
Tillman, Fritz, 24, 31.
Trench, 69

van Manen, 259

van Oosterzee, 208

Vernes, 167

Volz, 43

von Soden, 151, 153 2 , 240, 270 s

Vos, G., 282, 283, 285

Weinel, 221, 259

Weiss-Meyer, 8, 9, 10, 61, 65, 106,

io8\ 109, no, H2 a , 117, 119,

123 2 , 169, 227, 241, 251, 255,

273
Weiss, J., 41
Weisse, 167
Wellhausen, 6, 7, io a , 15, 18, 2o a ,

22, 24, 43, 44, 53, 54 2 , 60, 66,

67, 100, 153
Wendt-Meyer, 206, 208, 219
Wernle, 220, 22i a , 260
Westcott, 6, 7, 20, 76, 178, 182, 184,

186, 191, 27i a , 273, 274 2
Westcott-Hort, 218, 240
Wettstein, 67, 270
Winer, 59, 211, 240, 245, 246
Wittichen, 167
Woolsey, T. D., 69, 104
Wrede, 158, 165, 175, 221 2 , 260
Wunsche, 67

Zahn, 24 s , 43, 62, 69, 70 2 , 76, 78",

79 3 , 80 2 , 81 2 , 82, 172
Zeller, 23, 167

Zigabenus, Euthymius, 40, 105
Ziemssen, Reinhold, 132, 140, 141,

144

Date Due

ACULTY

H^ --)

i8fc#<.

1 UTV

^fArr*

■ - ^ .

&,, : -

Prlli ■•'■' i -

mA!

-^^*^

^^"T .

JUN 3 #j

*an«Cr

?/)(>t

-.,.

<f>

an Theological Seminary-Speer Library

1 1012 01015 5168