£vbrar;p of Che Cheolo^ical ^etnmar^ 
 
 PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY 
 PRESENTED BY 
 
 Mrs. John D, Davis 
 
 r BT 590 .N2 W2 c.T ^ 
 
 Warfield, Benjamin 
 Breckinridge, 1851-1921. 
 The Lord of glory 
 
THE LORD OF GLORY 
 
The Lord of G! 
 
 A STUDY OF 
 
 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 
 
Copyright, 1907, by 
 AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY 
 
To 
 
 William Park Armstrong, Jr. 
 Caspar Wistar Hodge, Jr. 
 
 M Ad H TAIN ■ irNEPFOIN ■ AIAAIKAAOIN 
 lYNAOrAOIN OMOWrXOIN 
 XAPIN EXQN. 
 
Plurima quasivi, per singula quaque 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 
 
 ‘ 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 — 
 
 ‘ Christ ’ as a Proper Name, 59 — Why so Seldom 
 Used, 62 — Jesus’ Popular Name, 63 — Early Use 
 vii 
 
Contents 
 
 PAGE 
 
 vlli 
 
 of ‘ Christ ’ as a Proper Name, 64 — Simple Hon- 
 orific Addresses, 66 — ‘ Master of the House ’ 68 — 
 ‘ 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 ’1 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, lOi — ‘ Lord ’ as an Appellative, 102 — 
 Significance of ‘ Lord ’, 104 — The ‘ Prophet 
 
 106 — ‘ Saviour 107 — ‘ The Lord’s Christ ’,109 — 
 
 ‘The King’, 1 12— ‘God’s Elect’, 1 13— ‘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, 13 1 — Highest Designations, 
 
 133 — Meaning of ‘ Son of Man ’, 135 — Meaning 
 of ‘Son of God’, 137 — Meaning of ‘Lord’, 
 
 140 — Synoptical Christ Divine, 145. 
 
Contents 
 
 The Jesus of the Synoptists the Primitive 
 
 Jesus ...... 
 
 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 .... 
 
 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 .... 
 
 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, 
 
 Ix 
 
 PAGE 
 
 146 
 
 174 
 
 202 
 
X 
 
 Contents 
 
 PAGE 
 
 209 — ‘ Son of Man 212 — ‘ Son of God 2 13 — 
 
 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 
 ‘ 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 i 
 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 ....... 305 
 
 Index of the Designations of Our Lord, 307 — Index 
 of the Passages of Scripture Cited, 312 — Index of 
 Names Cited, 330. 
 
This man so cured regards the curer, then, 
 
 As — God forgive me! — who hut God 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 Ahib; 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. lo. 
 
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.”^ 
 
 We need offer no apology, therefore, for inviting 
 somewhat extended attention to one of the subsidiary 
 Scope of evidence of the estimate put 
 
 of this upon our Lord’s person by the wTiters 
 Discussion New 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 ^ designa- 
 
 of Our Lord tions they apply to our Lord fall into 
 in the three general classes. They seem to be 
 Synoptic Gospels purely il esign^tory, 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, — ‘ Ra_bbi,’ with its Greek renderings, 
 * Teacher ’ and ‘ Master,’ and its Greek representative, 
 ‘ 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 
 
 ‘ 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 
 V writers, and is represented by them as thought of by His 
 vcontemporary 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 perhaps 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.’^ Mark 
 
 Narrative no Other designation In his 
 
 Designation entire narrative.* On the other hand, 
 he places this desigoation, In Its sim- 
 plicity, In the mouth of no one else.® 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,^ but which occurs elsewhere In the 
 four Gospels only rarely and only In similar formal 
 connections. It seems' already, here at least, to be 
 
 occurs seventy-three times in Mark. In all these instances it 
 has the article, except the first (i»), 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 “Jesus Christ” occurs, but this is not in the narrative but in 
 the heading of the book. “Jesus the Nazarene,” not the lan- 
 
 guage of Mark but of the people, repeated by him. “Lord Jesus,” 
 16^®, “Lord,” i 620 , are in the spurious closing paragraph. 
 
 2 Unless the order in which the words stand in « xhou Son of 
 David, Jesus,” and in 146^^ “That Nazarene, Jesus,” be thought to 
 constitute an exception. The designation, ‘Jesus,’ occurs on the lips 
 of others in such combinations as: 1^*, “Jesus, thou Nazarene”; 5’’, 
 “Jesus, Son of the Most High God ”; lo^^, “Jesus, the Son of David ”; 
 and also again, “Jesus, the Nazarene”; 1467, “Jesus, the Nazarene”; 
 16®, “Jesus, the Nazarene.” 
 
 * Cf. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar , p. 37. 
 
 5 
 
6 
 
 Popular 
 
 Designation 
 
 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 employed as a proper name.® 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 
 of Nazareth’ (lo^^ i6" 14"’').® On 
 one occasion He is represented as ad- 
 dressed by this full name and on two others 
 
 by the name ‘ Jesus,’ enlarged by a Messianic title 
 (‘Jesus, Son of the Most High God’ 5”^, ‘Jesus, Son 
 of David’ 10^^). The inference would seem to be 
 that ‘ Jesus ’ was too common a name’ 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 Jipn- 
 orific ..title, ‘ Rabbi,’ by which in that 
 age (Mt 23’) every professed teacher 
 was courteously greeted.® The actual 
 
 ^ So, e.g., Meyer, Holtzmann, Wellhausen. 
 
 ® On the form NaXaprjv6<i see Swete, on Mark 
 
 See Delitzsch, Der Jesusname in “ Zeitschr. f. d. luth. Theol.,” 1876, 
 zo^seq., or Talmud. Stud., xv. ; and cf. Keim, Gescliichte Jesu, i, 384 
 seq. 
 
 * Cf. Westcott, on John 32. 
 
 Formula of 
 Address 
 
The Designations in Mark 7 
 
 Aramaic form ‘ Rabbi ’ occurs, however, but seldom 
 in his narrative, and only on the lips of Jesus’ disciples 
 (9^ ii^^; 14^^, Judas In betraying Him) ; although the 
 parallel form ‘ RabbonI ’ occurs once on the lips of 
 a petitioner for healing (10^^). In Its place stands 
 customarily Its simplest and most usual Greek ren- 
 dering, ‘Teacher’ {dc^daxah) The general synon- 
 omy of the forms of address, ‘ Teacher,’ ‘ Master,’ 
 ‘Lord’ (dcddaxah, iTzcardra, x 6 p:s) ^ 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 defining passages as Jno 
 
 l38 
 
 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’ (diddaxah) as his 
 standing representation of ‘ Rabbi.’ The use of 
 ‘Lord’ (xupis) in 7“® is not strictly an exception to 
 this, since the speaker on that occasion was a heathen, 
 and ‘ Lord ’ {xupce') may be best viewed as Indica- 
 tive of this fact. It Is the common Greek honorific 
 address, equivalent In significance to the Jewish 
 ‘ Rabbi ’ or ‘ Teacher.’^^ 
 
 The address ‘Teacher’^** 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. zi'^seq. 
 
 Cf. Swete, on Mark 4^®; Dalman, 327, 336. 
 
 Cf. Wellhausen, in loc.: “ The address xopis 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. 
 
 The rendering of oidd<rxaho^ (after the Vulgate, M agister) 
 by “Master” is, as Westcott remarks (on John 3^), “apt to suggest 
 
8 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 in their ordinary colloquy (4^® 9'^® 10^^ 13^)) obviously 
 as their customary form of addressing 
 Sigmficance^ Him; and of others who approached 
 H im for every variety of reason (5^“ 9^”^ 
 io 17 , 2 o ^ 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’ (10^’^).^^ 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 
 (io35 ^38 488^^ accept this designa- 
 
 tion; He even adopts It, instructing His disciples to 
 speak of Him to others as ‘the Teacher’ (14^^), — 
 and there Is Involved perhaps In this adoption of the 
 title all that Is expressed in the declarations of Mt 
 23^'^^. 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 lo^®, Jno 15^% Gal 
 
 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. 
 
9 
 
 The Designations in Mark 
 
 recognized as claiming and certainly does claim an 
 authority above that of those who shared the title of 
 ‘Teacher’ with Him (1^2.27 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-^) only makes use 
 ^igmfica^ce 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 ’ ( x6pco (; ) , when He declared 
 Himself ‘ Lord of the Sabbath ’ and ‘ David’s Lord ’ 
 as well as his ‘ Son ’ (2^® . It is in this ^.pella- 
 
 tive^ use of the term ‘ Lord ’ by Jesus indeed that we may 
 discover the deepest significance of the application of 
 that title to Him (T 2^^ iT 12^®’^^ [12® 13^^] )• 
 is no doubt sometimes very difficult to determine 
 whether in a given instance it refers to God or to Jesus^*, 
 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.^® And 
 
 i^This matter is carefully investigated by Sven Herner, Die An- 
 nuendung des JVortes xoptog im N. T., 1903, pp. 7-9, with the result 
 that he assigns 2^8 728 n3 1288.37^ and also possibly but not prob- 
 ably 5I8, to Jesus. 
 
 So Weiss-Meyer : “The conclusion rests ... on the vocation 
 of the Son of Man, as bringing the highest blessing to man, to control 
 

 10 
 
 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 when He is represented as arguing with the scribes 
 over the significance of the title ‘ Son of David ’ 
 ( 1 236,37)^ 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 
 ^ He was greater than Solomon (Mt 12^^) ; 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 HImd® 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” and this is 
 
 borne out by the strongly Messianic character of the 
 whole transaction (verses 9, 10, cf. Mt 2i^’^ Jno 
 1214 , 15 ) 17 ^j2d 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. 
 
 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, I. 243). 
 
 11' Wellhausen remarks in loc.: ** 6 xupto? is purposely meant to 
 sound mvsterious ! Tesus does not elsewhere so desie^nate Himself, nor 
 
The Designations In Mark ii 
 
 also the semi-parabolIc designation of Himself as the 
 ‘ Lord of the House ’ whose coming Is to be watched 
 for (13'"^^). And at least as much as this Is Involved 
 when the evangelist Identifies Him with ‘ the Lord ’ 
 wLose way was to be made ready for Him by the 
 ministry of John the Baptist In fulfillment of the 
 prophetic declar ation s of Isaiah and Malachl (i^); 
 for the^lteratlons In the language of tKe~ 3 Sa rations 
 introduced by the evangelist make clear his purpose to 
 apply these phrases directly to Jesusd® 
 
 It is not necessary to presuppose that ‘ Rabbi ’ un- 
 derlies this appellative use of ‘ Lord ’ (xopcot;). In 
 Mark 12^^ (and probably also i^) the underlying term 
 is Adhojil, and elsewhere it Is doubtless Mar an, or 
 Marana (or Mara^a)P 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^® 
 
 1335 recognized within His own 
 
 circle as possessing (ii^), 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 2^8 and 12^®’^^. 
 
 Cf. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, p. 55: “Instead of auroDat the 
 end there stands rdh dsoo ijiitov in the Lxx. The change shows that 
 the evangelist, by the xupto? of the first member, wished not God but 
 the Messiah to be understood.” See also Sven Herner, Die Arisen- 
 dung des JVortes xonto<; im N. T., p. 7: “Nor can there be any doubt 
 that the citation, already known from Mt. 3® — ‘ 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 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). 
 
 Cf. Dalman, /F ords, 328, and cf. 326. It must not be supposed, 
 however, that ‘Rabbi’ might not be charged with a high significance 
 Xcf. Dalman, p. 334). 
 
12 
 
 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 ( 1 , extending over the divinely ordained reli- 
 gious enactments of the chosen people (7^^ cf. 
 and entitling Him to dispose of the possessions (ii^) 
 and the very destinies of men (13^^). There is here 
 asserted not only Messianic dignity and authority, but 
 dignity and authority which transcend those ordinarily 
 attributed even to the Messiah (12^®’^'^), and are com- 
 parable only to those of God Himself (i^). 
 
 The transition from such a designation of Jesus as 
 ‘ Lord ’ to the designation of Him as ‘ Messiah,’ Is 
 only a passage from the general to the 
 Messianic particular. What is noteworthy Is, 
 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^^ 8“®) ; In 
 point of fact, that He recognized Himself as a prophet 
 (6^). It Is clear indeed that He was widely spoken 
 of as a prophet and that He Himself accepted the 
 designation as appropriate.^® 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’ and ‘Shepherd’ 
 
 (14^^), which Jesus seems to have applied Incidentally 
 to Himself, exceptions. In the former of these Jesus, 
 discoursing of John the Baptist (2^^) doubtless with 
 Intentional reference to a saying of his which is vt- 
 
 20 See Swete’s note on 6 * : “ The Lord here assumes the role of the 
 Prophet, which was generally conceded to Him (6^® 8^8, Mt 
 Lk 24!^, Jno 4^9 6^^ 7^® 9^'^, Acts 3^2 737).” 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^®), identified Himself 
 on the one hand with the ' Bride groom ’ of Old Testa- 
 ment prophecy (cf. Hos 2^^), and set Himself forth 
 on the other as the HeacL-of- the people of God now to 
 b e g athered into the promised kingdom: In other 
 words, the designation Is_,M£SsianIc to the cgre.^^ And 
 certainly not less Is to be said of His Identification of 
 Himself with the mysterious ' Shepherd ' of Zech 13^ 
 who Is the fellow of the Lord of Hosts (14^^ II Mt 
 26^L* and cf. 6^^ |I Mt 9^®; and see Mt 25^^ eschato- 
 loglcally; and Jno lo^). 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” 9'^).^^ 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 
 ‘ Chnst ’ with Its equivalents, ‘ the King of Israel ’ or 
 ‘ 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-^, etc.), i.e. God in His covenant 
 relation to Israel, a metaphor in the N. T. applied to the Christ (Mt 
 25^, Jno Eph 528 sg, Apoc 19"^, etc.).” Christ is set forth Mes- 
 
 sianically under the name of the Bridegroom in N. T. only in Mk 
 219 , 19 , 20 ^ Mt 9I®, Lk 5^^, Jno 32^; and in the Parable of the Ten Vir- 
 gins, Mt The thing occurs oftener. 
 
 22 Cf. J. Armitage Robinson, in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, ii, 
 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 
 “'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 Our 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 cerernonious circums^nces.^® 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.”^^ Although in it the 
 
 It appears only in the headings of Mt (i^) and Mk (i"^) and at 
 the starting point of the narrative of Mt (i^®) and the new beginning 
 made at Mt i6-^: and similarly in John only at the first mention of 
 Jesus w'hich may be accounted the beginning of his narrative, 
 
 and at the opening of the great sacerdotal prayer (17^)- It begins to 
 be frequent in Acts {2^^ 3« 410 gi^dsT] lose io4S „i7 1526 1518 
 20-^ 28^^) ; 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-® [17^ 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,^® 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“^ 12^^ 13"^ 14^^ 15^-), applied as such 
 to Jesus (8“^ 14^^ 15^-) in order to mark Him out as 
 the Messiah; and accepted as such by Jesus, who thus 
 asserts Himself to be the Messiah ( 8 ^^ 14^“? 
 
 13“^). 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~^), our Lord at once takes it 
 up as the equivalent of His own favorite self-designa- 
 tion of ‘ the Son of Man.’^® 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^: “But in ‘Jesus Christ,’ [Christ] has 
 
 already become a part of a personal name and has therefore lost the 
 article, — like Adam, Gen 5I.” Holtzmann, as cited: “The nomen pro- 
 pr’ium ’Itj(7ou<s J(pi<7To^ ... in which the personal name Jesus 
 . . . appears as the fore-name, the official name XpLGro<i as the sec- 
 
 ond personal name.” 
 
 26 Cf. also the parallels, Lk 920, “the Christ of God”; Mt 16I6, ‘‘the 
 Christ, the Son of the living God.” 
 
1 6 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 calls Him his ‘ Lord ’ 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^-’®^) . And in 
 like manner the scoffing Jews mockingly addressed Him 
 as He hung on the cross as ‘ the Christ, the King of 
 Israel’ (15^^). 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^“), ‘the 
 Son of David’ (12^^), ‘the Son of the Blessed’ 
 (14®^), ‘the Son of Man’ (8^^ 14^^)- 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^^ alone does ‘ Christ ’ 
 appear without the article. And therefore it has been 
 frequently supposed to be employed 
 there not as an appellation 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.^"^ There seems to be no reason, how- 
 ever, why ‘Christ’ ^^en without the ar- 
 
 ticle may not be taken appellatively^® (cf. Lk 23^) ; 
 
 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 [lou 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 “ ort ^ptffroo iffri 
 is an explanatory statement adjoined by Mark to dvopart fiou.” 
 
 2® 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 Caesarea Philippi ( 8 ^^^), 
 after which, we are expressly told 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 10^^ 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.^® 
 It was because He announced Himself as the 
 ‘ Christ ’ and was widely understood to possess claims 
 upon that dignity that, when He was 
 arraigned before Pilate, it was precisely 
 upon His pretensions to be ‘ the King 
 of the Jews ’ that He was interrogated ( i . On 
 Jewish lips this title naturally was corrected to ‘ the 
 
 selves without the article — according to Dalman, however, only in 
 the Babylonian Talmud {Words, p. 292). Dalman, loc. cit., says that 
 anarthrous Xpiaror: occurs in the Synoptics only in the phrases ‘ Jesus 
 Christ’ (Mt Mk 1^), ‘Jesus surnamed Christ’ (Mt 
 
 ‘Lord Christ’ (Lk 2II), ‘King Christ’ (Lk 232), and here. 
 
 29 Cf. below, pp. 
 
 Royal 
 
 Titles 
 
1 8 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 King of Israel’ (15^'), which again is identified with 
 * the appellation ‘ the Christ ’ (15^^). ' In this form also 
 Jesus was far from repelling the Messianic ascription, 
 but on the contrary expressly allows it (15^). To all 
 appearance, however, neither ‘ the Christ,’ nor ‘ the 
 King of Israel,’ was more current as a Messianic des- 
 ignation than the kindred form ‘ the Son of David ’ 
 (i2^^ cf. 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 ( cf. It is quite unten- 
 
 able, therefore, to suppose that Jesus wished to repel 
 this designation®^ in the question He put as He taught 
 in the temple (12®^), “How say the scribes that the 
 ^ Christ is the son of David,” when “ David himself ” 
 (and speaking “in the Holy Spirit”) “calls Him 
 rather Lord? ” He does not deny that He is David’s 
 
 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 9^7 12-^ 
 
 1 2 o 30>31 21O.I5 
 
 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.®^ But it seems clear that 
 He desires to intimate that as Lord of David He was 
 something far m.ore than was conveyed by the accus- 
 tomed — and so far acceptable^^ — title of ‘ Son of 
 David ’ 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^). Is 
 at least In the course of the narrative 
 repeatedly represented as applied to 
 Him by others, and Is expressly ap- 
 proved as so applied not only by the evangelist (3^^), 
 but by our Lord Himself (14®^). The form of the 
 title varies from the simple ‘Son of God’ ([i^] 3^^, 
 cf. 15^'^^) to the ‘Son of the Blessed’ (14®^) and the 
 ‘Son of the Most High God’ (5^). It Is, In the 
 Instances recited by Mark, found chiefly on the lips of 
 the unclean spirits whom Jesus cast out (3^^ 5^) ; 
 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, i. 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®^), and was frankly accepted 
 by our Lord as fairly setting these pretensions forth 
 (14®^). As a Messianic title it differs from^hose 
 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 b_y 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^^ and 
 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.^® 
 
 35 Westcott (on Jno 6 ®^) remarks: “The knowledge of the demo- 
 niacs reached to the essential nature of the Lord ” (comparing Rev 
 3“^, I Jno 2-^; and Jno and 6^'^). The expression, however, (which 
 occurs only in Mk Lk 4^^, Jno 6®^) need not in itself, as Hahn 
 (Lk 4 ^ 4 ) 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 Hahn adds that though the 
 
 demon knows of the humble human origin of Jesus {Na^aprjvi) 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 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? 
 
 From his own point of view Wellhausen speaks (on i 25 . 26 ) of 
 “the popular belief that the spirits have for the supersensual other 
 
21 
 
 The Designations in Mark 
 
 By the side of the passages in which the precise title 
 ‘ 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^^, cf. 12®; 
 
 9*^), used obviously in a very pregnant sense and 
 these naturally suggest their correlatives in which He 
 speaks of God as His ‘ Father ’ in the same pregnant 
 manner (8^^, cf. 13^^ 14^^) • 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 uid? too 6eou. . . . 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 olds' too Oeoo or olds 
 Dr. Mathews in a note refers to Jno lo^® ii^, 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®^, and we may add at Mt i 67 ®, 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.”^® 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 9^) — “ 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 appropriatingly ‘His Father’ 
 when He declares that the Son of Man is to come in 
 the glory of Flis Father with the holy angels ( 8 ^®) , 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 ” (14^^). But this explanation 
 seems scarcely adequate; in any case there is intimated 
 in this usage a closeness as well as a uniqueness of rela- 
 ys Cf. Swete on Mk and also Wellhausen on these passages. “ ‘0 
 ofo? fiou 6 dyanrjrdf:” says the latter on 1^% “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® the meaning seems to 
 be, “sole, unique. Son”; while 1^1 9'^ 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.” 
 
23 
 
 The Designations in Mark 
 
 tlon existing between Jesus and God, which raises Jesus 
 far beyond comparison with any other son of man. 
 And that remarkable passage, I3^^ In which Jesus 
 declares His Ignorance, though He be the Son, of the 
 day of His advent, exalts Him apparently above not 
 nfien only, but angels as well, next to the Father Him- 
 self, with whom rather than with the angels He seems 
 to be classed.^® 
 
 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 Joes Indeed make occasional use of 
 them — ‘the Christ’ (9^h cf. 8^® 12^^ 13^^), the ‘Son 
 of David’ (12^^), the ‘Son [of God] ’ (I3^^ cf. 12^) 
 — but only exceptionally. The Messianic designation 
 which He Is represented as constantly applying to Hlm- 
 
 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 oud'e — ohdi 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) oo8k ol ayysXoi ours 6 wfop, as if the Son were 
 in the same class of beings with the angels in heaven, only the highest 
 of them. He says oudk — obdi] 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. fiir oo. 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., I, 205 note). From all which it is at least clear that the passage 
 confessedly assigns a superhuman nature to Jesus. 
 
24 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 self is also one peculiar to Himself — ‘ the Son of 
 Man.’^° 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^^, to which ref- 
 erence is repeatedly made (8^® 13^® 14^“),*^ 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^^ 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^® 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®^), 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, 
 
 40 210,28 g31,38 ^9,12,31 jo33,45 i^2Q i^21, 41,62^ 
 
 The reference to Daniel 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 Berufsbenuusstsein Jesu, 
 1905, pp. 17 sq.; Siegfried Goebel, Die Reden unseres Herrn nach Jo- 
 hannes, 1906, (following his note on Jno ; and Zahn in his Com- 
 mentary on Matthew. (Zahn is directly refuted by Fritz Tillmann 
 in the Biblische Zeitschrift, 1907, vol. i., 348 seg.). 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 Ursprung 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 12^^, 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 
 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- 
 
2 6 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 ignation of Himself by our Lord^^ 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 .Messianic 
 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^®) ; 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). 
 
27 
 
 The Designations in Mark 
 
 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.^® 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 ‘ 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. 
 
 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 
 ‘SonT^M^’ minister (lo^^). Suffering belongs 
 therefore to the very essence of His 
 mission (8^^ 10^^ 14“^’^^) and has accordingly 
 
 been pre-announced for Him in the Scriptures (9^^ 
 14^^). 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” (10^®). 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^^ 9^’^^ 10^^). 
 Nor is this vindication by resurrection all. He is 
 to “rise again” after three days (8^^ 9^^ 10^^), but 
 is to “ come ” again “ in clouds with great glory and 
 power” (13^®, cf. 14®^) at some more remote, undes- 
 ignated time (13^^), to establish the Kingdom in which 
 He shall sit at the right hand of power (14®^). 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“^) ; 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^^). 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 
 ‘ Son of Man.’ “ 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 (10^^) 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“®) and even to forgive sins (2^^). 
 Perhaps in the light of 8^® 13% 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^^ “His elect”; 8^® 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, 
 *S^n^oT\lan' 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^'), or “ coming 
 In clouds with great power and glory” (13“^) — i^^ 
 the glory of His Father with the holy angels” ( 8 ^^), 
 those holy angels who are sent forth by Him to do 
 His bidding, that they may gather to Him His chosen 
 ones (13“^). Although there are intermingled traits 
 derived from other lines of prophecy, the reference 
 to the great vision of Daniel 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- 
 
31 
 
 The Designations in Mark 
 
 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.^^ 
 
 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 q£ Jesus 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^). The account which 
 he gives of the beginning of this great religious move- 
 y 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 
 
 32 
 
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 supernatural; 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®); and by God 
 Himself from heaven as His Son, His beloved, in 
 whom He was well pleased 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 (T^), in His control of demonic 
 personalities (T”^), in the forgiveness of sins (2^^), ^ 
 
 in His sovereignty over the religious ordinances of 
 Israel (2^®), in His relations to nature and nature’s 
 laws (4^^), in His dominion over death itself (5^^). 
 
 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 
 
 X 
 
 tempted to think Him beside Himself, and His ene- 
 mies proclaimed Him obviously suffering from “ pos- 
 session ” 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"‘ 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- 
 
 Messiah 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 
 
'Markus Conception of Our Lord 35 
 
 God is. Designating Him currently merely by His 
 personal name of ‘ Jesus,’ and representing Him as 
 currently spoken of by His contemporaries merely as 
 ‘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 
 oersonality. 
 
 There is no necessary contradiction between these 
 :wo hypotheses; and we must not introduce here 
 a 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. 
 
36 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 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 
 ‘ 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- 
 X 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^^) in which Jesus acknowledges ignorance of the 
 Jesus a time of His (second) coming.^ Here, 
 Superangelic in the very act of admitting limitations 
 Person pjjg knowledge, in 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 superangellc 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 2^). 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^^), and elsewhere they appear as His subor- 
 dinates swelling His train (8^®) or His servants obey- 
 ing His behests (13^^ “He shall send the angels”). 
 Clearly, therefore, to Mark Jesus is not merely a 
 superhuman but a superangellc personality: and the 
 question at once obtrudes itself whether a superangellc 
 person is not by that very fact removed from the 
 category of creatures. 
 
 icientific life of Jesus.” If so, a “ truly scientific life of Jesus ” must 
 illow that He asserted for Himself a superangellc, that is, a more 
 han creaturely dignity of person. Others, just for this reason, would 
 leny the words to Jesus (e.g. Martineau, Seat of Authority in Religion, 
 ;9o; N. Schmidt, The Prophet of Nazareth, 147, 231 note), and even 
 Kalman 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 Daniel is 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.^ 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 as a basis for Messianic hopes: 
 
 ^fbut 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.^ 
 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^^, 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.” 
 
39 
 
 Markus Conception of Our Lord 
 
 source of the preceding bestial rulers. Judaism may 
 not 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 
 heavenly nature and supposed Him to appear upon the 
 ^arth as a developed personality.^ That our Lord does 
 aot 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 
 □f Daniel,® 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* ^ conception which does not fail to find 
 
 Earthly Life independent expression in such passages, 
 a Mission jss jq45^ Pqj.^ assertions 
 
 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 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 hirth as a human 
 heingJ' “ 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 — 
 50 at least it seems — an earthly origin, implies, apart from the incen- 
 tive contributed by Dan 7^^, his miraculous superhuman appearance.” 
 Cf. p. 257 et seq. 
 
 ® 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.® In 
 themselves these expressions may not necessarily In- 
 volve the Idea of preexistence (cf. 9^^ and Jno 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.’ 
 
 ® Cf. Swete, on Mk “‘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 {v. 35), but 
 to His mission from the Father (Jno 8^^ j22op’. ^nd on Mk 10^®: 
 “ For ^X6ov in reference to our Lord’s entrance into the world, cf. 
 
 2^’^; it is used also of the Baptist (9I1 seq., j^q jT) regarded as a 
 divine messenger ” — whence we observe that it does not of itself imply 
 preexistence. Meyer, on 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 “His coming as such is always brought forward with great 
 emphasis by Mark and Luke.” Holtzmann on thinks the reference 
 is to the departure from Capernaum, while Luke’s phrase (4^^) is a 
 transition to the Johannine form of expression (e.g. 8^^)^ 
 
 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 
 
41 
 
 Markus Conception of Our Lord 
 
 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 jg distinctly a superhuman one; one 
 lich is not only in the future to be seen sitting at the 
 ;ht hand of power and coming with the clouds of 
 aven (14^^) — in clouds with great power and glory 
 3“®), even in the glory of His Father with the holy 
 gels (8^^) who do His bidding as the Judge of all 
 
 1 earth, gathering His elect for Him (13^®) while 
 
 2 punishes His enemies (8^®) ; but which in the pres- 
 t world itself exercises functions which are truly 
 dne, — for who is Lord of the Sabbath but the God 
 10 instituted it in commemoration of His own rest 
 
 and who can forgive sins but God only 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.® 
 
 t^iction on His part of preexistence, though they do not in themselves 
 jpportedly 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 
 i 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, Je<wish 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. 
 iton considers the Similitudes of Enoch post-Christian (cf. pp. 61, 
 
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 is indicated by the designation ‘ Son of 
 of God ’ as ascribed to Jesus. In the 
 Jesus* Sonship parable 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. iii. 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., i, 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 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. 
 
43 
 
 Alark^s Conception of Our Lord 
 
 the mind inevitably reverts again to the representation 
 of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which in its doctrine 
 of the Son (cf. Heb 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 
 — 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 
 ‘ 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 14^"). And it is noticeable farther that 
 immediately upon our Lord’s acceptance of the ascrip- 
 tion the high priest accused Him of blasphemy (14®^), 
 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.^^ Even the heathen cen- 
 
 ® Cf. Meyer and Swete on Mk 3^1. 
 
 10 W. C. Allen, on Mt 26®^, 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 Oiir Lord 
 
 turlon’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^^) 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. 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 3^^ 5'^), the appointed guardians 
 
 of the spiritual life of Israel (14®^), Jesus Himself 
 (126 j ^32 1462^^ QqJ Heaven 9"^), 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 
 
 Wellhausen’s remark need not be disputed: “The centurion uses 
 the expression ‘Son of God’ not, like the high priest (14®!), 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^^). 
 
^Mark^s Conception of Our Lord 45 
 
 d£ God, in the supernatural dignity of His person, 
 above 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 
 ieeply with supernatural implications that even apart 
 From such a passage as 13^^ where the superangelic 
 lature of the Son is openly expressed, we cannot avoid 
 roncluding (cf. especially 12^ 14®^ 15^^) 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 
 dso 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^^’“'^) 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^ 25^ Jno 3“^ Rom 7^ 2 Cor ii^, Eph 5^^ Rev 
 9'^ 2 1“’^), but also a reminiscence of those Old Tes- 
 ament passages, of which Hos 2^^ may be taken as the 
 ype (cf. Ex 20'^, Jer 2“^, Ezek which 
 
 [ehovah’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 Oiir 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 Jehovahd* 
 This question once clearly raised, other phenomena 
 y obtrude themselves at once upon our attention. We 
 are impelled, for example, to ask afresh what sense 
 our Lord put upon the words of the noth 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 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 ‘Lord’ wLich 
 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 
 
 o 
 
 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.^^ 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.” 
 
Markus 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 
 understood by Mark to intend — by such a designation 
 )f the Messiah, who He Himself was, to attribute to 
 ^im 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 
 jodd^ To sit at the right hand of God is to partici- 
 )ate in the divine dominion,^® which, as it is a greater 
 han human dignity, would seem to require a greater 
 ban human nature. To be in this sense David’s Lord 
 alls little if anything short of being David’s God.^® 
 In estimating the significance of such a passage, we 
 nust not permit to fall out of sight the constant use 
 Jesus of the term ‘ Lord ’ in the Lxx version 
 Identified with of the Old Testament for God.^’’^ There 
 Jehovah jg << practically equivalent to God 
 
 [6^6^) and is the rendering of the solemn name of 
 [ehovah.”^® The writers of the New Testament, and 
 
 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. 
 deyer on Mt 22^®, and Alexander in loc., also Delitzsch on Ps no, p. 
 85) ; but this need not be pressed here. 
 
 Cf. Delitzsch, Psalms, iii. p, 189. Stanton, Jewish and Christian 
 lessiah, ioi-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.” 
 
 Cf. Swete’s note on Mk 
 
 Cf. D. Somerville, St. Paul’s Conception of Christ, pp. 295 et seq, 
 Somerville, p. 143. The supplanting of Jehovah by ‘ Lord ’ in the 
 XX of course rests upon the K^ri perpetuum by which Adhonai was 
 iibstituted 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.^® 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. loi), “ is the Lord . . . That the idea 
 of is immediately connected with the idea of Jehovah is clear 
 
 from the fact that the two names are frequently associated, and that 
 ''JTX would in later times be substituted in reading for niH' . . .” 
 
 When our Lord is called ‘ Lord,’ therefore, in the divine sense, it is 
 to Jehovah specifically that the suggestion points. 
 
 Cf. Stanton, Jewish and Christian Messiah, 197, 198 and Note on 
 the latter page. Speaking of passages like these he says: “ Deut 33^ 
 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. 
 
49 
 
 "Markus Conception of Our Lord 
 
 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.®® But in the original of Isaiah 40^ 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.®^ 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.®® And this explanation might 
 
 2® 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 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 
 prophet a distinction in the Godhead was not thought of; but subse- 
 ijuent 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 
 Dnly 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 
 :o 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. 
 
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- 
 V, 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, 
 Vbut only an unexpressed one. To give expression to 
 his christology did not lie within the limits of the 
 task he had undertaken.^® 
 
 23 Cf. a careful precis of Mark’s Conception of the Verson 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^^), 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 (lo^®, cf. 2^'^). He prosecuted this min- 
 Cistry by a career of preaching (1^®), and in the end died and rose 
 again that He might give His life a ransom for many (10^^). 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^®, cf. ii^) and 
 no servant (12®, cf. 9'^), not merely David’s son but David’s Lord 
 (i 235) who is Jehovah Himself (i^). He had in His hands all author- 
 ■’ ity (i22 1 27 210 228 ^^41 ^43^ (,f. 1^1 2^ 9 ~^) y and exercised all divine 
 prerogatives — controlling evil spirits, the laws of nature, death itself, — 
 
'Markus 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 
 le Messiahship ^g fundamental fact of His 
 
 lission. We have already had occasion to point out 
 lat the Messiahship and the deity of Jesus are not 
 lutually exclusive conceptions. Even on the purely 
 ewish plane it was possible to conceive the Messiah 
 
 supernatural person: and He is so conceived, for 
 sample, 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 
 ; 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 
 dessianic ideal, an attempt to work a change in the 
 urrent conception of the Messianic office — a change 
 Eich involved its broadening to cover a wider area 
 f Old Testament prophecy and its deepening to em- 
 ody spiritual rather than p revailin gly external aspira- 
 !ons.^^ We have already noted that our Lord’s 
 
 ading the heart and the future (9^^ 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- 
 )m 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 
 dcommodiously ^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. 
 
Markus 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 irresis tible 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.*® 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 (lo^® 9^* 14*^ and the Divine Redeemer (i^) 
 as well as the Danielle Son of Man.*® But these fac- 
 
 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 
 Dur 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 
 :onstruction {Expositor, Dec. 1892). Says Charles (p. 316): “This 
 :ransformed conception of the Son of Man is thus permeated through- 
 )ut by the Isaian conception of the Servant of Jehovah; but though 
 :he Enochic conception is fundamentally transformed, the transcendent 
 daims underlying it are not for a moment forgotten.” If we may be 
 permitted to find the preadumbration of the “ transcendent ” element of 
 
56 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 Is aiani c 
 “ Se rvant of Jeho vah,” the Danielic “ Son of Man,” and the general 
 T. “ Advent o f Jehovah,” 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 (which 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^^). And not only does Matthew, like Mark, re- 
 serve the simple ‘ 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^), 
 and follows this up (unlike Mark) by repeating it both 
 at the opening of his formal narrative (i^®), and at 
 an important new starting point in his narrative 
 ( i62i V. r.^ .1 employs a certain fulness of des- 
 
 1 In all tliese three places ’’lyjffoo? Xpifft 6 <; seems to be used as a proper 
 name. Meyer (i^, p. 51) says: “In the Gospels Xpiard^ stands as a 
 proper name only in Mt Mk Jno . . . here also 
 
 57 
 
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^) is the phraseology with which he opens 
 this genealogy: he closes it with the words, “Mary 
 of whom was born Jesus surnamed Christ” 
 and in the summary which he adjoins he calculates the 
 generations “ unto Christ ” (i^^) — a designation which 
 meets us again at ii^. 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 
 ii^ and carries it on with the simple ‘Jesus’ 
 
 to the end.^ The simple ‘Jesus’ occurs thus in his 
 
 (cf. Mk 1^), in the superscription, the whole of the great name’/Ty^roo? 
 Xpc(Tr6? 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,’ i6~^; ‘Jesus surnamed Christ,’ 27'^’^ 
 
 ‘Jesus the Nazarene,’ 26^1; ‘Jesus the Galilean,’ 2669; ‘the prophet 
 Jesus who is from Nazareth of Galilee,’ 21II; ‘Jesus the King of the 
 Jews,’ 2767). The simple ‘Jesus’ occurs therefore about 140 times; 
 and always is Matthew’s own except i2i. It is according to Moulton 
 and Geden anarthrous in the following passages: (i^) 1i6.21.25 
 (l621) 178 2017.30 2i1.12 2661.69,71,75 2717,22,37 286 . 9 (l8[2o] in all). 
 Two of these instances (178 and aoU) may, however, be eliminated as 
 probably false readings. ‘Jesus Christ,’ iS 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; 1621 is to be looked upon in accordance with this 
 as a new beginning; while at the article is present because it takes 
 up the ‘Jesus Christ’ of ii again, further explained at as the 
 “Jesus surnamed Christ,” and hence is almost equivalent to ‘"this Jesus 
 Christ.” In ii® 2717.22 2669.71 2731, the article is properly absent on 
 
The Designations in Matthew 59 
 
 narrative about 139 times, and is replaced only by the 
 compound ‘ Jesus Christ ’ ( 16^^ cf. , and by 
 the simple ‘Christ’ ii^ cf. i^®), each, at most 
 three times. 
 
 In this sparing use of ‘ Jesus Christ ’ and ‘ 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^, no doubt, 
 Name 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 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.”® 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® may be classed here. Blass 
 (152) supposes the omission of the article at 28^ regular, on the ground 
 that no anaphora is conceivable there. In 20^® 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® may be so explained. In 121,26 
 certainly an article would be out of place. There remain 14I 2i^'^2 
 2651,75, 3Q 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). 
 
 2 “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 roo Xpi(iTou)t* 
 
6 o 
 
 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 XpiaroQ) 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 appears to show. 
 
 “ The Christ ” in 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 nvorks/’ comments J. A. Alexander, “ i.e. the miracles (Lk 7 ^®) 
 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 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 abrih} 
 As the abrm is Jesus, so its antecedent rob Xpurrob 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 J XpuTr6<;\s 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. 
 
The Designations in Matthew 6i 
 
 sure, been understood as the general term, “ the Mes- 
 siah.”^ 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 i6 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.® 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 and 27^’^. 
 
 5 Cf. Dalman {Words, 303): “In Mt 27i7>22 pilate uses the ex- 
 pression "Ifjffou? 6 Xsyofxsvoq Xpi(Tr6<;. 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 
 ii®, and in 6 Xeyofievot^ IUrpoi; 4^® lo^. Cf. Meyer’s note on 
 
 ii®, where he remarks that S Xeyopevof expresses neither doubt, nor 
 assurance, but means simply <vjho hears the name of Christ (4^® lo^ 
 27!'^) ; 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^® 27^^’--) occur in N. T. only at Mt 4^® lo^, “ Si- 
 mon surnamed Peter”; Jno ii^® 20^^ 21^, “Thomas surnamed Didy- 
 mus”; Col 4^^ “Jesus surnamed Justus.” Its equivalent in such forms 
 as “a man named” (Mt 9® 26®>i^ 27I®, Mk 15^ Lk 22^^), or a “city 
 called” (Mt 2-^, Jno 4® 19^^) » or “a place called” (Mt 26®® 27®®, 
 
 Jno 5®, Acts 3® 6®) are not infrequent. 
 
62 
 
 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 ticular Jesus in question;® 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 and so prepares the way for an 
 
 Seldom Used ^ , r 1 • u 
 
 occasional employment or this other 
 
 name ii^). 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 ii^’^ 
 and no doubt also at and we may add equally so 
 
 ® 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 Xpi(Tr6<; does not declare 
 Him Messiah, but as in verse is His name.” According to this in- 
 terpretation, he would have passages of similar character explained, 
 e.g. Mt 271^ 22] Jesus quern Christi nomine ornant *’ — and so 
 
 Mk 15^, Mt 26^^ 9^ 26^»36 2733^ jno 1912,17^ Acts 32, Eph 2^^, Simi- 
 larly Keil, on i^®. 
 
 Cf. Zahn, in loc.: “That Matthew, who elsewhere in the narra- 
 tive statedly speaks of Jesus by His proper name, writes rou Xpcffzou 
 here instead, is explained just as in 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 (cf. “the Son of David”), and 16“^ (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. 
 2 ^ 17 - 22 ) .8 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* of 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: ‘Immanuel’ ‘Lord’ (3^), ‘the 
 
 Nazarene ’ (2^^). The implications of the first two 
 
 ® 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 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^^). 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®^), 
 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^^). The 
 simple ‘ Jesus,’ as has been already pointed out. He 
 is not represented as called, except by the angel an- 
 nouncing His birth (i“^), but Pilate is quoted as des- 
 ignating Him by His full name, “ Jesus, surnamed 
 Christ” (27^'^’^^), 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^^). 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 official 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 65 
 
 have used the phrase appearing in the parallel passage 
 in Mark — “ the King of the Jews or else that the 
 term Christ is employed here in its full official sense 
 as an appellative, — “ Jesus who is commonly called 
 the Christ.”^® 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^) 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. ii^). On heathen ears, 
 as we know, the term “ Christ ” was apt to strike as 
 a proper name 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 
 '.-proper name, because men did not wait for His death 
 "^before they began to hope it would be He who should 
 deliver Israel.^^ 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 
 
 ® So Dalman. 
 
 10 So e.g. Alexander and Weiss. 
 
 Suetonius, Chresto impulsore,” and note Acts 
 
 12 Lk 2421. 
 
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 Barabbasd® 
 
 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^^’^®).^* Its usual Greek rendering, 
 
 ‘Teacher’ {dcddaxale) ^ also takes a relatively infe- 
 rior place in Matthew, being largely supplanted by 
 the more Greek ‘ Lord ’ ( ^'\oce ) , perhaps as the 
 
 representative of the Aramaic Mdri}^ A tendency 
 seems even observable to reserve ‘Teacher’ {dcdda- 
 xaXe ) for the non-committal, respectful address of 
 those who were not followers of Jesus (12^® 22^®’^^’^®; 
 9I1 19^®). It is employed, however, in 
 
 If the reading ‘ Jesus Barabbas ’ in Mt 27131'^ 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’ 
 DicL of the Bible, art. ‘Barabbas’ (i. 245). 
 
 1^ The contrast between the address of the other disciples, “ Is it I, 
 Lord ( xbpie. ) ?” (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, diddffxaXe. 
 
 13 Wellhausen on Mt 23'^'i3 (p. 117) remarks: “We observe that the 
 address 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 hy xopie (mari).” 
 
N \v 
 
 The Designations in Matthew 67 
 
 the case of a scribe who came to Jesus and declared 
 his purpose to become His constant follower (8^®, cf. 
 19^®). 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^®). Similarly in didactic statements 
 He refers 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 
 ‘ guides,’ because He, the Christ, alone is their ‘ Guide ’ 
 (23^-^^). 
 
 Two new terms are brought before us in these last- 
 quoted declarations, — ‘ House-master ’ Mt 
 
 10^^ 24^^; cf. Mk 13^^) and ‘Guide’ {xad 7 ]yr^rij< 7 -, 
 23^^ only in N. T.) ; both of which seem to have higher 
 implications than ‘Teacher’ {dcdd(TxaXo(:) ^ although 
 both are placed in the closest connection with it as 
 its practical synonyms 23^’^^). ‘Guide’ 
 
 {^adrjT^Tij^) occurs indeed nowhere elsed® and we 
 can say of it only that our Lord chose it as one of 
 
 ^®The source of the term xadrjYi^TTj^ 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 loc.). The Hebraists 
 (Wunsche, Delitzsch, Salkinson) are inclined to seek for it an Aramaic 
 original, miD (cf. Holtzmann, Hand-Corn., 251): but on this see 
 Dalman, W ords, 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 — ^ Hathahy ‘the Guide’ — among the Samaritans: see Stan- 
 ton, Jevnsh 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 ’ 
 (ocxod£(77r6r/^(:) seems to have been rather a favorite 
 figurative expression with Him, to set 
 t^e^^Hou^e forth His relation to His disciples, 
 whether in didactic or in parabolic state- 
 ment. In one of His parables, indeed, it is not 
 He who is the ‘ H^use-master ’ , but 
 
 God,^"^ while He is God’s Son and Heir (21^^ ) 
 
 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“^ etseq., etseq.^^ ‘House- 
 master ’ (oho^eanoTT]^') 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’ {olxodzar.or/]^) He distributes to men the rewards 
 of their labors in accordance with His own will, doing 
 as He will with His own (20^^) : 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^^ ^ 
 
 word, to the ‘ House-master ’(o^xo^£<T;r6r;yc) , who is ex- 
 
 In 13*^2 the ohodsarzoTTj^; is “every scribe who has been made 
 a disciple in the kingdom of heaven.” And in 24^2 the oixodeffTzoTT^^ 
 is the watching follower on earth who waits for His coming. 
 
The Designations in Matthew 69 
 
 pressly identified with ‘the Son of Man’ (13^®) 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 (10^^). The implications of sovereignty inherent 
 in the term run up in its application therefore into the 
 sovereignty of God : as ‘ House-master ’ {ohodeanozy ]^) , 
 Jesus is pictured as our divine Lordd® 
 
 If ‘Teacher’ {dtddaxale) somewhat sinks in value 
 as an honorific form of address in Matthew as 
 , , compared with Mark, its more Greek 
 
 anAddre^ equivalent, ‘Lord’ on the 
 
 other hand, is more frequently and va- 
 riously employed by Matthew than by Markd^ It 
 
 On the meaning of olxods(nz 6 rrj<s see T. D. Woolsey, Bibliotheca 
 Sacra, July, i86i, p. 599. means “the absolute owner of 
 
 things . . . as . . . de(nt 6 rf)(s oixca?, the master of a house or 
 
 household; whence the oixode<n: 6 rrj<s of the sacred writers.” Cf. 
 Trench, Synonyms of N. T., xxviii., p. 91. 
 
 On the use of xopis in Matthew and its relations to other forms of 
 address, cf. Zahn, on Mt. 7-1 (p. 315, note 235). Kupie, 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 928 (v. 27, Son of David), 1522,27 along 
 
 with Son of David), 17^^ jno 411,15,19,49 ^7 534 ^ 36 , 38 . on the 
 
 part of male and female disciples at Mt 82 i> 2 s 1428,30 1522 1^4 ig2i 
 2622, Jno 668 „ 3 , 12 , 21 , 27 , 32 , 34,39 136,9,25,86 145,8,22. Although the 
 
 disciples of Jesus also address Him by diddaxals: (Jno 13^6-16^ of. 
 io 24 ; examples: Mk 468 988 13I. pa^^i, Mk 9® ii2i, Jno 188,49 481 ^2 
 II®), the distinction is, however, to be noted that this address is used 
 also by His opponents, and especially by the scribes (in Mt 8^® no doubt 
 by a friendly scribe in approaching Him, but still one who did not 
 become a disciple, in clear distinction from 8^1, cf. 12®® 19I® 22^6*24, 3 « 
 Jno 32: and by Judas, Mt 2625,49), ^hile on the other hand xbpteis 
 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^ 9^^ 17^^ or heathen 
 
 (86,8 J ^22,25 1^27^^ q£ discipleS (8^^’^^ 1^28,30 
 
 1 522 j,^4 jg2i 26^^) ; 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. 
 ‘ Lord ’ ( ''iopce ) is accordingly a higher mode of 
 designation in Matthew than ‘Teacher’ (^dcddaxah), 
 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^° as 
 a form of address to Jesus, and, besides once as an 
 address to God (ii“^), only a single time (to Pilate, 
 27^^), outside of parables, as an address to anyone 
 else. Even in its parabolic use, indeed, its reference 
 is always (except 21^^ only) either to God ( 1 325, [26] ,27,31 
 1 832,34 2 j 42 ^ ^ 24 ^ qj. Jesus pictured in positions of 
 
 supreme authority ([13^^] 20^ 
 
 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. Ur hind. 8i6, i. 28, 821, i) and always an honorific 
 expression of subjection to those addressed (cf. Mt 22*4 saq.)^ or at least 
 of dependence upon them at the moment. Thus Pilate Is so addressed 
 by the Sanhedrin (Mt 27®^), but also Philip by the Greeks (Jno la^i), 
 the gardener by the Magdalen (Jno 2 q 4^), in each case in preferring 
 a request.” When Zahn says (on the same page) that “ it was only 
 after Jesus’ death ” that xupis “ 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 ^ 24^2 2243-45^ and even 
 itself, though Zahn explains that passage otherwise. It is clear from 
 even 21^ alone that Jesus was constantly called ‘Lord’ and that in a 
 very high connotation. 
 
 20 32,6,8,21,25 ^28 1428,30 1525,27 i622 174,15 Ig21 2Q30.33 2622, cf. 
 25.37,44 721,21. Also 1522 2 q 31. 
 
The Designations in Matthew 71 
 
 [ 20 ], 21 . 21 ,[ 22 ]. 23 . 23 .[ 24 ], 26 ^ cf. |3g 
 
 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.^^ 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^^ ^21, 21^ jg found occasionally 
 
 to be suggestive of something even higher 
 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"^), 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^^’^^). 
 In the latter case, of course, nothing is lacking of rec- 
 ' 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 
 
 Mk 9^ (17^) ; pal^iSo'^t Mk ; 3 idd(Txa?<e Lk 
 
 488 (g 25 )^ Mk 9^^ Lk 938 (1715); Iruavara Lk 8^4 ( 825 ) (174). 
 
72 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 our Lord is represented by Matthew as conceiving 
 His relation to His followers as very 
 an Appellat^n 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®), the words “the Lord” are probably 
 not genuine. Nevertheless, on the Ups 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®). 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^), — 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^“), — 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^^’^®), 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^) applies to Him the term 
 ‘ 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 
 f 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 
 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 
 (21^6 16^^) and that Jesus Himself was far from 
 
 repelling this attribution (13^^); 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^), at the beginning of the 
 narrative proper and at the new beginning 
 
 marked by His open proclamation of His dignity 
 
74 
 
 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 (i6^^), 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 on which 
 
 account He forms the natural termination of the gen- 
 ealogy begun in Abraham and by implying 
 
 that His works marked Him out as the Messiah ( 1 1^) , 
 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®^), and the 
 bitter sport His judges made of Him (26®®) 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 heathen judge already con- 
 
 ceived the title ‘ Christ’ as only His surname (27^'^’“^ 
 cf. ii^). 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 ’ 
 (ii^). He replied with no doubtful indication that Lie 
 was indeed ‘the Christ’ When Peter (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^’^), and only charged 
 His disciples not as yet to reveal the fact that He was 
 “the Christ” (i6“^). 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^^'^®). 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^®). The name ‘the Christ,’ He explained 
 1(24^), 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” (26^^) He, accordingly, 
 ^ solemnly accepted the title and explained that in ac- 
 cepting it He took it in its highest connotation (26®^) 
 
 < — 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^ or Ps 40^ or 1 1 8^®, and itself the 
 Designations b^sis of a customary method of pregnant 
 speech of the Messiah as “ coming.’”^*^ 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^) , which Matthew records as having been 
 called out by the report brought the Baptist of the 
 “ works of Christ ” — using the name of ‘ 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^^ 9^^ 10^^ 20^®, cf. 
 
 22 See the passages carefully enumerated in Thayer-Grimm, sub voc. 
 epyoixai^ I. i a. /?. (pp. 250-1 near top). Dr. Edersheim, Life, etc., i. 
 668, says: “The designation, ‘the Coming One’ {habba), 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 ii^ and Lk 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^^). 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 Xpi<TTd<; (cf. esp. 2^), 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 (3I1, Mk i'^, Lk 3I®, Jno j 27 ) by the term o kpy 6 pevo<;^ 
 the Coming One, the Great Expected. No doubt other expected per- 
 sonalities might be similarly spoken of (Mt 11^^ 17^® Jno 6^^), 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 Designaiiotis in Matthew 77 
 
 10“*®), as well as certain popular ascriptions to the same 
 effect (21® 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^) and by the Roman 
 governor at His trial (27^^ cf. 27^'^) and the mocking 
 soldiery (27^®). Jesus accepts it at Pilate’s hands, 
 despite the heathen form which he gives it, and which 
 the priests (27^“) 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 Zecharlah, “ Behold thy King com- 
 eth unto thee,” etc. (21^). 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^^ (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 rations to Himself. Such a King 
 certainly was something more than a ‘ Son of David ’ 
 (2 2^^®eq.)^ But that designation also belongs to Him 
 as the ‘ 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 ’ (ii^) than 
 
 23 Cf. W. C. Allen on Mt ii^^. Commenting on the aorist, Ttapedod-q^ 
 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 ^Xdov of 5^"^ and the dnoffre lavra 
 
 of io40.” 
 
78 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 as ‘the Son of David’ (i2“^ 9-’^ 15^^ cf. 
 
 1^) — and that He by no means refused the ascription 
 (esp. 21^’^^). 
 
 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* plications 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^^), although at first 
 sight we might seem to be moving here in the atmos- 
 phere of a merely official sonship.^^ 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^’^ cf. 
 829). 25 Sicnilarly the confession wrung from the dis- 
 
 2^ 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 1^5). 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 32I®) — an idea which was so vividly conceived 
 that God’s fatherhood is set excludingly over against that of Abraham 
 and Jacob (Is 63^®) — 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 
 ^ the abyss corresponding to the voice from heaven (3^^). What God 
 declares of Jesus, the devil brings into question (Gen 3^, Job jSseq.)^ 
 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^’^, e: 6 ulo^ but el o!o^ 
 
The Designations in Matthew 79 
 
 ciples 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 
 (14^3) .26 In Peter’s great confession (16^®)^’^ the jid- 
 junction of ‘ the Son of the Living God ’ to the simple 
 ‘ Christ ’ is no more without its high significance than 
 the similar adjunction in the high priest’s adjuration 
 (2663)28 q£ t God’ to the simple ‘ Christ.’ 
 
 ej TOO 6 eoo» 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 
 1^33 27'^®). 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, 31'^ i6^6 even nor the 
 
 position of Oeou before olog Is to be overlooked. Even if divine 
 Sonship and Messianic dignity were s)monyms (see to the contrary 
 p. 145 seg.), 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, i2~^ 16^6 21^ 2663). 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, 7 ioran 6 <^ kariv ourof (S^t) 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 14^2 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 Oiir 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 ‘ the Son of 
 God’ (27^^’^^), 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,’ w^ho be- 
 cause His ‘ Son ’ was also His ‘ Beloved,’ His chosen, 
 in whom He was well pleased (3^'^ 17^).^® 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^^ so here the divine Sonship is to be 
 explained from 1I8-25. 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 for in this connection dya7T7]T6<^ bears the es- 
 
 tablished sense of only son=^iovo^ev>;9*” It appears to be probable, 
 on the contrary, that, as W. C. Allen, in loc., puts it “ 6 dyanTjTo? 
 is not an attribute of d oloq [loo, 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. 229!!. 
 
The Designations in Matthew 8 i 
 
 which Is the head of the corner (21^’^'^®) 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 
 (22^). 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 
 which are recorded at 24^% 11^^ and 
 2 818 - 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 superangellc 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.”^^ The second of 
 
 so Cf. Zahn, in loc., pp. 620, 621. 
 
 SI 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 Oiir Lord 
 
 the utterances in question 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 ” “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).®® 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 Ne^w Testament , — by a company of scholars, — 
 p. 17. 
 
 33 Cf. Zahn on Mt ii 25-30 440): “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^®'^^) 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^^ 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 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 pj;ecincts 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- 
 thewy too, for example, we find Jesus 
 represented as designated from heaven ‘ the Be- 
 loved,’ who has been chosen out by God as His rep- 
 
 Note the aorist, which as in ii27 (cf. W. C. Allen, in loc.) appears 
 to refer to a pre-temporal act. 
 
84 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 resentative (3^^ and as identifying Himself 
 
 with the mysterious Shepherd of Zechariah who is 
 Jehovah’s fellow (26^^). And we find Him here also 
 not only designating Himself the ‘ Bridegroom ’ 
 (9^^), but elucidating the designation in a couple' of 
 striking parables (the parable of the Ten Virgins, 
 2 .1 seq.,5,6,10. parable of the Marriage of the 
 
 King’s Son, 22^®®^^-), 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 irnplicit reference in Mar k 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^ (12^®®®*^-) 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’ which in 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 
 
 Cf. W. C. Allen on 3!^^ 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 (I6^^ 
 cf. verses 16, 20; 17^ cf. verse 10 [the forerunner of 
 Messiah]; 24^^ cf. verse 23; 26®"^, 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^®). Suffering and death 
 were, therefore. His appointed portion (17^^ 17^^ 20^^ 
 252,24,45^^ as indeed Scripture had foretold (12^*^). But 
 after death is the resurrection (17^’““ 20^® 12^®), and 
 after the resurrection the “ coming ” in great glory to 
 judge the world (10^^ 26®^). 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” (ii^^) ; but lived a hard and suffering 
 life, — He had not where to lay His head (8“^). His 
 task was to sow the good seed of the word (13^^). 
 As part of His lowliness, it emerges that blasphemy 
 against Him is forgivable, as it is not against the Holy 
 Ghost (12^^). And the suffering He is called on to 
 endure runs out into death (17^^’^“). 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^®), as also is the 
 promise of the resurrection (12^^ 1^9.23 20^®) . When He 
 shall come again is left here, too, in the indefinite future 
 
86 
 
 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 (24"^, cf. iO“"), but the suddenness of its eventuation 
 is emphasized 
 
 The details become notably numerous again, how- 
 ever, when the purpose and accompaniment of this 
 coming are adverted to (13^^ 16“^ 19^^ 24^^ 25^^ 26®^). 
 The ‘ Son of Man ’ is “ henceforth to be seen sitting 
 at the right hand of power and coming in the clouds 
 of heaven” (26^^ 24^^). He is to come in the glory 
 of His Father with His angels (i6“^), for all the 
 angels are to be with Him (25^^). 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 ” 
 (i6“^) — and this is “to come in His kingdom” 
 (i6“®). There is naturally a punitive side to this 
 judgment and a side of rev/ard. 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^^). 
 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 twelv^tribes 
 of Israel” (19"®). 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^^), and “then 
 
The Designations in Matthew 87 
 
 dom of their Father ” (13^^). 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 js 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, 
 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 sowing the seed (13^^), 
 
 * Son of Man’ having not where to lay His head (8^^) 
 as He ministers to men (20^®), forgiving even blas- 
 phemy against Himself (12^^) and all indignities 
 (i7i2’22), down to death itself (17^^ 20^®) — and yet 
 even while on earth having authority to forgive sins 
 (9®) and to regulate religious ordinances (12®), and 
 dying only that He may ransom others (202^). And 
 He has also His period of exaltation, when having 
 risen from the dead (12^® 1^9,23 He in due time 
 
 comes in His glory, surrounded by His servants the 
 angels (162^ 25^^ 24^^), and gathers to Himself His 
 chosen ones whom He has ransomed by His death 
 (24^^ 13^^) ^nd, cleansing His Kingdom of all that 
 is iinrlean. RPts If- nn in Ifs dpstlned nerfectlon ( 16 ^^). 
 
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^®), who is God’s adequate and 
 exclusive Revelation, knowing Him even as He is 
 known (ii^^), who is sharer with the Father in the 
 one ineffable Name (28^^'^^) ; 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‘^) 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^ 
 of Jehovah Himself: “And He shall redeem Israel 
 from all his iniquities.”®® 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. 
 
 3® 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 in the case of 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 js 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- 
 
 89 
 
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 bir^h 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 no-t 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.^ No wonder rises in him, 
 therefore, when he reads of the supramundai^ 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 who had been 
 
 forechosen by God (3^'^ 17®) > and who, when born Into the world as 
 Jesus, was ‘ God-with-us ’ (i^^). 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.” 
 
Matthezv^s Conception of Our Lord 9 1 
 
 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 up at once on being applied to Him 
 of His into their highest implications. Even 
 Implications simple 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^), shall save His people — His 
 people, although, in accordance with that prediction, 
 they are Jehovah’s people — from their sins 
 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^^) 
 and disposing of the destinies of men in supreme sov- 
 ereignty (iO“^ J^24seq.,36seq.^ . ‘ Lord ’ becomes the 
 
 proper designation of the universal King and Judge 
 (2^37,44) ^hose coming is the coming of Jehovah (3^). 
 
 X^As the ‘ Christ ’ He is pictured as sitting less on David’s 
 throne than on God’s (22^^’'^^) ; as ‘ King,’ less as the 
 ruler of the nation for Israel than as Judge of all 
 the world for God (25^^®®"^); as ‘Bridegroom’ as 
 holding in His own hands the issues of life (22^ 25^) ; 
 as ‘ the Son of Man ’ as passing through humiliation 
 only to His own proper glory (i6“^ 24^® 26^); as 
 ‘ the Son of God ’ less as God’s representative and the 
 vehicle of His grace than as God’s fellow and 
 
92 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 the sharer with the Father in the one Ineffable Name 
 (2 818-20)^ 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 (ii^^) : “and 
 ^ ■ Assimilation ^o 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 wllleth 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, He 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 £^pg 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. v^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 attribu^d 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^^“®). 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 
 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 superangellc 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 dignit}’, 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 with 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 ordinal*}^ narrative designation of 
 our Lord is the simple ‘ Jesus,’ which occurs about sev- 
 enty-seven times. ^ This simplest of all des- 
 The Narrative ... i • i i i 
 
 Designations ignations 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’ jq1,39,41 ^^39 ^^42 j^l5 
 
 18® 19® 2 fourteen times). No other designation 
 than these tv*o, 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“®) and that Bartimaeus was told 
 that ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ was passing (i8^‘). In the 
 remaining instance he remarks that the evil spirits 
 knew that Jesus was ‘the Christ’ (4'^^); where ‘the 
 Christ’ is not strictly a designation of Jesus, but the 
 
 ^‘Jesus’ is anarthrous: 321,23 ^s.io g4i ^S 6,50 ig 37,40 
 
 22*8,52 23-® 
 
 97 
 
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.’^ 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 (T^), which is no exception, and 
 in the address to Jesus on the cross by the dying thief 
 (2342)3 jg broken. But, as in the other Syn- 
 
 optists, the name ‘ Jesus ’ occurs in compound forms 
 of address to Him recorded by the evangelist, — 
 ‘Jesus, Thou Son of God’ (8-^), ‘Jesus, Thou Son 
 of David” (18"^), ‘Jesus, Master’ (17^^); and at 
 the hands of the evil spirits (T^), the people (18^^) 
 and His disciples (24^^) alike, ‘Jesus the Nazarene ’ 
 
 2 In 242 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 (i 6 i 9 ), but not elsewhere in the Gospels. It becomes, however, 
 quite frequent in Acts: 433 759 gi6 „it.20 1526 196,13,17 
 
 2 o 2 i, 24,35 2 i 13 28^!. It might 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: (i) “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 '’I-qnou here may not be the dative after 'iXeyev. 
 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 xopie would be an instinc- 
 tive correction of "Irjffoo mistaken for a vocative; as in the other case 
 it would be an instinctive insertion of a vocative “ because ^Irjffou 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.* 
 
 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.® The Aramaic 
 Address ‘ Rabbi ’ does not occur in Luke 
 
 at all. Its common Greek rendering, ‘ Teacher ’ 
 (^dtddaxaXe) ^ 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*" II*® 12 ^^ i8*« 19 ^" 8*^ 9^^)- 
 
 The only exception to its employment by this rule is 
 supplied by 2 i^ 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 **); and He tells them, 
 broadly indeed, but no doubt with some, though cer- 
 tainly remote, reference to Himself and them, that 
 
 ^ In 4^^ 24^®, the form is 6 Na^aprjv 6 <$^ as it is in Mark: in 
 6 Na^apato?^ as in Mt, Jno and Acts. Cf. Plummer on 4^4. 
 
 5 There is a tendency, of course, to refer to Jesus where He was 
 present in fact or thought by the simple demonstrative ouro? 
 
 935 2341 [2q 44 232.4,14,23]^ and this is sometimes contemptuous ([521] 
 ^39,49 1^2 1914 [2444] 23^4,14,221,25,38 2348). So in the Other evan- 
 gelists: Mt 347 g2T 1222 175 2 i 4 o. 4 i,[ 38 ] 2/54^ and contemptuously, 9^ 
 1224 [^1254,55,56] 26®4 [27^^] 274^^ Mk 444 g 7 j2^ 1 5^® and Contemptu- 
 ously, 2^ [ 62 , 2 , 3 ]. Qn this depreciatory ouro<s see Meyer on 739,49. 
 
lOO 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^^) . The 
 choice of the term ‘Teacher’ {dtddaxaXoc: ) in these 
 two passages appears to be due to the correlative 
 “disciples” occurring in each; and it remains true 
 that ‘ Teacher ’ ( dtddaxaXe ) as a form of address is 
 characteristic in Luke, of non-followers of our Lord.® 
 The place of ‘ Teacher ’ on the lips of His followers 
 Is partly taken by a new term for ‘^Master,’ peculiar 
 to Luke ( iTTtardzrj^ ) which however 
 
 ‘Master' occurs only six times (5^ 
 
 17^^), only one of which (17^^) 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^ 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^^), 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 ’ 
 
 Teacher’ is in 3^2 employed as an address to John the Baptist; 
 and the Jewish Rabbis in the temple are called ‘Teachers’ in 2^®. 
 
 When Wellhausen on says ^^^E-Kiardra (and xopte) is used 
 in Luke by the disciples; diddffxaXs by others,” he is thus substan- 
 tially right. Cf. Plummer on 5^, where the meaning of the word is 
 discussed. 
 
lOI 
 
 The Designations in Luke 
 
 ' (^ohodeanoTTj^) ^ although the term occurs in parables 
 with reference to Him (13^® 
 
 The prevailing form of address to Jesus in Luke is, 
 however, the ordinary Greek honorific ‘ Lord ’ ( xupte ) , 
 ^ , used, however, obviously as an honor- 
 
 ^ Addrws especially high connotation. It 
 
 is put upon the lips, indeed, of out- 
 siders, suitors for mercy (5^^ 7® 18^^ 19^) and possibly 
 others 13^^) ; and our Lord’s own remark to 
 
 the effect that some called Him ‘ Lord, Lord,’ who 
 did not do the things He said (6^®) shows that it 
 might be insincerely used of Him. But this very 
 passage also indicates that to address Him as ‘ Lord ’ 
 i^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® ii^ 12^^ 17®"^ 22®®’®®’^^). 
 
 Something of its high implication, when so used, may 
 be caught from 5® in comparison with 5^ 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’ 
 {iTuaTdrrjQ) ^ “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 ’ ( ) .* Obviously the address 
 
 ® Streatfeild, Self -Interpretation of Jesus Christ, p. 99 note, is clearly 
 in the wrong in supposing that the change from intardra of v. 5 to 
 xvpie 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 
 
 ‘ 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 Tesus among themselves as ‘the 
 
 * Lord * as an T j ? ^ r i 
 
 Appellative Lord ; and we can feel 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^^) ; 
 and accordingly they said (v. 34), “The Lord hath 
 need of him” (cf. This instruction is 
 
 recorded by all the Synoptists, and the usage which 
 it involves of the term ‘Lord’jof 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.® 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 ^raffrara (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 
 
 9 Cf. Sven Herner, Die An^endung des W ortes xopto<^ im N. T., 
 pp. 12, 13: “In contrast with Matthew and Mark, Luke speaks of Jesus 
 by the designation x 6 pco(^ comparatively often. Even if 7I9.31 10^1 
 22^1 24^ be neglected as more or less uncertain in the reading, and 19^^ 
 as a parallel to Mt 21^, Mk n^, there remain nevertheless fourteen 
 passages peculiar to Luke (71^ 12-12 1315 jy5,6 jge 1^8,34 
 
 2261,61 24^^) which speak of Jesus by the designation of ‘Lord’: and 
 to these may be added the expressions ‘the mother of my Lord’ (i*^) 
 and ‘the Lord Christ’ (2II).” “It may be further remarked that 
 although one of the uncertain passages enumerated (24^) belongs to 
 
The Designations In Luke 103 
 
 lips of the disciples themselves in this designatory form 
 at 24^^*, and it occurs in two passages in the opening 
 chapters of the Gospel — in the elevated language of 
 the angelic announcement in the combination, ‘ Christ 
 the Lord’ or ‘the anointed Lord’ (2“), and in the 
 response of Elisabeth ( 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^^®®'^*) — 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 ’ jq1,s9,4i j j39 
 
 1242 J^15 J^5,6 jgo J^8 22^^’®^). 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 (24^4) 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 
 ‘ 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 
 of^Lord^*^ recognition of 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 mlnds.^° 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 mlnd.^^ 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. 
 
 Cf. Dalman, Words, 330: “When the Christians called Jesus 
 6 xopto?, 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 Xpiffro? xbpio<s used in his Gospel 2I1 (cf. Acts 2^6) de- 
 fines the term Xpiaro^s 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 xbpto<; 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^), and applies 
 it to the coming of John the Baptist whom he rep- 
 resents as preparing the way for Jesus’ 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.^** On the other hand, in passages like 
 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.^® 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, 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. ii 7,43 2II)” — if this can be 
 read of the advent of Jehovah in His Representative. 
 
 Hahn says, rightly as we think, at “Not to be understood of 
 the Messiah (Ambr., Beda, Euthym., Beng., Cast., Bisp., Schegg, 
 Schanz) but of God”; and at “Not to be understood of the 
 
lo6 The Designatiofis 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 w^ith 
 the LXX and the usage of ‘ Lord ’ as the personal 
 name of the Deity there Illustrated, the tei*m ‘ 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^^), 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 distlnc- 
 « 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 9*’^^). His followers 
 
 set their hopes upon Him in that office (24^^) ; and 
 Indeed with no uncertainty He Himself assumed the 
 
 Messiah (Kiin., Ols., Bisp., Schanz), but of God’'; but, we think, 
 wrongly at “By the xOpio^ there is here, just as in the Old Test, 
 passage, to be understood, not the Messiah (Kiin., Bh, 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 and decides rightly 
 
 also at whom Weiss properly follows; so also Plummer. 
 
107 
 
 The Designations in Luke 
 
 role of a prophet (4-^ 13^^’^^). But no more In Luke 
 than In the other Synoptlsts 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 
 (241^’^', cf. also 
 
 Luke also records from the mouth of the angel 
 announcing the birth of Jesus the new designation of 
 ‘ Saviour ’ — If we can call a deslgna- 
 
 ‘ Saviour’ tion new which Is so plainly adumbrated 
 In a passage like Mt (cf. also Lk 
 19^^) d® But this Is so little un-MessIanIc that It Is 
 not only connected with the Messianic prophecies by 
 adjacent references (i^h cf. 2^^ 3®), but Is expressly 
 defined as Messianic In the annunciation Itself: “a 
 Saviour, which Is Christ the Lord” (2^^). Like Mt 
 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 Davldlc King. The terms, “ a Saviour, 
 which Is Christ the Lord,” are. Indeed, an express 
 combination of the two lines of prophecy, and import 
 
 Cf. Meyer on 7^®: “They saw In this miracle a (TTjtietov of a 
 great prophet, and in His appearance they saw the beginning of the 
 Messianic deliverance (comp. i6S-79).» On the whole subject, cf. 
 Stanton, Jewish and Christian Messiah, 126 seq. 
 
 Cf. Plummer in loc.: “ Here first in N. T. is aioTTjp used of Christ, 
 and here only in Luke. Not in Matthew or Mark, and only once in 
 John (4^2) ; twice in Acts (s^i 132s) ; and frequently in Titus and 
 2 Peter.” 
 
io8 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^® 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^’’' suggest that at least ‘ Messiah ’ and 
 ‘Lord’ be kept separate: “There is bom 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.^® Even if we should read “ who is Mes- 
 siah, the Lord, ” or even “ who is an anointed Lord,”^® 
 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,”’^® — as, on the whole, we think we ought to read 
 
 E.g. Holtzmann, Weiss. 
 
 E.g. Meyer. 
 
 “ 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. 
 
 E.g. Paulus. 
 
 20 So Hahn: “ffwrtjpt not *a Deliverer’ (Paulus, Meyer, Bleek, 
 Ewald, Weiss, Hofmann, Keil, Nosgen, Holtzmann), but ^ the Deliv- 
 
109 
 
 The Designations in Luke 
 
 It, In the light of the distinction made between the two 
 designations ‘ Messiah ’ and ‘ Lord ’ in such a passage 
 as Acts 2^^ 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 Messlahship 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, Messlahship 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 
 '^Christ’’’'* Christ” (2^'’)— an Old Testament ex- 
 presslon (Ps 2“, cf. Lk 9“^ Acts 4“®) 
 here applied to the Infant Jesus, who Is by It Identified 
 as the promised Messlah.^^ 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 Xptffrd? xopio<$ 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 
 2^^) :Xpi(TT()<; the then popularly current name of the Messiah; xopto?, 
 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.” 
 
I lO 
 
 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^^) ; and as ex- 
 plaining the Divine Sonship of this Holy Child^^ as 
 due to, or rather as evidenced b}^. His supernatural 
 birth 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. 
 
Ill 
 
 The Designations in Luke 
 
 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^^), and records Peter’s 
 great confession in the form of “ Thou art the Christ 
 of God” (9^®), and Jesus’ ready acceptance of it, as 
 also His acquiescence in the ascription of the title of 
 Messiah, ‘ Christ,’ to Him by Plis enemies (‘ the 
 Christ,’ 22®’^, cf. 23^^ ‘Christ a King,’ 23^). Such 
 an ascription of the title ‘ Christ ’ to Him by His ene- 
 mies (22^^ 23-’^^’^^) is the best of all proofs that it was 
 commonly employed of Him by Llis followers. But 
 the significant fact for us is that in accepting it at their 
 hands Jesus claims it for Himself (22®' 23*). 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"®’^®), even as 
 He had at an earlier point expounded to the scribes 
 (20^^) 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^®). 
 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’ (23“) is 
 
I 12 
 
 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^^), 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®, Mt 3®). Similarly, 
 when the Jews accused Him to Pilate as representing 
 Himself to be “Christ, a King” (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^), and thus brought It about that He 
 was mocked on the cross by this title, and had It set 
 over His head (23^^’^®). 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 (18^®’^^, cf. means 
 
 repudiated when ) 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^^), 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^^). 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^^). No doubt the Greek is not quite the same in 
 each instance : b exXexroQ of the one is replaced by 
 6 exXsXeyfj.ivo(: in the other.^^ But doubtless the under- 
 lying Messianic title is the same in both instances. It 
 is rooted in Isaiah 42^ “ Behold my servant whom I 
 uphold; my chosen in whom my soul delighteth,” etc. 
 (where the parallel terms are o ;ra?c and blxXexrb^)^ 
 and emerges into view even in pre-Christian Jewish 
 usage (Enoch 40^ 45^ 53® 39^, etc.).^® The conception 
 seems to be not essentially different from a designation 
 which has already met us in Mark (i^^) and which 
 occurs also in the parallel passage of Luke (4^^), but 
 elsewhere in the New Testament only at Jno 6®^ — ‘ the 
 Holy One of God.’ For it does not seem likely that 
 ‘ G d’s epithet, in the first instance at least, 
 
 \Holy°oL’ refers to the moral purity of the Mes- 
 siah,^® but rather probable that it des- 
 ignates Him as One whom God has “ separated out, 
 
 24 Cf. on these terms and on the general matter, W. C. Allen, Hast- 
 ings’ D. C. G., I. 308. 
 
 2^ Cf. Charles, Book of Enoch, p. 112; Bousset, Die Religion des 
 Judentums, p. 249; Schurer, Je<vdsh People, etc,, II. 2. p. 158. 
 
 23 So Keil on Lk 4®^. 
 
1 14 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 equipped and dedicated to His service, 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^’^) or by the demoniacs (Mk Lk 4^^), al- 
 though this reference may be secondary. It is scarcely 
 conceivable that the demons could recognize a mere 
 official-standing on sight (Mk 3^^), while the contrast 
 between the moral perfection or exalted nature of 
 
 27 Xhis 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 
 669 io 36 — the ‘Elect One’ of the Book of Enoch), whom the demoniacs 
 (Mk 3I1) 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 
 Vof Jesus over against their wickedness that the demons divine; but 
 the official task of Jesus which they are aware of. Similarly Ernst 
 Issel, Der Begrijf der Heiligkeit im N. T., 1887, p. 67 seq.: “In Mk 
 cf. Lk 4^^, 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 3I1, 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 10^®, 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^® 9^®. To this election to God’s 
 possession and service limits itself also the designation in Lk 1^® . . . 
 and the representation of Jesus in the Temple, Lk 2-^ . . 
 
The Desiznations in Luke 
 
 115 
 
 Jesus and their uncleanness may be presumed to have 
 obtruded itself upon their consciousness, whenever they 
 were brought into His presence.^^ 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^^), replacing it at the transfiguration by 
 ‘ the Chosen One ’ (9^^), and thus exhibiting the essen- 
 tial synonymy of the two.^® 
 
 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 o£ . 1 • 1 1 • , • 
 
 ‘Holy’ explained 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’ The epithet is not elsewhere 
 
 applied to Jesus in this Gospel, except in 2^^ where 
 the precept of the law is quoted in reference to Llim, 
 that “ every male that openeth the wom^b shall be 
 Xcalled holy to the Lord ” — where it is obviously the 
 X, 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., I. 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. 
 
 28 Cf. J. A. Robinson, as cited, esp. Eph., pp. 229 seq. 
 
ii6 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 
 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’ ( — 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 — it 
 
 occurs only in the narrative of the Temptation, on the 
 lips of Satan (4^’^),®^ and elsewhere on the lips of 
 evil spirits 8^® ‘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’^^).^’^ 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 ul6(^.” 
 
 32 Cf. Plummer in loc.: “In the allusion to Daniel 713 they recognize 
 a claim to divinity, and they translate 6 ulu? zoo dvOpconoo into 6 uld<$ 
 TOO dsoo. 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 Vj 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 1 22.35 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^^), 
 “This is my Son, the Chosen” (9^^) : and gives us 
 the parable in which Jesus, with evident reference to 
 Himself (20^^’^^), 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 
 
 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. 
 
ii8 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 even as in later life He lived in con- 
 
 stant communion with the Father ( 23^^’^®), 
 and equally naturally spoke of “ the kingdom His 
 Father had appointed Him” (22^^), and at the end 
 spoke of His readiness to send forth “ the promise of 
 His Father” (24^^). The glory He expected to enter, 
 It is to be observed, was no less His own than His 
 Father’s glory (22“^). But above all, Luke records 
 for us that remarkable passage 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 
 ‘ Father ’ to the ‘ Son,’ so that God Is affirmed to hold 
 back nothing, but to share all that He has with the 
 
 24 Cf. Plummer in loc.: “ 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 
 
 ‘ Son.’^® 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 
 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.’3® 
 
 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- 
 ‘SonofMan’ designation is in 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 fxot (Weiss), nor 
 on the i)7td rou 7carp6<$ (Hofmann), but on Trdvra.” 
 
 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^^ 6^® 8^® lo^s.so 
 i 615 176,10^ 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'^), — 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, 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^®). 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“^). For everyone who shall confess Him before 
 men, him shall the ‘ Son of Man ’ confess before the 
 angels of God (12®); 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®), and whosoever shall be ashamed of the 
 ‘ 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^®). That nevertheless blasphemy against 
 the ‘ Son of Man ’ may be forgiven as blasphemy 
 against the Spirit may not (12^^), doubtless belongs to 
 
 3T ^24 56.22 y34 g22,26,44,68 u30 128 , 10,40 iy22,24,26,30 jgS.Sl j^lO 
 
 2i27,36 2222,48,69 [24T], 
 
I2I 
 
 The Designations in Luke 
 
 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^^), passing a 
 hard and suffering existence (9^^), and so fulfilling the 
 Scriptures Meanwhile, however. He ex- 
 
 ercises even on earth the authority to regulate religious 
 observances (6^) and to forgive sins (5^^). In other 
 words, the sufferings He endures (9^^ 22^^) 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 17^® 24'^). They issue in death in- 
 
 deed (9^^ 18"^ 22^^ 24"^), but after death comes resur- 
 rection (9^^ 18^^ 24"^); and after resurrection, in 
 
 its own good time, a return in His appropriate glory 
 (22®^ 9^® 12^^* 1 ^ 22,24 jg8 2 j 27 22®^). The humiliation 
 over, at once the ‘ Son of Man ’ is seated at the right 
 hand of the power of God (22®^), and when He comes 
 again He will come “ in a cloud with great power and 
 glory” (21^^), — a glory described as “ His own glory, 
 and the glory of His Father and of the holy angels ” 
 (9^®). The suddenness of this coming is adverted to 
 (12^^ jy 22 - 24 , 26 , 3 o^ ^ 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^® 12® 9^®) : destinies which shall 
 be determined according to the attitude which each has 
 occupied towards the ‘ Son of Man ’ on earth (12® (f ^) . 
 To all His enemies it is therefore a day of vengeance 
 (18®), 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^®). 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 
 
 in 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^^, 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 Hlm- 
 , , self finds expression also In other forms 
 
 Tcsiis^ • ^ 
 
 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^^’“®), — but cer- 
 tainly with Its chief Implication In a profound sense of 
 His mission ([3^®] 4^^ 5^^ 7^^ [cf. 7^^ of John the Bap- 
 tist], 19^^), and possibly with some contrast In 
 mind with His second coming (9“® [12^® 18® 21^’^). 
 
 Without essential difference of meaning this “ coming ” 
 is Interchanged with “ being sent ” — the author of the 
 
The Designations in Luke 123 
 
 “ mission ” being thus more clearly indicated as God. 
 Thus Luke varies Mark’s language (i^^) 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^^) — plainly indicating that 
 “ came ” and “ was sent ” alike refer to His divine 
 mission.^® Possibly in this variation there is an allusion 
 to the passage from Isaiah which Jesus read in the 
 synagogue at Nazareth (cf. Lk 4^®), but in any event 
 the term is unambiguous, and is elsewhere repeated (9^^ 
 10^^), 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 of Jesus’ employment of the fig- 
 
 ure of the ‘ Bridegroom ’ with refer-’* 
 
 ‘Bridegroom’ Himself and His relations to 
 
 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 dndne function, so that His coming was 
 
 38 Cf. Weiss on Lk 4 ^^ ; “ Luke therefore already interprets the 
 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 did! 
 
124 Desiguatious of Our Lord 
 
 the coming of Jehovah, the faithful husband of His 
 people (Hos 
 
 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 
 qualit}' 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 of 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. 
 
 Cf. Godet in loc.y E. T., p. 276: “This remarkable sa}'ing was 
 preserved with literal exactness in the tradition ; accordingly we find 
 it in identical words in the three S^moptists. It proves, first, that from 
 the earliest period of His ministix- 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^®, 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 founh Gospel to the other three.” 
 
THE JESUS OF THE SYNOPTISTS 
 
 Variety of 
 Titles Used 
 
 There has now passed under our observation the 
 whole series of designations applied to Jesus in the 
 Synoptic Gospels. They are somewhat 
 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, ‘ Jesus 
 of Nazareth,’^ ‘ the Nazarene,’^ ‘ Jesus the Galilean,’^ 
 ‘ Jesus the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee,’^ ‘ Jesus 
 surnamed Christ.’® ‘ Jesus Christ,’® ‘ Jesus the Son of 
 David,’^ ‘ Jesus King of the Jews,’^ ‘ Jesus, Master,’^ 
 ‘ Jesus the Son of the Most High God.’® He is ad- 
 dressed respectfully, passing up into reverently, by the 
 titles of ‘ Rabbi,’® ‘ Rabboni,’® ‘ Teacher ( oiddffy.ah) ^ 
 ‘Master’^ {^Tzcardza) ^ ‘Lord’ '} and He is 
 
 spoken of by Himself or others by the correspond- 
 ing appellatives, ‘Teacher,’^ ‘Guide’ { 
 ‘House-Master’ (o//o(^£<T;r6r2yc) ‘ Lord.’^ 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,’"^ ‘the 
 Prophet,^ ‘ the Christ,’^ ‘ the King of the Jews,’^ ‘ the 
 King of Israel,’® ‘ the King,’"^ ‘ the Son of David,’^ ‘ the 
 
 ^ Matthew, Mark, Luke. ® Matthew. ® Mark, Luke. 
 
 2 Matthew, Mark. ^ Luke. « Mark. 
 
 Matthew, Luke. 
 
 125 
 
126 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 Son of Abraham,’^ ‘ God’s Chosen One,’^ ‘ the Holy 
 One of God,’® ‘ the Servant of God,’® ‘ the Son 
 
 of God,’^ ‘ the Son of the Blessed,’® ‘ the Son of the 
 Most High,’^ ‘ the Son of the Most High God,’® ‘ the 
 Son of the Living God,’® ‘ God’s Son,’^ ‘ the Son,’^ 
 
 ‘ the Son of Man,’^ ‘ the Saviour who is Christ the 
 Lord,’^ ‘ Immanuel,’® ‘ the Shepherd who is God’s Fel- 
 low,’® ‘ the Bridegroom,’^ ‘ the Beloved.’^ ^ 
 
 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 actual use as such by 
 
 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,’ ‘ the Son of David,’ ‘ the Chosen One of God,’ 
 ‘ the Son of God,’ ‘ the Son of Man.’® 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 Jevjish People in the Time of Christy ii. 2, 158; 
 Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, 214 seq., 248-9; Drummond, 
 The J elvish Messiah, IL, X., pp. 283-289; and cf. Charles, Book of 
 Enoch, pp. 51, 112, 301. 
 
127 
 
 The Jesus of the Synoptists 
 
 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 
 much to 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 interv^entlon 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- 
 sjaHc 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 cra^y 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 w^hlch 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 wTat 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^^). 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^^) , 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^^, Mk Lk 3^“), 
 and by His terrible experience of testing by Satan as 
 the Son of God (Mt 4^’^ Lk 4^’^), and His succoring 
 by the angels (Mk i^^). Accordingly He is repre- 
 sented as opening His ministry by publicly applying to 
 Himself the prophecy of Isaiah 61^ with its enumera- 
 tion of the works of the Messiah (Lk ^i^.isseq.^^ 
 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® 4^^’^h 
 Mk Mt etc.), but Himself appealing to them 
 as the criteria of His Messiahship (Mt ii^, Lk 7^®). 
 He is represented as, under the impulse of His sense of 
 His mission (Mk Lk 4^^), preaching through- 
 out the land in accents of authority (Mk Lk 4^^), 
 asserting His power over the religious ordinances of 
 the people (Mk 2^®, Mt I2^ Lk 6^), and exercising 
 
The Jesus of the Synoptists 129 
 
 His authority not only over unclean spirits (e. g., Mk 
 and the laws of nature (4^^), including even death 
 hut over the moral world itself, in the divine 
 prerogative of forgiving sins (2^^). 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 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“^ || Lk 9^®; Mt 9® || Mk 2^^ 
 Lk 5-^; Mt 10^^; Mt ii'^ll Lk 7^^; Mt i2« || Mk 2^^ 
 Lk 6^; Mt 12^^; 12^^; Lk 6^“; Mt 13^^; before the con- 
 fession of Peter at Mt 16^® ||).® When these instances 
 of self-expression are taken in connection with those of 
 reception of the Messianic ascription from others (e. g., 
 Mk 3'' 5^ Mt 4^’" 8-^ I4^^ Lk 4^1 8^" 4^’^ Mt 9^^ 
 15^^), 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 ii^), or it was only 
 Divergence through a revelation from heaven that 
 From Current Peter attained to confess Him with firm 
 Expectations ‘ the Christ, the Son of the Living 
 
 God’ (Mt 16^®’^^), 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 Our 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^®’^^). 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 
 j 32,35 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^^ II), that God Himself proclaimed Him 
 from heaven as His Son (Mt 3^^ ||), that Satan and his 
 subject spirits recognized Him on sight as the One who 
 had been appointed to destroy them (Mk 5”^ || 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 ii^) 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 ziho shall find 
 
The Jesus of the Synoptists 13 1 
 
 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^), 
 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.”^® 
 
 Accordingly the Synoptic narrative Is marked no 
 more by the stress It lays on the Messlahship of Jesus 
 Transfigured than by the transfigured conception of 
 Conception of this Messlahship 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“^ Lk the promised King 
 
 (Mt 2^ Lk ; but, above all else and before all 
 else, that Saviour who Is Christ the Lord (Lk 2^^), 
 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 frorn their sins (Mt i^^). It is not merely 
 a spiritual function which Is here announced for this 
 Messiah: It I'> also a divine personality. Who is that 
 Saviour who is Christ “ the Lordf^ 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 
 
 Cf. the discussion by Shaller 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 then>,. 
 
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^^). 
 
 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 . 
 
 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^); “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 To 
 
 put it in one sentence, the Messianic ideal which is 
 presented in the Synoptics as fulfilled in Jesus finds 
 
 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- 
 xant of Jehovah of Isaiah and the fundamental promise 
 xthat 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- 
 Designations cerned, first of all that of the ‘ Son of 
 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 Ezrad** the exact title 
 ‘ Son of God ’ does not seem to occur at alV® though 
 
 12 Cf. Dalman, Words, p. 242: “From the first Christian century 
 there are only two Jewish writings known which deal with Dan 7^^, 
 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. 
 
 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 writes as follows: “‘Son of God,’ like ‘Son of Man,’ was a 
 recognized title of the Messiah (cf. Enoch 1052 ; 4 Ezra 728,29 1282,37,62 
 14®, 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 
 (i05“) and in 4 Ezra the Messiah is represented as 
 spoken of by God as ‘ My Son.’^^ It is noteworthy that 
 in this rare Jewish usage both titles appear In connec- 
 tion with a transcendental doctrine of the Messiah/® 
 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^^, Jno 10^®, cf. Mt 21^^ 
 ei al., 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 
 3I1 5” II, the centurion, Mk 15^^ ||), and it is implied by the words of 
 the tempter (Mt 4^-6 ||)^ and the voice from heaven (Mk 9 ’^ID- 
 The crowning instance is the confession of St. Peter . . . Mt 16I®.” 
 
 Cf. Dalman, Words, 269-70; Charles, Enoch, 301. 
 
 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, 
 ‘^n^oTMan* ^ 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 Plis 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 II) on a mission of mercy (Lk 19^^) 
 which involved His self-sacrifice (Mk io^^||), and there- 
 fore lives a life unbefitting His essential nature (Mt 
 8“®). 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, wTo have 
 nests, since He has not where to lay His head (Mt 
 8^^), 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-'^). In 4 Ezra 7-® the filius Is not textually assured; in i. 
 Enoch 1052 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^ — jg section In which along 
 
 with the Similitudes, the transcendent conception of the Messiah comes 
 forward most vitally — and also in 4 Ezra 14^ (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^^) and even to forgive sins (2^^). And when 
 His lowly mission is accomplished He ascends the 
 throne of the universe (Mk 14®“, Mt 19“^) J 
 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^^ Mt 25^^). The con- 
 nection of the title with the dream of Daniel 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 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 supernmndane, perhaps angelic, figure,^® but dis- 
 tinctly as superangelic, transcending all creaturely re- 
 lief. Stanton, J elvish and Christian Messiah, 286-7: “I may remark 
 - that the Idea of the preexistence of Christ as an angel, is irreconcilable 
 X 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 pregxistence 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 
 
 latlons,^'^ and finding His appropriate place only by the 
 side of God Himself, whose functions He performs^* 
 and whose throne He occupies as Kingd® 
 
 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 
 *^on^oi%od* 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^ Mt 26^^ Lk 22^ cf. Mt 27^"’^^); it is 
 also employed, according to Matthew’s account, by 
 Peter in his great confession alongside 'of the term 
 ‘ Christ’ (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^^). 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 who 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. 
 
 The angels are subject to Him and do His bidding: Mt 13^^ 16^'^ 
 24®^; and also Mt 4^^ i3^^» Mk Lk 9^®. 
 
 Especially forgiveness of sins (Mk 2®) and judgment of the 
 world (e.g. Mt 25^1 — two inalienable divine functions. 
 
138 The Designations of Our 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^®) 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^^), — though 
 certainly they understood not and their heart was hard- 
 ened (Mk 6'^^), — 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^^ Mt 27^^), “ 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 
 
139 
 
 The Jesus of the Synoptists 
 
 character to perform supernatural deeds (Mt 4^’®, Lk 
 4^’^). It is by this term (Lk 4^^) that the demons 
 greet Him when they recognize in Him the judge 
 and destroyer of all that is evil (Mk 3^^ 5^, Mt 8^^ 
 Lk 8“®; 4^^). 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 supematural- 
 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 jg ‘ ]\4y gon ’ above 
 
 all that God Himself bore witness to Him on the two 
 occasions when He spoke from heaven to give Him 
 His testimony (Mk 9”^, Mt 3^^ 17^ Lk 3^^ 9^^) — 
 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, 
 xand 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^ Mt 21^^ Lk 20^^, cf. Mt 22^), 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 
 
 gather. 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^^, 
 Mt 24^®) . It is carried out of the region of inference 
 into that of assertion in the tw^o remarkable passages 
 in which He gives didactic expression to His relation 
 as Son to the Father (Mt i Lk Mt 28^^). 
 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 
 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.^® When, then, we meet with an instance in 
 
 Cf. Reinhold Ziemssen, Christus der Herr, 1867, p. 22: “But 
 this is meant: that just as xupco^^ ‘Lord,’ occurs in the O. T. (i) 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 14 1 
 
 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 ii^ Mt 2i^ Lk 19^^), 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^^ (cf. Mk 13^^): “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 xupio<$^ ^Lord,’ (i) 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 xopto<^ 
 in the N. T. of our Lord, he says again, “ has in the first instance noth- 
 ing to do with glory, do^a, and just as truly stands in the N. T. in 
 no essential connection with ruling” (p. lo). This is not 
 
 to contend that 6 xupto<s in N. T. when applied to Christ always 
 means Jehovah. In almost all the passages in the Gospels where xupto<s 
 appears as a formula of address it is a human honorific. In certain 
 others, as Lk 1931,34^ Lk 6^®, Mt 7^1, something may be said for either 
 interpretation (p. 21). But there are passages where It must be taken 
 as the divine xupco?^ viz., Lk 2^. *0 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 34I1 (p. 20). 
 
142 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 in encouraging or warning His followers (Mt 10^"^), 
 and its free employment in parabolic pictures, where 
 He represents Himself as the ‘ Lord ’ over against His 
 servants (Lk 12^®’^^). 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 10^^, Lk 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 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®, 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 also obviously involves a 
 
 recognition of Jesus as the Lord of life, and in Mt 
 2^37,44 ‘ 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 
 noth 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 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^, — 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 Mt 3^ Lk 
 
 Cf. Bengal on Mt 22^^ ; signum subjectionis, dominatio, cujiis sub- 
 ditus est ipse David, coelestem et Regis majestatem et Regni indolent 
 ostendit. 
 
144 Designations of Our Lord 
 
 3^). 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^^). 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. 
 
 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“^) : 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 and is marked out as such 
 by a supernatural birth 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 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 
 
 ‘ the Lord ’ and of the glory of ‘ the Lord ’ in Lk 2®, 
 and of ‘ the Lord ’ making known in verse 15, and, in 
 the middle of these statements, of ‘ Christ the Lord ’ 
 in verse ii, 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 hei:e 
 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.^® 
 
 It is not necessary to add further evidence, derived 
 from less frequently employed designations of our 
 Synoptical ^ord, that a true deity is ascribed to 
 Christ Divine 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. 
 
 ; 23 The nature of the xupi 6 fq<s 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 Liitgert’s Beitrdge zur Fbrderung 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 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.^ 
 
 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 . , i i 
 
 Synoptics much 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. 8o, 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 
 
 ^ Cf. O. Schmiedel, Die Hauptprohleine der Lehen-Jesu Forscliun^ 
 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.” 
 
147 
 
 The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 
 
 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 five 
 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 humanitarlanism 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 ^^e 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 He 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 £qj. gy^optics. 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 
 ‘ 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 
 K 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 Synoptic Jesus Primitive 149 
 
 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 what is probably 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,* 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^^) 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 
 ‘ Christ,’ He acknowledges that He is, in the highest 
 sense (14®^’®-). The implied claim to kingly estate 
 He also expressly makes (15-’^“) ; as also the involved 
 claim of being the promised ‘ Son of David ’ ( 10^^’^^), 
 — 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^^). That He was familiarly spoken 
 of by His disciples as ‘ Lord ’ is also made evident 
 ( 1 1^) ; and He Himself asserts that His Lordship is 
 high enough to give Him authority over the religious 
 ordinances of Israel (2-®). The tradition applies, in- 
 deed, the term ‘ Lord ’ to Him in citations from the 
 Old Testament, where it stands for Jehovah Himself 
 (i^). The evil spirits greet Him by the high title of 
 ‘ Son o f God ’ (5^), and the same title is suggested 
 to Him as a synonym of the Messiah in His accusa- 
 tion (14^^), 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®’'^) ; 
 and receives the testimony of heaven itself that He is 
 God’s ‘Son’ and His ‘beloved Son’ ( P' 9^). 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“®), and even the divine prerogative 
 
The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 1 5 1 
 
 of forgiving sins (2^^), although He anticipates for 
 Himself only a career of suffering, predicting that He 
 will be betrayed (14^^) into the hands of men (9^^) 
 who shall mock and scourge and kill Him (10^^). 
 Afterwards, however. He shall rise again (10^^) and 
 ascend to the right hand of power (14^“), whence He 
 shall return in clouds with great power and glory 
 (13-®), the glory of the Father and the angels (8^®). 
 It is clear that the designation ‘ Son of Man ’ is derived 
 from Daniel (13"^ 14^-) 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^^’^^), charged as that term 
 was with Old Testament associations with Jehovah 
 (cf. ‘ Lord ’ of i^) ; 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^^) only on a mission 
 and who suffers and dies here only to fulfill that 
 mission.® 
 
 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 seq.)^ in the cry of the possessed 
 
 (i 24 ), in the simile of the bridegroom (2^®), in the question concerning 
 the Davidic sonship of the Messiah perhaps in the claim to 
 
 forgive sin (2^®) ; again, on the part of the disciples in their confes- 
 sion ( 823 ), and in the petition of the sons of the Zebedee ; 
 
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 these 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-Phoenician woman ( Mk 
 7“®, Mt 15^^), 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.’ 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 Mt 20“®), and therefore has a prospect 
 
 of suffering before Him (Mk 9^^ Mt 17^^, Mk I4^h 
 
 finally on the part of our Lord, the disciples, and the people, in the 
 story of the entry into Jerusalem (ii^ seq.). However, the expression 
 ‘Son of God’ never occurs except in the voice at the Baptism 
 and in the utterance of 13®^, though elsewhere in the Gospel it forms 
 the proper formula for profession of belief (i^ 3^^ 5'^ 9'^ 14®^ 15^®) i 
 and the word ‘ Christ ’ only occurs in the Confession of the Twelve 
 (8-^), and in the theological dispute of though it likewise is 
 
 often employed elsewhere by the evangelist 1321 1461 15^2). 
 
 The term ‘ Son of Man ’ is found in 210.28 jo33,45^ as also in 1421. 
 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 99.12,31 after the pattern of 8®i and 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^®), but dies only to rise again (Mk 9®, Mt 17^). 
 As ‘Son’ He represents Himself as of superangelic 
 dignity, and therefore above all creatures, standing next 
 to God Himself (Mk 13^^, Mt 24^®). 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 
 God,’ (Mk I 2 ^ Lk 4^^) and the ‘Son of the Most' 
 High God ’ (Mk 5"^, Lk 8^^)T 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 Lk 9^^). 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* Synoptics, the so-called, and let us 
 
 add, very much miscalled, “ Logia.”* 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^, Lk 7^^), which, He Intimates, evi- 
 dently on the basis of Isaiah 6i\ accredit Him as the 
 ‘ One who was to Come.’ It Is apparently as Messiah 
 that He is addressed as ‘Lord’ (Mt Lk 7®), 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 v/ords alone which will constitute 
 a claim upon His mercy (Mt 7“h Lk 6^®) — 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 
 V to by Satan as ‘ Son of God ’ (Mt 4^’^ Lk 4^’^) ; and 
 currently calls Himself by the great Danielle title of 
 ‘ Son of Man.’ He explains that this ‘ Son of Man ’ 
 has come In the fashion of men, “ eating and drink- 
 ing ” (Mt Lk 7^^), and living a hard life (Mt 
 8“^, Lk 9^^) — ending in betrayal and death (Mt 26^®, 
 Lk 22^'^) ; but after death is to rise again (Mt 12^^, 
 Lk 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 (lyssseq., 26 iq 22)^ 
 and in the parable and, 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- 
 
155 
 
 The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 
 
 the ‘ Father’ (Mt ii“h Lk I0“-) ; 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_.glves xonr. 
 s^tlent 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 Imow 
 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 attrlb- 
 Gospels Jesus, and seek to 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^^ Mt 24^^) : 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 ii^^, Lk 10^^): 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^^). 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 
 
157 
 
 The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 
 
 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 that the 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 
 (fttween 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 
 
158 
 
 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 
 
 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 graxe 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,® “ 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.”® “ And it has been rightly emphasized that in 
 this regard our three first Gospels are distinguished 
 Jrom 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. 
 
 ® By Bousset, Was fwissen nvir <von Jesus? 1904, pp. 54 seq. 
 
 ® 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 Messiasseheimnis in den Evans^elien, 1901, passim. 
 
The Synoptic Jesus Primitive 159 
 
 “ There Is a great desire to know Him at first hand,” 
 It Is said,’' “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- 
 
 Jesus the Prophet, by Charles S. MacFarland, Ph.D., 1905; intro- 
 duction by Prof. Frank K. Sanders. 
 
i6o 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- 
 del’s article “ Gospels ” in the Encyclopedia Bihlica.^ 
 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.® 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 
 
 ® 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.” 
 
 ® 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 Sy nop tic J es us Pri mi live 1 6 1 
 
 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. 
 
i 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 
 Futility 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 d_etermined 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.^° Nor does there seem to be 
 
 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^^ 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 
 ri's 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 
 disin tegrating critics over against this more radical em- 
 Can We ployment of their own methods, suddenly 
 Save Any Jesus taking up the role of “ apologists 
 at All? writing 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 
 
 E.g. Albert Kalthoff, Das Christus-Problem^ and Die Entstehung 
 des Christentums, 1904; and William Benjamin Smith, Ne^ Testa- 
 ment Criticism, Status and Drift of. Art. in the “ Encyclopaedia Ameri- 
 cana,” and, more fully, Der ‘vorchristliche Jesus, etc., 1906. 
 
 ^2 E.g. Bousset, Was nuissen ^wir von Jesus f 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.”^^ 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 Wjhole 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 Pflelderer’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 ahsiirdum 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 Messlah.^^ And they are 
 
 i^Bousset, Jesus, 168, argues: “We have certain knowledge that the 
 belief existed from the very beginning among the Christian commu- 
 
i66 
 
 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 forced to admit that, in developing His Messianic 
 conception, He was wont to call Himself ‘ the 
 
 Jesus Certainly Man.’ “ It makes very enter- 
 
 Claimed to be taining reading to observe Bousset, 
 Messiah and for example, grudgingly conceding the 
 Son of Man nervously 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 
 IMessiah 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 Berufsbenjousstsein Jesu, 13, and Schwartzkopff 
 there quoted. For a frhis 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. 
 
 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 
 Trophet of Nazareth, p. vli.). Mt 8^0 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 Synoptic Jesus Pri m i live 167 
 
 ‘ 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.”^® “ 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 
 V 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.’’^’^ That is to say, in brief, Bousset does 
 S, not like the consequences of allowing that Jesus applied 
 V'" to Himself the title of ‘ Son of Man,’ and, finding 
 Himself unable nevertheless to deny that He did apply 
 
 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., 
 III. 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 I. 
 
 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.^® 
 
 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 
 
 Superangelic second 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,”^® and is pronounced by him to have been “ most 
 
 i®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^® 14®^). 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. 
 
 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 j 
 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 Impllca- 
 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 Lk 10“^. 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,”^® this passage must be accepted as an authorita- 
 tive utterance of HIs.^^ But, In that case, the “ realj 
 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 Our 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^^) ? 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^^, 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^® 
 In the records of our Lord’s teaching Is thus too closely 
 
 Volkmar Fritzsche, Das Berufsbe^vusi. 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 VEglise, 45; Autour tin petit Lwre, 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 1 7 1 
 
 linked to a historical situation to permit its displace- 
 ment on the purely subjective grounds on which alone 
 its genuineness can be assailed.^^ 
 
 It would seem to be reasonably clear, therefore, that 
 the attem.pt 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 mu^ 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^“, 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. i, 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 Hilbert Journal, I. I. 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^® 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 For derung christlicher 
 Theologie, 1903. vii. ; 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 Synoptlsts, 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 (o/>. cit. p. iii), yet deny it to Jesus. For rea- 
 sons why it must be vindicated to Jesus see Hort. on i P Sanday 
 
 Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 218, 219; Hastings’ B. D., ii. 213-14, 
 573> 574 i P* 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 28i®-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-l 
 ally did so teach.^® 
 
 E^'ang., III. 6, 32, Tropeudivreg fiaOr^TeOffars Tzdvra rd edvrj iv tw 
 Svofxari fioo^ diddffxovTe^ xrA.), in which Conybeare, Ztschr. fiir 
 N. T. fViss, 1901, p. 175 seg. supposes that he has discovered the origi- 
 nal text, cf. E. Riggenbach, Der Trinit. Tanfbefehl, 1903 (Schlatter- 
 Cremer, Beitr. VII. i), by whom the matter is set at rest (erledigt). 
 From Eus. Epist. ad Casar. (Socr. I. 8) ; c. Marc. I. i; 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- essential deity to Jesus. This is 
 
 tology in Syn- true enough. Those who are familiar 
 optics and John with 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- 
 Xmlnatlng chrlstological passage of the Synoptists,^ 
 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;^ but, as 
 wc 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 klnd.'^ Whatever else we must say of 
 
 1 Criticism of N. T.: Si. 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 
 ii 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 JV as ^issen njoir <von Jesus f 1904, p. 54: cf. Schmiedel, Encyclo- 
 pedia Biblica, 1872. 
 
175 
 
 The Designations in John 
 
 Wilhelm Wrede’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.^ 
 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.”® 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 relative 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 
 
 ^ Das M essias geheitnnis , etc. 
 
 ® The Messianic Hope in the N. T., p. 6i. 
 
176 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 incidentally in the course of making clear the greatness 
 yof 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^^); 
 for, that the term ‘ Son of God ’ here has a metaphys- 
 
177 
 
 The Designations in John 
 
 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 Synoptlsts 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 
 teaching In the 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^^) by the 
 solemn compound name of ‘ Jesus Christ,’ as Mark 
 and Matthew also at the opening of their Gospels had 
 made use of the ^me 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^). The particular designation he applies 
 to this person In order to describe His essential nature 
 Is ‘the Word’ {0X6^0^), Of this ‘Word’ he de- 
 clares that He was In the beginning, that Is, that He 
 js 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 and nevertheless that In due time 
 
 He became flesh, that Is, that He took upon Himself 
 a human nature 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^^) or even 
 more poignantly as ‘God only-begotten’ 
 
 'All this phraseology is unique in the New Testa- 
 ment. Nowhere else except Rev 19^^ is Jesus Christ 
 called the ‘Word’ only, with the possible 
 
 exceptions of i Jno i^, Heb 4^^). Nowhere else, ex- 
 cept Jno I Jno 4®, 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.® In harmony 
 with these designations he calls Him also in this pro- 
 logue the ‘Light’ ( 1^4, 5], 7,3,9^ — ^ 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 
 
 ® Cf. Westcott on j 44 (p. 126): “The thought is centered in the 
 personal Being of the Son, and not in His generation. Christ ie the 
 One only Son.” Meyer on (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 dyart-qrot; 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®, Lk 2 q4®. 
 
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 
 ^Name^n^ohT 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 Synoptlsts, 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 ‘ the Lord ’ in 
 its stead (4^ 6^^ ii^ 20“^^ No other desig- 
 
 nation Is employed by John himself outside the pro- 
 logue, except In the closing verse of the narrative proper 
 (20^^) , 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^ as a parenthetical Insertion from 
 his hand, and to assign to him the paragraph 
 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 
 
i8o 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 appear In Its course. It Is made 
 
 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^^), “ Jesus, 
 the Son of Joseph” (6^“), “Jesus of Nazareth, 
 the Son of Joseph” or the simple “Jesus 
 
 of Nazareth ” (18®’'^ 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- 
 
 , but ordinarily merely 
 
 ^14,46, [50,58] ,^25,26,31,40,41.46 
 
 33 tt 37,37,47\ sometImes He Is represented as 
 
 — 47 
 
 tempt 
 
 designatorily (l2.30.33.34 326 429.42 ^14,46, [50.58] ,^25,26,31.40,41.46 
 
 1 1 ' 
 
 spoken of merely as “ this man” {dvdpconoQ^ 9I6.24 ^ 
 18^^’“^), or Indeed simply as a man {dvi^p, only; 
 
 ^12 ,y46,[51] 
 
 j-g40 ^11,16,16,24 
 
 10 ^^] 
 
 II 
 
 47,50 
 
 Formulas of 
 Address 
 
 dvdpoJTroc^y 429 
 
 jgl4.17.29 1^5)^ 
 
 In the narrative of John our Lord Is represented as 
 customarily addressed by His followers, as He Him- 
 self Informs us (13^^’^^), as ‘Teacher’ 
 (^diddaxah^) and ‘Lord’ (xupcs)^ the 
 correlatives of which are ‘ disciples ’ 
 (pad 7 ]Tai passim) and ‘ servants,’ that Is ‘ slaves ’ {douXoe^ 
 J3I6 j^i5,2oj^ actual formula ‘Teacher,’ how- 
 
 ever, occurs very rarely (i^^ In ii^® It Is an ap- 
 pellative, Implying Its use In address; cf. 3^ 13^^’^^)? 
 although Its place Is In part supplied by the compara- 
 tively frequent Aramaic form ‘ Rabbi ’ ( 3^ 4^^ 
 625 ^2 jj8. John the Baptist, 3^®), varied on 
 
 one occasion to ‘ Rabboni ’ (20^®). The most common 
 
The Designations in John i8i 
 
 honorific form of address Is ‘ Lord ’ (411.15,19.49 ^7 
 
 ^36,38 j j 3,12,21,27,32,34,39 j ^6,9,25,36,37 j^5,8,22 
 
 of Philip, 12^^). Of course, seeing that He was cur- 
 rently addressed as ‘ Teacher,’ ‘ Lord,’ He could not 
 but be spoken of by these titles, used appellatively : 
 ‘the Teacher’ (ii^®, cf. 131^’!^ 3^) rarely, and com- 
 paratively frequently ‘the Lord’ (20^’^®’^®’^^ 21'^). The 
 latter usage the evangelist himself adopts In his own 
 person (4^ 6^® ii^ 20^^ 21'^’^®). 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^®’®®, cf. i^®). 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^®’^^), as In- 
 deed it could not fall 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®®) 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 HimJ* The strong emotion with which It was 
 
1 8 2' 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."^ 
 
 The ascription to our Lord of prophetic character 
 is, as in the other evangelists, cursorily noted (4^^ 
 ^14 ^ 40 , [ 52 ] ^ 17 ^^ jg ^jgQ Qyj. Lord’s 
 
 the ‘Christ* acceptance of the role (4^^). 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 
 
 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. ii) 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 ‘ the Christ.’ John the Bap- 
 tist is represented as frankly confessing that he was not 
 himself ‘the Christ,’ but His forerunner ^28^^ 
 
 pointing not obscurely to Jesus as the Messiah. And 
 accordingly John’s disciples following their master’s 
 suggestion find in Jesus ‘ the Messiah ’ ( , 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^^’^®). The speculation of the 
 people over Hi's Messianic character finds repeated 
 mention (4"*" 726,27.31.41.41,42 ^22 jq 24 Jesus 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” (ii^^). 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^^), 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^^, cf. 17^). We must not pass over this 
 list of passages without noting that on two occasions 
 the Aramaic term ‘ Messiah ’ occurs ( 4^^), the only 
 instances of its occurrence in the New Testament. 
 
 Nor should we leave in noticed the somewhat diffi- 
 cult question whether ‘ jesu^ Christ’ in 17^ is intended 
 as a word of our Lord’s or is to be understood as a 
 
i86 
 
 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^® 3® 4^^ 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.® 
 
 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 
 of God and the God who sent Him, 
 described here as “ the only true God,” 
 that Is to say. Him to whom alone belongs the reality 
 of the Idea of God.® From this contrast it has often 
 
 SLuthardt on the passage; also Godet, Ebrard, and Stier {Redem 
 Jesu, ed. 3, 1873, v. 397). 
 
 9 Cf. Westcott, in loc.: “To regard the juxtaposition of Thee, the 
 only true God, and Him nuhom 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 ^ 
 are One (10^^, cf. 5^^), and that to have seen Him Is 
 to have seen the Father (14^ cf. 8^^ 10^^ 14^) » and 
 who commended the confession of Him by His fol- 
 lower as “his Lord and his God” (20^®), 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. iiovov dXy]6. deov (cf. 5^^, Deut 6% 1 Cor 8^, i Thess i^), and the 
 Jewish 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.^° 
 
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^®) — 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” (i2^^ cf. 6^^) — in 
 which acclamation the evangelist sees the fulfillment of 
 the prophecy of Zech (f of the coming of the King 
 of Zion riding on the ass (12^^). At His trial, again, 
 Pilate demanded of Him whether He was the ‘ King 
 of the Jews,’ using the natural heathen phraseology 
 (18^^), 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^^). In that understanding of It (18^'^) Jesus has 
 no hesitation in claiming the title (18^^). The subse- 
 quent ascription of this title to Him was mockery and 
 part of His humiliation (18^® j ^3, [121,14, is, 15.19, 21 ^ ^ 
 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 
 noting somewhat more particularly the 
 accumulation of Messianic designations 
 In such passages as 20^S 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 
 where Nathanael declares Him “ the Son of God, the 
 King of Israel,” and especially at 1 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 (ii^) and Luke (7^^’^®). 
 A clause In Jno 6^^ “ 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 and we 
 
 have seen that our Lord associated It with the great 
 passage In Isa In Itself, however. It appears 
 
 to conceive the Messiah fundamentally simply as the 
 promised one (cf. 4“^), 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 
 ‘ 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]. 11, [15], [27], [30] ^[19] .[25,25] -43 ^14 „[27],[31] 
 
 Mission ^ 3 4 5 0 7 
 
 939 jqIo 15— i8^‘), some are 
 
 explicit as to the point whence He came, which is de- 
 
The Designations in John 19 1 
 
 fined as heaven (3^^’^^), or the Person from whom He 
 came, who is named as God ('j^sseq. gi4-i6,42 j^2s . 
 while others declare plainly the object of His coming, 
 which is not to judge but to save the world (12^®’^^). 
 The correlation of the coming from the Father and 
 being sent by the Father is express in passages like 
 17^, and the sending is most copiously testified to, some- 
 times in the use of the simple verb TzifiTro) (4^^ ^23,24,30,37 
 
 ^38,39,44 ^16,18,28,33 gl6,18,26,29 ^4 j 14^4 i g21 j ^5 
 
 20“^) and sometimes rather in the use of the more specific 
 dTroarsUco, 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 
 538 529,57 g42 jq 36 j j 42 j ,^3,8,18,21,23,25 ^ ^ thoUgh SOme- 
 
 times in the perfect tense with a reference to the abid- 
 ing effect of it (5^® 20“^) 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 
 A 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 
 A being also a mission of love (12^®’^^). 
 
 The fact of this mission is also, no doubt, implicated 
 in the designation ‘ the Holy One of God ’ (6®^) , 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 
 44 See the long and careful note of Westcott, John, p. 298. 
 
192 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 to its performance ( 6 ‘^ 10^®). It would also be the im- 
 plication of the designation ‘ the Chosen One of God,’ 
 if that were the correct reading in 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^ Lamb of God which taketh 
 
 away the sin of the world ” : and again 
 on the next day, as he saw Him walking by, “ Behold 
 vthe Lamb of God” 12 'p^^t 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^^). 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 diiiv 6 <$ ‘Lamb,’ Jno i 29 , 36 ^ Acts 8^2, i p jia only 
 in the N. T. The reference is to the suffering Messiah of Is 53. In 
 Rev. dpvcov 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 dpviov is always thus the slain 
 lamb. Neither dp.v 6 <s nor dpviov occurs in N. T. of anyone else 
 but Christ — except that the plural of dpvtov occurs in Jno 21^^ of 
 Christ’s followers. In Lk lo^ dpy^v is used. On the use of the dimin- 
 utive dp\)io\) of Jesus in Scripture, see A. B. Grosart, Expository 
 Times, m. 57. 
 
The Designations in John 193 
 
 a passage as 12^^: “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^^), when they 
 heard Jesus concluded for themselves that He was “ in- 
 deed the Saviour of the world” (4^“). 
 
 Quite a series of designations, mostly figurative in 
 character, expressive of the same general conception, are 
 applied by our Lord to Himself. Thus 
 
 DesfgnatioL Himself the ‘ Light of the 
 
 world ’ ( 9^ 1 cf. 319.20,21 j j9,io^ ^ 
 
 which is explained as the “light of life” (8^^), even 
 as the evangelist himself had with the same reference 
 to “life” called Him ‘the Light of Men’ ( 7,8,9^ ^ 
 ^The ultimate source of this designation is no doubt to be 
 V found in such passages in the Old Testament as Is 9^’^ 
 which is quoted and applied to Jesus by both Matthew 
 (4^®) and Luke (2^^). Similarly He calls Himself 
 the Door ’ by entering through which alone can sal- 
 vation be had (10^’^); the ‘Bread of God’ or ‘of 
 Life,’ by eating which alone can life be obtained (6^^; 
 y ^ 35 , 41,49 y4i^ . < Good Shepherd ’ who gives His life 
 for the sheep cf. ; and without figure 
 
 definitely ‘ the Resurrection and the Life,’ believing 
 in whom the dead shall live and the living never die 
 Perhaps to the same general circle of ideas 
 belongs the title ‘Paraclete’ (14^®) or ‘Advocate,’^® 
 which seems to imply that our Lord conceives Himself 
 under this designation as coming to the help of the 
 
 Bousset, Die Religion des Judeniums, 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 ^^) 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®“). His sojourn on earth is due 
 to a task which He has undertaken, and to which He 
 is “sealed” (6“'^). This task is to give eternal life 
 to men (6“'^) ; and He accomplishes this by giving 
 them His flesh to eat and His blood to drink, whence 
 they obtain life in themselves (6^^, cf. 6“‘). 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 ^^), and He announces 
 it as His precise mission, received of the Father, to be 
 thus “lifted up” (8“® 12 ^^). Nevertheless, it is only 
 that He may enter His glory that He dies ( 12 ^^ 13 ^^) > 
 and it is given to Him to exercise judgment also ( 5 ^^)* 
 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’ 5^^ 9^^ 10^® 19'^ 20^^), and 
 
 the simple absolute ‘ the Son ’ 35.36 , 36 ^19,19,20,21,22, 
 
 23 , 23,26 ^40 g 36 j^i3 ^ form pecullar to 
 
 John, ‘the only begotten Son,’ or simply ‘the 
 
 only begotten’ ( cf. ‘God only begotten’). 
 That the title ‘ Son of God ’ is a Messianic title Is clear 
 from such passages as 20^\ 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 
 
 John ‘ the Son of God ’ becomes very distinctly a 
 self-designation of Jesus’ own (5“^ 9"^ 10^® ii^) : and 
 
 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 
 (9S5 but the divine prerogative of judgment (5^^ 
 cf. ; and that He was understood, In employing it 
 of Himself, to “ make Himself equal with God,” and 
 therefore to blaspheme ( . 
 
 It Is, however. In the use of the simple ‘ the Son ’ 
 ^^ 17 , 36, 36 ^ 19,22 ^40 ^ often set In direct correlation 
 
 with ‘the Father’ (3^^ ^19,20.21.23,23.26 
 ‘Son’ 14^^ 17^)) 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,^® speaks of God either as 
 ‘ the Father,’ or appropriatingly as ‘ My Father.’ 
 There are over eighty passages of the former klnd,^® 
 and nearly thirty of the latter.^"^ 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^®’^^). 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 2oi'^ He speaks to Mary Magdalene of “ My Father and 
 your Father, My God and your God.” 
 
 16 ^35 ^21,23,23 ^19,20,21,22,23,23,26,36,36,36,37,45 527,37,44,45,46,48,57,57,65 
 
 gl6, 18, 27, 28, 38, 38 iol5, 15, 17, 29, 30,32, 36, 38,38 ij41 J226, 27,28, 49,50 j^6 
 
 j^9,10,10, 11, 12, 13,16,24,26, 28,31, 31 159,10,16,26,26 j 53,10,15,17,23,25,26,27,27,28 
 
 l528,32 171,6,11,21,24,25 igll 2 o11>21. 
 
 17 216 517,18,43 532,40 g[19],19,19,49,54 jolS.26,29,37 
 
 551,8,16,23,24 20l^. 
 
 ^2,7,20,21,23,28 
 
The Designations in John 197 
 
 ten ’ applied to Christ, occurs nowhere else, except in 
 John’s own words i Jno 4^ cf. Heb and 
 
 that affords a reason for assigning the paragraph 
 to him. Such a passage as 5^^ however, makes per- 
 fectly clear the high connotation which was attached to 
 the constant claim of Jesus to be in a peculiar sense 
 Cjod’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 {naripa 
 idcov ), making Himself equal (Jaov) 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^), and the des- 
 tinies of men are determined by Him (3^^ 6^^) ; He 
 quickens whom He will (5^^) and executes judgment 
 on whom He will (5^^). Whatever the Father does 
 He knows, and indeed all that the Father does He 
 does (5^^). He even has received of the Father to 
 have life in Himself (5^®). Though He declares in- 
 deed that the Father is greater than He (14“^), this 
 must be consistent with an essential oneness with the 
 Father, because He explicitly asserts that He and the 
 Father are one (10^®), that He is in the Father and 
 the Father in Him (10^®), and that to have seen Him 
 was to have seen the Father (14^). 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^®), 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 J 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^^) wdth God, but His oneness with Him ( 10^^), His 
 interpenetration with Him (10^^) as sharer in all His 
 knowledge and deeds (14^), and His equally strong 
 affirmation of His inferiority to Him (14^^), 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 
 ‘ Son ’ and the use of this term of Him 
 Sonshfp evangelist,^® 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^® 
 (cf. 3®^ 5^^) — “ God so loved the world that He gave 
 His only begotten Son ” — seems to turn on the intimacy 
 
 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 
 
199 
 
 The Designations in John 
 
 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^"^ 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 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^^) 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^), 
 and calls Him in distinction from the Father, ‘ God 
 only begotten ’ 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, 
 “ My Lord and my God” (20^®) : and more to the 
 point, our Lord Himself, who had elsewhere declared 
 Himself one with God (10^®), and had asserted that 
 He and the Fadier interpenetrated one anther (10^®), 
 and that to have seen Him was to have seen the Father 
 ( 14®) , expressly commended Thomas for this great con- 
 fession and thereby bore His own testimony to His 
 proper deity (20^®). 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 
 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 or which more clearly an- 
 nounces the fundamental idea of what we call the 
 
201 
 
 The Designations in John 
 
 Trinity than the great utterance of Mt 28^®. There is 
 ^ 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 ‘ Son of Man,’ 
 ' Son of God,’ Sharer in ‘ 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 ^gue 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 
 
 „ , ^ , only in the course of years, in speaking 
 
 Value of Acts* . \ , . , r- i 
 
 Testimony Jesus 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,^ 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 
 
 ^ 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 E'van- 
 geliums und der A postelgeschichte, 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.^ 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^: “began”). It 
 is natural, therefore, that the simple des- 
 ignation ‘ 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 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 
 and elsewhere currently in such phrases as 
 “preaching Jesus” (5^^ 8^® 9^^ “proving that 
 
 Jesus is the Christ”(9^^ 18^’^® 28^^), and the like (42>i3,is 
 5^0 yS5 g 27 ig 25 ^^ records it as employed in a 
 
 natural way by the two chief spokesmen in Acts, Peter 
 in the earlier portion ( T® 2 ^ 2 ’^® 5 ^^ cf. 4“^’""), 
 
 and Paul in the later portion ([9^’“^] 17^ 19^’^^^^, 
 
 as well as occasionally by other actors in the historical 
 drama (418.27,30 ^4o ^17, [20] j^[i3].i5 2519), including 
 
 the angel explaining the ascension (i^^) and Jesus Him- 
 self revealing Himself to Paul (9^ 26^®). 
 
 The fuller form, ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ (10^®), or 
 more frequently, ‘Jesus the Nazarene ’ (2““ 6^^ 22® 
 26^) also occurs, not as a locution of 
 l^Treth^’ Luke’s own. Indeed, but upon the lips 
 of Peter (2““ 10^®), and Paul (22^ 26®), 
 and In one case as a description of Jesus by Himself 
 (22®) ; 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” ( 61 '*). 
 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^^). 
 
 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 
 Chri^t^* wished to speak of Him with special 
 solemnity. Luke himself so employs it 
 in his narrative (8^^), and he quotes it from Peter 
 (288 ^34 and Paul (16^®) — 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® 4^^^) oc- 
 curs; and that a designation which occurs very fre- 
 quently in the Epistles, ‘the Lord Jesus Christ’ (ii^^ 
 28^^) or ‘ our Lord Jesus Chrijt ’ (15^® 20=^^), appears 
 as in use by the Apostles, — Peter Paul (20“^), 
 
 and the whole Apostolic body (15^^)? — well as by 
 Luke himself (28^^). 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 320 5^2 24“^^ on the other hand, it is questionable 
 whether we are to read the names together so as to 
 yield the compound ‘ Christ Jesus,’ 
 ‘ Christ ^hich in that case meets us here for the 
 Jesus Testament, or 
 
 are to take ‘ Christ ’ as the predicate, — ‘ Jesus as the 
 Christ.’ The commentators seem inclined to follow the 
 
 3 173 186, 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. 
 
2o6 The Desigfiations of Our Lord 
 
 latter course.^ But In 24"^ where the question is about 
 Paul, who, we know from his Epistles ( i Thess 2^^ 
 5^®, 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.® 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.® 
 
 Another compound designation of Jesus, which does 
 not occur In the Gospels,’’^ meets us with some frequency 
 
 ‘The Lord ^ Lord Jesus.’ This Is em- 
 
 Jesus* ployed by Luke himself In the course of 
 the narrative (4^^ 8^® ii“® 19^’^^’^^), and 
 Is also attributed to speakers whose words are reported, 
 
 4 So e.g. the Revised English Version at 3^0 542^ Meyer-Wendt 
 
 at 3“®: and so also A. H. Blom, De Leer ‘van het Messiasrijk bij de 
 eerste Christenen, pp. 292 and 303. On 320 Blom says: “There can be 
 no doubt . . . but that Xptarov ’Irjdovv is not to be taken as one 
 
 name, but that ^Irjffouv is the epexegetic appositive of Xpiarov, which 
 has here its original significance of a dignity.” On the other side, cf. 
 Gloag, Barde, Rackham at 320. 
 
 5 So e.g. R. V. 
 
 ® Paul Feine, Jesus Chrisius 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 ’‘iT^aou? Xpurro^i 
 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 320 173 1 85 . 28 ^ 
 the Xpi(rr6<;^ standing before ^Ir^aod?, is the predicate; 5^2 means 
 similarly, ‘they preached the Messiah Jesus.’ Then only 242^ is left 
 eT? Xptffzdv ^Iiqffoov Tziareax;^ 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.” 
 
 In Mk 1 61 ^, Lk 24^, it is not genuine. 
 
The Designations in Acts 207 
 
 — or to be more specific, to both Peter 15^^) and 
 Paul (16^^ 21^^). It is even used as an address 
 
 by Stephen (7^®). Indeed the fuller designation, ‘ the’ 
 or ‘ our ’ ‘ Lord Jesus Christ,’ is employed by Luke him- 
 self (28^^) and attributed alike to Peter the 
 
 whole body of the Apostles (15^®), and Paul (20^^). 
 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 Acts. 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 owm 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®) there is no occa- 
 sion to record words directly addressed to Jesus, except 
 in visions 26^^), or in prayers 
 
 759,60) ^ these occasions, however, He is ad- 
 
 dressed by the supreme honorific ‘ Lord,’ except in 
 7^^, 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 y 59 , 60 )^ these He is not merely treated 
 as divine — for to whom but God is prayer to be ad- 
 
2o8 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 as the forgiver 
 of sin at and as the receiver of the spirits of the 
 dying saints at 7^^. All these traits are assigned to 
 Jesus in the Gospel narratives, where Jesus claimed 
 authority even on earth to forgive sins (Mk 2^® ||) 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^^) : where He is represented 
 as knowing what was in men and needing not that 
 
 ® De Wette, Meyer, Wendt, Nosgen, Blass, in loc., wish this passage 
 to be understood as addressed to God; so also Sven Herner, Die An- 
 fivendung des IVortes xbpio<; im N. T., 1903, p. 17; “In the sen- 
 tence, ‘Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men’ God is 
 
 probably meant. According to 15® (4“^) and Lk God is the 
 
 searcher of hearts, and the prayer of the primitive Church recorded at 
 424-30 is also addressed to God. Several exegetes, however, are of the 
 opinion that it is directed to the Lord Christ; and the 6 xbpio<; A-q<ToT)<i 
 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. 
 
 ^ That the prayer in 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®®), 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 
 xbpis as was called xbpte '‘Irjffod 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^® 
 22^®), and He has been exalted to God’s right hand as a Prince and a 
 Saviour (5^^), and all who believe in Him receive forgiveness through 
 His name (lo^^) j “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®®).” 
 
The Designations in Acts 
 
 209 
 
 anyone should teach Him what were the thoughts of 
 
 their hearts (Mk 2®) : and where His promise to the 
 
 thief was that he should be that day with Him in Para- 
 dise (Lk 23^^). 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 i\cts becomes the honorific 
 
 ‘Lord* as 
 Narrative 
 Name 
 
 ‘ the Lord,’ which is employed about 
 twice as frequently as the simple 
 
 ‘ Jesus, and which is occasionally given 
 more precision by taking the form of ‘ the Lord Jesus ’ 
 
 (433 gi6 j j2o j^5,i3,i7^ t ^j^g Loj-d Jesus Christ’ 
 
 (28^^). 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^^] 2^® 12^^ 
 
 as 
 
 ‘ the Lord Jesus ’ in 1 5^^ and as ‘ the Lord Jesus 
 
 Christ’ in ii^^: Paul as ‘the Lord 
 
 13 
 
 10,11,12 
 
 19 
 
 in 20 
 
 26^^ as ‘the Lord Jesus’ in 16^^ 21^^, and as 
 
 ‘the Lord Jesus Christ’ in 20^^; and others speak of 
 
 Him as ‘the Lord’ in as ‘the Lord 
 
 Jesus’ in 7^^ and as ‘the Lord Jesus Christ’ in 15^^ 
 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. “ And it is equally clear 
 
 [247][5l4] g25 ^1,10, 11, 15, [17], 27, 29, 31, 35, 42 n21,21,23 
 
 1^3,23 i535,[36],40 i 6[14],[32] jg8,9,25 i^20 23 II. 
 
 Cf. Sven Herner, Die An^endung des Wortes xupto^ im N. T., 
 p. 20: “The frequent employment of the word xupio<; in Acts is 
 
 X 
 
210 
 
 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.^^ 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 2^6 God has made Jesus Lord and Christ; He is ‘the 
 Lord over all’ and, therefore. He is often spoken of by the 
 
 designation of ‘Lord’ (220.21,34 9i,[5,6]io,ii,i5,i7,27 „i6 [1510 ig25] 
 2q 28 [2210,16] 23I1 [26I®]). To these must be added the passages in 
 which Christ is addressed with the term ‘Lord’(iO 759,60 ^5, [6], 10, 13 
 238,10,19 2610)^ and a series of citations in which He is called ‘Lord,’ 
 but in connection with a ‘Jesus’ or ‘Jesus Christ’ (i2i 433 gie [^2S 
 
 Io48] „17,20 [14IO] 1511,26 i631 195,13,17 2021,24,35 2ll3 2821). 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. i6: “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 (226). It is He who leads to eternal life; He is the Lord of 
 life (3!^). He is the Saviour, and there is salvation in no other (4I2). 
 He deals out His blessings (3I®) and pours out the Holy Spirit on be- 
 lievers (222). His power is not bounded by the limits of space (26H), 
 and His flesh shall not see corruption (221). He is not only the Lord 
 and Master according to the ordinary representation of the Gospels (cf. 
 e.g. Mt 2 i 2, Mk ii 2 , Lk 1921 with Mt 2612, Mk 1411^, Lk 22I1 and John 
 1312), but He is the Lord over all (io 26 ). 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 
 
2 II 
 
 The Designations in Acts 
 
 those whose speech he reports that the common term 
 ‘ Lord ’ vibrates between the two and leaves the reader 
 often uncertain which is intended.^® 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^^) and as having been constituted “both 
 Lord and Christ,” where the conjunction is significant 
 (2^^) : and more explicitly still He is designated in a 
 later discourse of the same Peter, “ Lord of all ” 
 (10^®), that is to say, universal sovereign, a phrase 
 which recalls the great declaration of Rom 9^ to the 
 effect that He is “ God over all,” as indeed He who 
 sits on the throne of God must be.^^ 
 
 sure whether xupto? means God or Christ ^31,35,42 
 
 Jl21,21,23,24 j22,10,11.12,[44],47,48,49 143,23 i^35,36 j514,15,32 jg8,9,25 
 
 igl0,20 2q19 2i14).” 
 
 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. iii. p. 501), Gabler, e.g., maintained that 
 anarthrous xbpio<^ always is God in the N. T., while articled xbptog 
 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 x6pto<^ et 6 xf)pio<s 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, i. p. 183. 
 
 i^Cf. Meyer on and 
 
212 
 
 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 That in this rich development of the conception of 
 the Lordship of Jesus, His Messianic dignity is not 
 ^ out of mind is already apparent from the 
 
 Man° phraseology of 2^^}^ 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^®). 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 26^^ ||), 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 
 
 ^®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 222-36 ^13,26 48-12 
 £ 29-32 y62 p2o^ etc.), 01 to the Samaritans ( 8 ^), or to the heathen 
 
 ^(io34-42 IJ16-41) » 
 
The Designations in Acts 213 
 
 ‘Son of 
 God* 
 
 almost as rare In Acts as the ‘ Son of Man.’ This pre- 
 cise designation, Indeed, occurs but once, 
 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’ w^hlch Is explained as meaning that he 
 
 X proved Jesus to be ‘the Christ’ (9^^). 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, 
 ^thls day have I begotten Thee ” (13^^) ; and the risen 
 Jesus Is quoted as twice speaking of God as “ the 
 Father” and Peter Is cited as repeating one of 
 
 these declarations In his Pentecostal sermon (2^^). 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- 
 /Tlon 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.^® It must be frankly admitted that had we these 
 
 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 Tzdl<s than in the ul 6 <s of God” . . . “It attracts our at- 
 tention that Jesus here and there speaks of God as ‘ the Father * 
 (Acts and that Peter too on one occasion made use of this desig- 
 
 nation (2^3). 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 
 
 Christ* Christ’ 8^ 9“ and 
 
 illustrates this fact by instances recorded 
 both from Peter ^18,20^ from Paul (17^ 
 
 26^^). 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^^). 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^^’^^’“®, cf. and ‘ the Prophet like unto 
 
 (Moses’ (3^^’^®), which are Inextricably combined with 
 ( those which speak of Him as ‘ the Anointed Klng.’^’ 
 
 With respect to this intermingling of designations, cf. A. H. Blom, 
 De Leer ‘van het Messiasrijk bet 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^ — ‘ 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 
 ‘ in whom I am well pleased ’ is a trait only of the portrait of the 
 Servant of Jehovah (Is 42^); and the ‘hear Him’ points to what is 
 due to the prophet (Deut We meet with a like phenomenon in 
 
2i6 
 
 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 In Peter’s early discourses ‘ the Servant (:ra 7 c) of 
 God ’ is one of the most notable of the designations of 
 Jesus cf. 4“^’^®) ; and along with 
 
 occurs ‘ the Holy and Righteous 
 One ’ (3^^)^® 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"^’^®) while to these is added further 
 
 Acts. It is declared that what stands written in Ps 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 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 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 And if the 
 
 splendid successor of David received the glory, which the Holy One 
 of God expected (Acts so also the sufferings of the Servant of 
 
 Jehovah were unhesitatingly assigned to the King (3^®), as Peter de- 
 clares that God through all His prophets has proclaimed that ‘ His 
 Christ should suffer.’ ” 
 
 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-’^ 13^^) > the dtxato? (7^^ 
 
 22^‘^f the xa\ dtxato<s (s^^), the dyio<$ 7 r«r? 'coo dsou (4-i>80). 
 
 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 dyio^ xai di'xaco?^ 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 dyco?, 
 b dixato<$. . . . And so the predicate 6 dyio<$ must include in 
 
 itself a religious and ethical sense . . .” 
 
 1® 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^®). In other discourses Peter calls Jesus a ‘ Prince 
 and Saviour’ (5^^) and Indeed even ‘Judge of the 
 quick and the dead’ (10^^). 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. 
 ^To him the ‘Lord Jesus’ (16^^ 21^^) Is ‘the 
 
 ^Christ’ (17^ 26^^), ‘the Holy One’ ‘the 
 
 ^Righteous One ’ (2 2^^ cf. 7^^ Stephen) who has come 
 X as a ‘Saviour’ (13^^) to Israel, and who though a 
 
 of the same one ; and while some held ‘ him of whom Moses wrote in 
 the law’ (Jno or ‘the prophet who should come into the world’ 
 (6^^ cf. for the Messiah, others must have distinguished Him from 
 the Messiah (i2i. cf. 20, 740, cf. 4i), According to these last, he was, 
 in harmony with the prophecy of Malachi (3I 4® ®), the returning 
 Elijah, who was to prepare the way before the Messiah (Mt 17^*^). The 
 Christians did not share this view. While they also had expected an 
 Elijah and had found him in John the Baptist (Acts 132^), 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 3^2), and Stephen also seems to have meant the same 
 thing (7^^). 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 33^1, Numb 12®*®).” 
 
 20 Cf. 2^7. In both cases it is derived from Ps 16^®, and the term 
 
 employed is oVro?, not as in 3^^, cf. Mk Lk 4*^, Jno 6®®, 
 
 I Jno 2^0^ Rev 3"^. See on the titles of this sort Hastings’ D. C. G., I. 
 pp. 730-31. 
 
 21 Cf. Stanton, op. cit., p. 170. 
 
2lS 
 
 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 
 ‘Man’ is ‘God’s own Son’ (13^^), nay, 
 
 In some high sense ‘ God ’ Himself (20^®), — for it was 
 by nothing else than “ the blood of God ” that the 
 Church was purchased.^^ 
 
 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 (dvdpconoc, 
 5“®, cf. 7^®: 2^^ cf. Lk 24^®), yet it is the 
 
 r 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 (10^^’^®), but also something far above hu- 
 manity, which can be expressed only in terms of precise 
 deity (20^®). 
 
 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 “ 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, “roD Osod is assuredly genuine.” 
 See for a discussion of the reading, Westcott and Hort, The Ne^w Tesla’- 
 ment in the Original Greek, ii. pp. 98-99. 
 
The Designations in Acts 219 
 
 Jesus Christ, to the exclusion of the old phrase, and 
 again of simply “the Name” (5^^ 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^^ cf. 3 
 Jno 7).^^ In the Old Testament this would have meant 
 the Name of Jehovah: here it means the Name of 
 Jesus.^® “ 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 
 24II) ” 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. (221 1514,17) jggg Name of 
 God ” appear in Acts. On the other hand the phrase “ the Name of 
 Jesus Christ” is quite frequent: 2^^ 36.(16) ^10,18,30 540 312,10 ^14,15 
 916,27 iq 43,48 1520 16I8 jg5,i3.i7 2 J 13 221® 26®. Instances like 4'’'. 12 . it 
 $ 28 ^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 5^1 is the completely absolute use of it found. 
 
 21 Cf. Meyer on 5II: “The absolute ro ovofia denotes the namexar^ 
 — namely ‘Jesus Messiah’ (3® 4!®) — the confession and an- 
 nouncement of which was always the highest and holiest concern of 
 the apostles. Analogous is the use of the absolute (Lev 24H»i®), 
 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. Schdtzung des Gottesnamens, p. 1901 ; G. B. Gray, B. £>., ill. 
 p. 480, and also Conybeare, J. Q. R., ix. p. 66, and Chase, 7 . 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. 
 
 2 ®Rashdall, in loc. 
 
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 niay observe how Jesus had come to be 
 Date of Paul’s thought of at a somewhat later date, in 
 Letters developing thought of Christians.^ 
 
 Tn 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, i 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 
 
221 
 
 The Corroboration of Paul 
 
 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- 
 flects an earlier usage. But neither in Acts nor in Paul’s 
 (^pistles is there any hint that Peter and Paul stand re- 
 The Value Oated to one another in their thought of 
 of their fChrist as representatives of a less and 
 Testimony ^ developed conception.* On the 
 
 contrary in Acts the conception of the two, though 
 ^^lothed 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 (Wernie, 251 seq., cf. Wrede, Paulus, 89) to John (Wernie, 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, 
 ^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 713,14 ? 
 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 Oiir 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.® 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 i Jesus ’ falls Strikingly into the back- 
 
 ground, while the designation ot idim 
 
 ® Cf. Stanton, The Jevjtsh and Christian Messiah, p. 156-7. 
 
 *Cf. Robinson on Eph (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.® 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 
 ‘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.® And this con- 
 stant application of the term ‘ Lord ’ to Jesus must not 
 be imagined merely a formal mark of respect.’' 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^S Rom 10^^).* 
 
 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 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 ( i Cor 2®) . 
 
 ® On the relation of ‘ Christ ’ and ‘ Lord ’ in Paul’s usage cL Robin- 
 son, Com. on Ephesians, pp. 72-90. 
 
 ®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 seg. The text he uses is Nestle’s ed. 3, 1901. 
 
 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.” 
 
 ® It was a notion of Baur’s {Der Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, i. p. 85, 
 iV. 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®, negative this. 
 Dr. Sanday (on Rom i^, p. 10) supposes that this was the primary 
 meaning of the term: “On the lips of Christians, xopiog 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.”® 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 hls- 
 ^J:orIcal 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®, Rom 14®) merely means that, no less 
 than to our Lord Himself, the earthly manifestation 
 
 lievers (Col iisseq.)^ but also over all creation (Phil Col 
 
 jie.iT).” “The title,” he adds, “was given to our Lord even in His 
 lifetime (Jno is^^), 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^seq.).»» 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 
 1236,37^ Pss Sol 17^®) 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 i Cor 2^ ; 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^). 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^®).” 
 Passages like 1 Cor 11 ^^, “the Lord’s death,” “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. 3 53 and 363. 
 
The Corroboration of Paul 225 
 
 of Jesus was to Paul an estate of humiliation upon which 
 the glory followed.^® 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, notJHis subsequent exaltation, was a strange ex- 
 perience. ' Jt was one who was rich, he tells us, who 
 rm Jesus became poor that we might through His poverty 
 ^become rich (2 Cor 8®) ; it was one who was in the 
 form of God who alyured 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 When Pajjl 
 
 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 
 
 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- 
 ti^ (comp. Jno ly®), fully h fxop(pfi dsod and Ua Oeib (Phil 2®), 
 hence in His glorified corporeality (Phil 321) the visible image of the 
 invisible God. ... It is true that in the state of His humiliation 
 He had likewise the divine do^a^ which he possessed xard Tzveopa 
 dyiu}(Tuvrj<s (Rom i^), which also, as bearer of the divine grace and 
 truth (Jno 1^^), and through His miracles (Jno 2II), He made known 
 ^(Jno 14®) ; 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'^®®'!-) till in the end, furnished through His resurrection 
 with the mighty attestation of His divine Sonship (Rom i^), 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 xupcorrj? of Jesus as the <r 6 v 0 povo<^ of 
 (^jGod,” says Meyer justly on Rom 10^, “ is conditioned by the acknowl- 
 edgment of His previous descent from heaven, the incarnation of the 
 Son of God, 83 , Gal 4^, Phil 2^, et air 
 The phrase is Meyer’s, on 2 Cor 4®. 
 
226 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 (Rom 10®, 2 Cor 4^ i Cor I2^ Phil 2^^). The proc- 
 lamation of the Gospel is summed up for him therefore 
 in this formula (2 Cor 4^); the confession of Jesus 
 as Lord is salvation (Rom 10®), and it is the mark of 
 a Christian that he serves the Lord Christ (Col 3^^) ; 
 for no one can say that Jesus is Lord except in the Holy 
 Spirit (i Cor 12^). 
 
 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 Qij Testament passages which Paul ap- 
 J plies to Jesus, in which ‘ Lord ’ is the divine name 
 (e. g., 2 Thess i®, i Cor io®’“®, 2 Cor 3^^ 
 
 Rom 10^^ Eph 6^ 2 Tim 2^® 4^^: Isaiah 45“^ is cited 
 vXwith reference to God in Rom I4^\ and with reference 
 to Jesus in Phil 2^®)d^ 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 22s, i p 3^5, that with Paul xopto<s in O. T. 
 
 citations is often applied to Jesus: 2 Thess i®, 1 Cor 2 Cor 1 
 
 Cor 10®, 2 Cor 31®, Rom Eph 6^, 2 Tim 2^^ 4^^. In Rom 14I1, 
 Is 4523 is applied to God : in Phil 2^^ seq. 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 Fatherd* 
 x\s 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 ( i Thess 
 i\ 2 Thess T’ 2 ^ I Cor T, 2 Cor T, Gal T, Rom T, Eph 
 T, Phil T, I Tim T, 2 Tim T, Titus cf. Eph i 
 Thess 2 Thess i^“). And throughout the Epistles 
 Jesus as ‘ the Lord ’ and the Father as ‘ God ’ are set over 
 against each other as distinct and yet cpnigined 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. PauVs 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 Christ is xvpio<;. The term 
 
 ‘Lord,’ except when he quotes from the O. T. (in which case xupio<s 
 
 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^,6^ also from Eph 4^, i Cor Wherever ‘ Lord ’ 
 occurs we are to understand him as referring to Christ, i Cor 419 3^ 
 Rom 14^, which Weiss adduces as exceptions, are so only in ap- 
 pearance.” Cf. also Sven Herner, Die Annvendung des Wortes xbpto<s 
 im N. T., p. 22, speaking of the Ep. to the Romans, he says: “If we 
 direct our attention here to the verses where xupio<; represents God, 
 
 we find that they are all citations from the O. T.: 14II form 
 
 no exception to this rule. Outside the O. T. citations, on the other hand, 
 xupto(; 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 
 %poken of (1012); but also two passages (iji-^) in which an O. T. 
 ")*Lord God’ is altered to (iiS) ‘God.’” 
 
228 
 
 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 No doubt by this elevation of Jesus as ‘ Lord ’ to the 
 side of God^^ 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 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^'®) . 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®) . 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 unl^ sub sistent Jn both the ‘ one 
 God,’ viz., the Father and the ‘ one Lord,’ viz., Jesus 
 Christ. Otherwise there would be a flat contradiction 
 
 Cf. David Somerville, St. Paul’s Conception of Christ, p. 295 seq., 
 where the use of the term xopio<s in the LXX. is examined, and it is 
 added that it was as “ accustomed to this usage that Paul confines the 
 terra xopio<s to Christ and reserves 6 s 6 <; 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 (p. 
 
 296). Cf. p. 143: “But the fact that he habitually applies to Christ 
 the term ‘ Lord ’ (xupio^'J a term that in the LXX. is practically 
 equivalent to God ( deo^ ) 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 Paid 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 
 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.^® 
 
 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 sam.e 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. 
 
 Dr. Sanday, in his otherwise excellent note on Rora i^, 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®. 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” (i Cor 12^®). “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^^). “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 “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^^). 
 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 (i Thess cf. 2 Thess i^). 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^^). 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., 
 
The Corroboration of Paid 
 
 231 
 
 of God, the recognition at the same time of distinctions 
 'jikin the Divine Being by virtue of which the Lord Jesus 
 "^j^hrist 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 permitted to say, “ the Trini- 
 
 Trinitarian tarian name ” — of Jesus is apparently 
 Name of Jesus < 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^ Col 4^), 
 or even in the great words of Col 2^^ as the ‘ Head ’ 
 of the body which is His Church (cf. Eph 4^^). 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’ (i Cor 2^), He has died and lived again 
 that He might enter upon His dominion as ‘ Lord ’ of 
 both the dead and the living (Rom 14^), and being 
 thus ‘ Lord of all ’ (Rom 10^^) 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 10^^). He does not become ‘Lord,’ 
 but only comes to His rights as ‘ Lord,’ by and through 
 
232 The Designations of Our 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.^® 
 
 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 ’ 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 ( i 
 Cor 8®, cf. I Tim 2^ and such passages — dcd with the 
 genitive — as the following, Rom 2^® 3^^ ^1,11,17,21^ 
 
 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 ^2 j Cor i^i 2^® 10^2^ 2 Cor 8^^ 
 
 Rom iqI®, Phil 2i®®®<i-, Eph 4P. i Thess 4® is doubtful. One of 
 the most commonly employed designations of Christ on the part of the 
 Apostle is 6 xupco^^ the name in which the lxx . prevailingly rep- 
 resents the unpronounced nin\ 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 xopto<^ to Christ and to God. 
 Divine honors are given to Christ in 2 Thess i^seq.^ Rom Phil 
 
 2^®. In 2 Tim 4^® 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’ (i Cor similarly 
 Rom ic>i2seq.^ 2 Tim 222 ).^ljChrist, after He has ascended above all 
 ^the heavens (Eph 4^®), sits at the right hand of God as sharer in the 
 divine disposition of grace to believers (Rom 8^4 seq. and has the 
 
233 
 
 The Corroboration of Paul 
 
 I Th 5^ Tit 3®) . 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” (i Cor ii^), and that 
 “ if we are Christ’s,” so “ Christ Is God’s ” ( i Cor 3^^) . 
 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 5^^ 8^ 2 Cor 5^^ Eph 16.12,14.19 ^19^ 
 Col 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 (i Cor 15^^’^*). God is appropriately spoken of 
 therefore distinctly as the “ God of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ” (Eph cf. Rom 15^ 2 Cor ii^\ Eph 
 
 power to subject all things to Himself (Phil 321). Every knee shall 
 bow to Him in the realms of the heavenly and the earthly and the 
 underearthly (Phil 2^^). He is Lord over every lordship and power 
 and might and dominion and every name that is named (Eph i20seq.^ 
 Col 2^0). The O. T. day of the Lord, the day of Judgment, has be- 
 come His day (i Thess 52, 2 Thess 32, i Cor i^seq.). Christ is to 
 carry out the world-judgment when He appears accompanied by His 
 holy angels (1 Thess 2 Thess All must appear before His 
 
 throne (2 Cor 510). . . . The Apostle passes back and forth with 
 
 references to God and Christ. Is 452s, which in accord with its original 
 meaning is referred to God in Rom 14^^, is applied to Christ in Phil 
 2^0. In Rom I4®-12 the Apostle begins with the words ‘ Who eats, eats 
 to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God,* etc. (cf. i Cor lo^^). 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 Oiir Lord 
 
 i^), 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 
 servantd'^ 
 
 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- 
 ^ 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 assevera ted 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 
 
 Cf. for statement of this point of view Beyschlag Dig Christologie 
 des N. T., 1866, pp. 203 seq.: “Whatever there may be great and 
 unique lying in the el? xvpio^^ it is undeniable that Paul purposely 
 does not apply the name 0s6<$ to Christ, but rather most distinctly dis- 
 tinguishes the el? xbpioq from the el? ^eo? 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^'^) : 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 Christas und Paulas, 1902, pp. 
 168, 169; also David Somerville, St. Paul’s Conception of Christ, etc., 
 1897, pp. 140, 141. 
 
The Corrohoratiofi of Paul 235 
 
 monotheism. “ None Is God/’ says he, “ but one 
 (i Cor 8^) ; and he says it, as we have seen, In Im- 
 mediate connection with his re^cognltlon of ‘ one God, 
 the Father” and “ one Lord, Jesus Christ” (cf. Rom 
 3^^ i6“^ Gal 3^^ Eph 4^ i Tim 2®). 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?^® 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®). 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^). 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 loc.; cf. 
 Edwards in loc.: “There is but one God and the Christians’ God is 
 that One.” 
 
 i®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). 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 Our Lord 
 
 manity suffices here: not even angelic grandeur:^® It 
 was “ in the form of God ” that He was by nature 
 {uTidp-gcov) : 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’ (i Cor 2®), 
 that in Him dwelt “ all the fulness of the Godhead 
 bodily” (Col 2^), 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 o£ indeed, does the term 
 
 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®, 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. 
 
237 
 
 The Corroboration of Paul 
 
 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 ‘ Jehovah ’ Itself, 
 It was charged likewise to the apprehension of his 
 Gentile readers with suggestions In no way Inferior to 
 those of ‘God’ Itself.^^ 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 more precise, subordinate, to God 
 
 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 i: ‘‘ 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 
 
 V is the Mediator of God the Father, whose He Is, and 
 who is His Head and His God; whose will Hejger- 
 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 se ries 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 ‘ Lord ’ nearly all 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 d ec la rati on of deity. Is now the most 
 parado xica l,^^ occurs some twenty-four to twenty-six 
 times, chiefly in the earlier Epistles; and Its duplicate, 
 ‘Jesus our Lord,’ twice more. ‘The (or our) Lord 
 Christ’ Is less frequent, occurring only twice (Rom 
 16^®, Col 3^^). 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 (i Cor 
 [2 Cor 4^], Rom 6“^ 8^ [Col 2«], Eph 3^ [Phil 3«]). 
 But this obvious use of ‘ Christ ’ as a name of dignity 
 
 22 Cf. Heinrici-Meyer, 1896, on i Cor 12^, 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 ii 26 is adverted to]) “is the crispest and most impressive 
 form of the Christian confession. The Apostle accordingly looks upon 
 xbptoQ ’l7j(Tou<: 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.^® 
 
 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 I Thess. maintains that A'/>C(Trd? is never a proper name 
 in the N. T. : on the other hand, von Soden {Theolog. Abhandlungen 
 Weizsdcker ge^vidmet, 1902, p. n8), considers Xptffzo? 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 Xpiffr 6 <; when it 
 stands without the article, as a proper name with a capital initial: on 
 which Schmiedel (Winer, Grammatik, § 54) remarks that d Xpt(TT 6 <s 
 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® 
 
 2 Cor $ 1 ®, Gal 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 
 (v. 1.) i62i (v. i.)^ ji^ jno ii 7 173 2 o 31 ), but always, with one ex- 
 ception (Jno 17^), 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 nvho is called Christ* (Mt 27^^’22),” Dj-, 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.’ 
 
241 
 
 The Corroboration of Paul 
 
 ‘ Christ ’ a proper name of our Lord with Paul, but 
 « Christ’ Paul’s it is his favorite designation for Him.^* 
 Favorite For, full and rich as Paul’s employ- 
 Designation term ‘ Lord ’ is, it is not 
 
 nearly so frequently employed by him as ‘ Christ,.’ This 
 designation (more commonly with than without the 
 article)^® occurs in his Epistles no fewer than 210 or 
 2 JJ 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- 
 
 24Harnack, Hist. Dog., E. T., I. 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- 
 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 
 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 ). 
 
 25 Anarthrous XpiffTo? in Paul: Rom 5 ®’® 64.8.9 g9,io,i7 9 I 6,7,17 
 
 j25 149,16 1^8,18,20,29 i65,7,9,10^ I Cor il2,17,23,24 2 ^^ ^1,23,23 41,10,10,15 
 ^7 615 y 22 gll .12 g 21 III 1227 1^3.12.13.14,16,17,18,19,20,23^ 2 Cor l21 
 215,17 33,14 316 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20,20 iq7,7 ii 3, 10,13, 23 i22,10,19 Qg] 
 
 16 , 10,22 2l9.1'7.1’’.20.20,21 313 , 16 , 24 , 27,29 4 I 9 51 , 2 , 4 ^ £pli j3 2^2 415,32 
 
 321 , 32^ pjlj] il0,13, 17, 18, 20,21,23, 29 27.16,30 38 , 9 ^ CqI j2, 27,28 22,5,8,20 3 !!^ 
 
 Philem 6 , 8 , 30 , i Thess 3® 4 ^®; and not at all in the Pastorals; 127 in all. 
 
' Christ 
 Jesus * 
 
 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 ‘ Christ Jesus.’ 
 This form, as we have seen, seems to 
 occur occasionally in Acts, not only as 
 a Pauline (24^^) but also as a primitive Christian 
 (3^®) and a Lucan formula (5^“).^® But in Paul’s 
 Epistles it occurs not less than 82 (84) times, regu- 
 larly anarthrously (except Eph 3^ cf. 3“, Col 2®), 
 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,’^"^ 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 1 ^®, 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, XpiaTo^ accord- 
 
 ingly has much the same significance as that in which the Apostle uses 
 the simple ‘ Christ.’ ” In his comment on Rom 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 ApiffTo<^^ but in those of the later Xpiar6<: 
 
 Irjffou?. “ The interest of this,” he adds, “ would be in the fact 
 that in Xptffzdg the first word would seem to be rather 
 
 more distinctly a proper name than in Xptffzog, No doubt 
 
 the latter phrase is rapidly passing into a proper name, but XpurzS^ 
 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, 
 C occurring indeed no fewer than 49 times, pretty evenly 
 (.distributed through the Epistles. (The second occurs 
 ( only four times (Romans 3 and i Cor i) : and the 
 last only ten times (two central groups of Epistles 
 only). In these sonoxqus 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.^® It is noticeable that 
 
 phrase would be in fact transitional between Aptffzd^ or 6 Xptffvo^ 
 of the Gospels and the later Apcffzo^ ^Irj<jov<$ or Xpiazo^i simply 
 as a proper name.” He refers us to his own Bampton Lectures^ p. 289 
 seq.y and to an article by the Rev. F. Herbert Stead in The Expositor, 
 1888, i. pp. 386 seq. According to Feine, then Xpiffzd? is more 
 
 of a proper name; according to Sanday it is less of a proper name, 
 than ^It}(Tou<^ Xpi(jz 6 <s. 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^), and is used by the evangelists (Mt 
 ii,i8 1521^ ]y^|j ji^ jjjo ii7 [178] but “Christ Jesus” already appears 
 on the lips of the earliest followers of Jesus (Acts 3^®), and in Paul’s 
 earliest epistle (i Thess 5^®)* “Jesus Christ” appears not only in 
 1 Thess (i^ 3I j 9 , 23 , 28 )^ but also in James (i^ z^). 
 
 28 Cf. Feine, op. cit., pp. 41 seq.: Xpiffz 6 <$ 6 xvpto^ 
 
 'Irjffou<; are already solemn names of Jesus: and this is in still 
 higher degree the case with 6 xopto^ (ijpwv^ Tr)ffoo<: Xptffz 6 (s. 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^* Jesus our Saviour’ (Titus i^), ‘Jesus 
 Christ our Saviour’ (Titus 3®), ‘our 
 Saviour Christ Jesus’ (2 Tim i^®), ‘our Saviour 
 Jesus Christ’ (Titus 2^^). 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“^ 
 cf. Eph 5“®). 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” (i Tim ih cf. Titus i^), 
 and wishes Timothy to live so as to be acceptable “ in 
 the sight of God our Saviour” (2^ cf. Titus 2^^) 
 whose glory it is to be ‘the Saviour’ of man (4^^), 
 in accordance with His love to men as our ‘ Saviour ’ 
 (Titus 3^).’*^ 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^:<rro 9 Ur}<roo^ 6 x6pto<^ fioo^ and Xpi(TTd<$ 
 
 6 xupio^ have something very solemn about them.” 
 
 Cf . Swete on Rev : “ The cry '// awrrjpia T<p xai zip &pv(<p 
 is equivalent to attributing to Both the title of Icjzyjpj so freely 
 
The Corroboration of Paul 245 
 
 terchangeably to God and to Jesus assimilates Jesus 
 to God and leaves us in less doubt bow we are to take 
 tbe passage in Titus 2^^ wbicb in contrast 
 God* Christ’s first coming in grace 
 
 speaks of tbe impending “ appearing 
 of tbe glory of” — shall we' say “the great God and 
 our Savi our 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,®° 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® 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 2^, Tit 3^^ {2) 
 Tit 2^3 3®.” Also p. clxiii. : “The phrase is perhaps suggested by 
 the free use of (TioTijp 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.” 
 
 Cf. Weiss (Meyer) in loc., correcting Huther. Cf. Schmiedel- 
 Winer, Grammatik, p. 158: “ In Tit 2^^, 2 P i^, 2 Thess Jude 4, Eph 
 5®, and Acts 20^8^ according to the badly attested reading tt]v ixxX, too 
 xupioo xai 0 £od, grammar strictly requires, as well as in 2 P 1^^ 
 220 32,18^ there should be in every case a single person in- 
 tended, and therefore Christ be called or povo? deffTrori^t^. 
 
 Nevertheless it is possible for xopioq in 2 Thess and Jude, and 
 in Eph (and Acts) to stand as a designation of a new person (§19, 
 13 d). That (TWTTjp too in Titus and 2 P can also be so construed, 
 
2^6 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 ing in the Gospels as a designation of Jesus (Mt 3^^ 
 12^^ 17^ Mk 9'^, Lk 3““). 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. 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 
 ‘ 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^^), 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 ‘ the Beloved ’ it stands in 
 the closest relation with ‘ Son ’ ; “ This is my Son, the 
 Beloved, in whom I am well pleased.” It is only in 
 
 since it has with it, is acc. 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 ‘ Beloved ’ 
 comes to its rights.^^ 
 
 On the other side, the compound names, ‘ Jesus 
 Christ ’ and ‘ Christ Jesus,’ appear in Paul’s Epistles 
 also in combination with designations 
 which emphasize rather the human as- 
 pect of our Lord’s person. We read 
 of “the man Jesus Christ” (Rom 5^^), of “the man 
 Christ Jesus ” ( i Tim 2^) , and somewhat more fre- 
 quently we are, apart from such a combination with 
 His personal name, directed to contemplate our Lord 
 as a “ Man ” (dpdpcDTro ^) . 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 i Cor i52M7,[48,49]^ 
 
 cf. 15^% “ last Adam ”), and it is the singleness or the 
 superiority of this ‘ Man ’ which is in question. But 
 in a passage like i Tim 2^ “ 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. (i. pp. 188, 189). 
 
24B 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 
 ‘ the Lord of Glory ’ ( i Cor 2^) or ‘ God ’ itself 
 (Acts 20“®). 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 
 IVlfrel ^Man formed in fashion as a man 
 
 ^ (Phil 2'^’®) ; 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 ” (pTcdp^cov, 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^’^) : 
 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^). 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 jg gjjg q£ p^jg £,e|j^g 
 
 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 
 C human side had a historical beginning, while the divine 
 C side knew only an historical establishment : our Lord 
 was made — came to be {yevofievoc :^ — of the seed of 
 V, David according to the flesh; He was ‘designated’ 
 — ^marked out as {bpcaOevro ^) — 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.’ 
 ^CThe highest human exaltation is the Messiahship : but 
 r:^His Messiahship was the lower side of His majesty. 
 That He might be the Messiah He stooped from His 
 prior estate of divine glory.®® Thus clearly the Apostle 
 presents our Lord as essentially the ‘ Son of God,’ and 
 this Sonship to God as essentially consubstantiality with 
 God.®^ After precisely the same fashion, at a later 
 
 Cf. Lightfoot on Rom i*: “The word yev6[xzvo<; Implies a prior 
 existence of the Son before the Incarnation. . . . His Messiahship 
 was after all only the lower aspect of His Person ( xard aapxa ). 
 His personality as the Divine Word . . . was His higher aspect.” 
 Cf. Sanday on Rom “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.” Ele 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 (o ^v) none other than God over all 
 blessed for ever” (9^). 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^ 8^, cf. Col 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^ . . .). This 
 is sufficiently expressed by our word ‘ designated,’ which might perhaps 
 with advantage also be used in the two places in the Acts (10^2 1731). 
 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 cdio<^ vid<^ (Rom 8^2)^ o iauroo v[o? (8^), 
 he intends to cover the period of preexistence as that St. John Identi- 
 fies the fxovoyevrj<^ with the preexistent Logos.” Cf. also Robinson on 
 Eph. 4^® (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 
 ‘ 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 1 
 
 of God ’ In his presentation of the personality of 
 
 ‘Son of God’ readers.^® 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.’^® In a number of these instances®’ 
 there is naturally little Indication of the particular Im- 
 plication of deity which It nevertheless always carries 
 with It In Paul’s usage.®® 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®), 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 Idioo o!ou ) but “ de- 
 livered Him up for us all” (Rom 8®®). 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 ( T/ie 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 
 ‘ 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 920).” 
 It is already an old form of speech with him when he wrote his first 
 Epistle (cf. I Thess and see Knowling, pp. 229 seq.). 
 
 86 Rom i 3 . 4.9 510 83.29,32^ j Cot 1528, 2 Cor Ii9, Gal 1I6 220 44.6, 
 Eph 4^8^ Col ii8^ 1 Thess 
 
 87 £.g. I Thess iio, Gal ii® 220, Col Eph 413. 
 
 88 Cf. Meyer on Rom (E. T., pp. 43, 44): “The Apostle never 
 designates Christ as the oidq 6soT> otherwise (cf. Gess. v. d. Pers. 
 Christi, p. 89 seq.; Weiss, Bibl. Theol., p. 309) than from the stand- 
 point of the knowledge of God given him by revelation (Gal 1^6) ©f 
 the metaphysical Sonship (83.32^ Gal 4^ Col ii 3 , phil 2«, al)P 
 
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^ i^aTriaredev) , 
 This closeness of relation, amounting really to Identity, 
 is somewhat oddly suggested by the argument in Rom 
 ^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 Chris fs 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, ii). 
 
 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’ 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^ 2 Cor 11% Eph [Col 
 
The Corroboration of Paul 253 
 
 i^]). In a number of other passages in which God is 
 called ‘the Father’ the Trinitarian relation seems in 
 mind (Rom 6^ i Cor 8® I5^^ Gal I^ Eph 2^® 6^^ i 
 Thess ih 2 Thess I^ i Tim i^, 2 Tim Titus i^). 
 In the other instances of the application of the name of 
 Father to God the reference is rather to His relation 
 to us (Rom T [8^^], i Cor T, Gal [4"], 
 Eph T 4", Phil i 2 2^^ 42^ Col i", I Thess T 2 
 Thess [2var. lec.] Philem 3, cf. 2 Cor Eph 
 3^^ 5“^ Col Ini otily three passages are 
 
 the correlatives ‘ Son ’ and ‘ Father ’ brought together 
 (i Cor 15^^ Gal 4^^ Col i^^), 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^^), 
 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^) — 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 (i Cor 15^^), 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 4^, Col 
 
 that God Is is the image of God, we are 
 
 told, and the light of the knowledge of 
 the glory of God shines in His face (2 Cor 4^). And, 
 again. He is the image of the invisible God, the first- 
 born of all creation (Col i^^). 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^) , the ‘ Great God ’ (Titus 
 
255 
 
 The Corroboration of Paul 
 
 2^^). 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.®® 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® see Dwight, Journal of Exegetical Society, i88i, 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 (irl 
 TzdvTiov 0 e 6 <i^ to Christ, seems to me so great as to outweigh all 
 other considerations.” On Titus 2^3 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, 
 1881, 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 
 ‘ 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.”^® 
 In the presence of Paul’s letters, therefore, it is im- 
 possible to deny that there underlies the whole Chris- 
 
 Was ‘wissen ou/r ‘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 
 ?^rthly Jesus worked in the souls of His disciples 
 (with inexpressible power” (p. 26): and that they 
 nad 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 
 osom 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 u niver sal and 
 aboriginal object of Christian faith, Luke seis before 
 us in Acts from the mouth of the primitive disciples 
 — Peter and John and Jame^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 mierely 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 of 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, i and 2 Corinthians and 
 Galatians.^^ 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^’^) ; that as God’s own Son He was rich before He 
 became poor by becoming of the seed of David (2 Cor 
 8^) ; and that in His real nature He is not merely 
 God’s Son but Himself God over all, blessed for ever 
 (Rom 9^). When we add to these four great Epistles 
 one after another of the others — such as Philippians, 
 and I Thessalonians and Colossians, as practically all 
 living critics do^*^ — 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. 
 
 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 njuissen ‘wir, 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, i Thessalonians also, and Colossians, with 
 the exception of perhaps a few verses. Lately a theologian like Jiilicher, 
 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., i Tim, and Titus.” Weinel bases his 
 picture of St. Paul the Man and His Work (E. T., 1906), on Romans, 
 
26o 
 
 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 
 ^Deve'lopmenf groups. ^ Slight 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 
 
 I 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, i and 2 Cor., Gal., Philip., i Thess., Col., 
 Philem. ; while Wernle makes use of all except the Pastorals {Beginnings 
 of Christianity, 1903). 
 
26 i 
 
 The Corroboration of Paul 
 
 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 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 ail 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- 
 
 ChrStology flesh, who moreover did not 
 
 High believe In Him during His earthly man- 
 ' Ifestatlon (Jno 7^) : to which Is added in the case of 
 the Epistle of James, Its exceedingly early date (a. d. 
 45 )> — ^ 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 
 ‘ 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,”^ — 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 i. 
 
264 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 the Lord Jesus Christ” (i^), and Jude with striking 
 directness simply “of Jesus Christ” (i). 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^ 2^) — 
 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’ (^'^*8 [141,15^2 contexts 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^^). 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^GloV’ Glory, with respect of persons” (2^). 
 
 ‘ 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 
 Mayor on thinks it probable that it is used of Jesus also at 
 ^[ 14 ], 15 . Herner remarks (p. 42): “The Epistle of James knows the 
 expression ‘The Lord Jesus Christ’ (i^ 2^) 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 ’ 
 
The Catholic Epistles 265 
 
 defining Him in His majesty.* 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^), and after His 
 humiliation on earth (though even on earth He mani- 
 fested His glory to seeing eyes, Jno 2^^ 17^“) entered 
 again into His glory (Lk 24“®, Jno 17“^, i Tim 3^^ Heb 
 2^ cf. Mt 19^* 2 5*^ [Mk 10*'^]), and is to come again 
 in this glory (Mt 16^^ 24*" 25*^ Mk 8** I3"^ Lk 9^" 
 2i^\ Titus 2^*, I P 4^*). We come nearer to what is 
 implied when we read of Jesus being ‘ the Lord of 
 Glory’ (i Cor 2^), 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*). 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^). 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 3^2) 
 makes such an ascription unlikely, and it is to be noted that in the 
 preceding and following verses xupto? is used of God.” 
 
 3 Bengel, Bassett, Mayor. 
 
266 The Designations of Oiir Lord 
 
 indeed speak of Christ in the address of his Epistle 
 by the simpler formal title of ‘ Jesus 
 ‘the Despot’ Christ,’ but in 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 {deaTTozyj^) and Lord, Jesus Christ’ (4) — a 
 phrase, this last one, so strong that many commentators 
 balk at it and wish to render it ‘ the only Master, viz., 
 God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.’^ But we cannot feel 
 surprised that one who pointedly calls himself in the 
 first verse of his Epistle “ slave ” of Jesus Christ, 
 s^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 ” 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^). 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 i Peter are notably 
 simple, but none the less significant. Peter’s favorite 
 designation for Him (as it is Paul’s) 
 of simple ‘ Christ,’ used, ordinarily 
 
 at least, as a proper name, though of 
 
 See on the passage, Bigg and Mayor in loc. 
 
 ® The phrase is Mayor’s {in loc.): who notes also the use of the word 
 de(T7:6(7uvot by Julius Africanus (Eus. H. E., i. 7) to denote the kins- 
 folk of Jesus, and justly remarks that this implies a current earlier 
 emolovment of SEfTTrornc of our Lord. 
 
The Catholic Epistles 267 
 
 course not without Its appellative significance still cling- 
 ing to It and In one or two Instances becoming 
 
 prominent 2^1 ^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^ ^21 ^11^^ 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.® Similarly in 
 
 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."^ Besides these 
 proper names, Peter speaks of our Lord by the desig- 
 nation ‘ Lord ’ 3^^ cf. 2“^ 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 (i Cor 12^-^, 2 Cor 131% Eph 44-6), 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 2%^^ 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.” 
 
 Cf. Bigg in loc. (p. 108), The ^ords rb h avroT<s TTvedfxa 
 Xpiazou must be accepted quite frankly. Christ was in the prophets, 
 and from Him came their inspiration.” 
 
2 68 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^)/ 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^), that is to say, to His humiliation.^ 
 No other titles are applied to our Lord in this Epistle, 
 except that in 2“^ He is spoken of as ‘ the Shepherd 
 and Bishop of our souls,’ and at 5^’^ as ‘ Chiei, Shepherd,’ 
 modes_of description in which the sot eriological rather 
 than the ontological element is prominent. 
 
 In comparison with i Peter, 2 Peter makes use of 
 more elaborate designations in speaking of Christ. 
 2 Peter and simple ‘ Jesus ’ not 
 
 the Deity occur in this Epistle, but not even the 
 of Our Lord simple ‘ Christ ’ : and the less complex 
 compound ‘ Jesus Christ ’ occurs in its simplicity only 
 once — in the formality of the address. The simple 
 ‘ Lord,’ on the other hand, seems to be used of Christ 
 in a few cases (38-9,10,15^^10 ^ number of more or 
 
 8Cf. Hort in loc., p. 30, who has a long, analytical discussion of it. 
 9 Cf. Bigg in loc. 
 
 Bigg on 39 : “The Lord is certainly Christ”; on 31^: “‘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^ seq. 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“), ‘our Lord Jesus Christ’ ‘the 
 
 Lord and Saviour’ (3^), ‘ our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ’ 2“® 3^^), with the last of which may be 
 connected the great phrase ‘ our God and Saviour, 
 Jesus Christ’ (i^). 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 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. lo). 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 4I1 (2 Tim i^) it is the 
 
 constant rule in the N. T. and in thisTpistle (12,8.11,14,16 320 3I8) that 
 the pronoun ijfimv is adjoined to xupco? only when xupw? refers 
 to Christ; and already on this ground xopio<$ 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^” 
 
 Cf. Isaiah 43^1, “ I, even I, am the Lord and beside me there is 
 no Saviour”; Is 43^, “The Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour,” cf. 45i5’2i 
 4926 60^6 63®, Jer 14®, “O thou hope of Israel, the Saviour thereof in 
 time of trouble; Hos 13^, “Beside me there is no Saviour” (cf. i Sam 
 10^9 14®®, 2 Sam 22®, Ps 7^® 17'^ io 62 ^). But cf. Is 19®® where the 
 Lord promises to send “a Saviour and a mighty one”: and such pas- 
 sages as Judges 3®*^^, where the Saviour sent is a man raised up by 
 God for the purpose (cf. Judges 6®®, 2 Kings 13®, Neh 9®). The O. T. 
 term for Saviour is the Hiphal participle of viz., )i ^\0 
 
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’ 2-*^ 3^®) and ‘our God and Saviour 
 Jesus Christ’ (i^) 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.’^^ It is almost equally 
 clearly asserted in the parallel phrase, ‘ our Lord and 
 Sa viou r Jesus Christ.’ And it is implied in the con- 
 junction of ‘ God ’ and ‘ Jesus our Lord ’ in as co- 
 objects of saving knowledge (cf. 2“^ 3^^), and in 
 the ascription to ‘ our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’ 
 of an eternal Kingdom Besides these designa- 
 
 tions, our Lord is called by Peter, as .by Jude (4), 
 our ‘ Master ’ (dsaTrori^^) with the same high impli- 
 cations (2^) and the declaration of God the Father 
 at the transfiguration that He is ‘ God’s ^n,’ ‘ God’s 
 Beloved,’ is cited (i^^) with profound and reverential 
 satisfaction.^^ 
 
 Perhaps nothing is more notable in the designations 
 of our Lord in these Epistles — James, Jude, i Peter, 
 John’s Epistles ^ Peter, — than the dropping out of 
 and ‘the sight of the title ‘Son of God.’ Only 
 
 Son of God.’ ij^ single passage in 2 Peter in which 
 
 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 1^ Spitta, von Soden, etc. (cf. Wetstein) take the ^e(T7ror7^9 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. 
 
271 
 
 The Catholic Epistles 
 
 the testimony of the Father in the transfiguration scene 
 Is appealed to, is the term ‘ 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.^® He is called. Indeed, simply ‘ Jesus ’ 
 (i Jno 2^“ 4^ 4^^ 5^), and ‘Christ’ without adjunct 
 (i Jno [2“^ 2 Jno 9) ; and also ‘Jesus Christ’ 
 
 (i Jno 4^ [4^^] 5®, 2 Jno 7) ; and even ‘Jesus Christ 
 the Righteous’ (i Jno 2^) and He is described in 
 the great phrases ‘Word of Life’ (i Jno i^), ‘Ad- 
 vocate with the Father’ (2^), ‘ Saviour of the World’ 
 (4^^). 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 ( i 
 Jno 4'®’'' ^9,10,11,12^ 2 Jno 9) ; but the full 
 
 form ‘ Son of God ’ occurs also with some frequency 
 ( I Jno 3® 4^® ^ 5 , 12 , 13 , 20 ^ quite a variety of ex- 
 
 panded phrases appear by Its side, such as ‘ God’s only 
 begotten Son’ (i Jno 4^, cf. 5^®), ‘Jesus, God’s Son’ 
 ( I Jno i”^) , ‘ God’s Son, Jesus Christ ’ ( i Jno 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 234-2), which is more 
 times than in all the Epistles of St. Paul.” 
 
 In these two passages ‘ the Christ ’ is an appellative. 
 
 16 The designation ‘ Lord ’ does not occur in these Epistles. Cf. 
 Westcott, Epistles of St. John, p. 131: “It is remarkable that the title 
 ‘Lord’ (xbpio<;) 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-®), ‘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“®) upon a mission, to destroy all that is 
 evil (5®) and to save the world (i'^ 5^), where- 
 
 unto He was sent (4®’^^’^^), that all might have life 
 In Him (55,12,15^ . QqJ given unto us eternal 
 life and this life Is In ‘ the Son,’ so that He who hath 
 ‘ the Son ’ hath the life . So closely Is He asso- 
 
 ciated with God the Father (i^ 3^^) that t o de ny Him 
 is to deny the Father (2^^) and to confess Him is to 
 confess the Father (2“^ 4^^) and to abide In Him Is to 
 abide In the Father (2“^ cf. i^). 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“^). 
 
 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 
 
273 
 
 The Catholic Epistles 
 
 to be revealed in the last time” (i P i^). 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^^). 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 ‘ Son of God.’ He is ‘ Eternal Life,’ 
 — which recalls the figurative designation of Him as 
 ‘the Life’ In the Gospel of John (14^ cf. 
 
 I Jno cf. I Jno 2^). 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^), 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 
 ‘ True God ’ and this ‘ Eternal Llfe.’^® He then who 
 
 For the exposition of this passage see especially Weiss (Meyer, 
 1900), pp. 160, i6i. 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^). 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 ov er 
 all ’ : John ‘ t^ Real God.’^® It was because he so con- 
 ceived Jesus as God’s unique Son (i Jno 4®) that John 
 is able to speak of the fo-rgiveness of sins “ through His 
 Name” (i Jno 2^“), and of faith “in His Name” 
 securing eternal life (5^^, cf. 3^^), and even (3 Jno 7) 
 of the whole Christian course turning on loyalty to 
 ‘ 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.^^ 
 
 Even a rapid glance like this over the designations 
 applied to Christ in the Epistles written by Christ’s 
 How Our Lord’s 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 322^ p. 129 seq., gives 
 a careful study of the names of our Lord in i 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 
 literature credibly represents itself as the product of 
 actual companions of our Lord: and that it was all 
 written in the presence of su*ch companions, reflecli 
 their opinions, and was published under their eye.JXhat 
 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 of 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- 
 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’ 5" 6' 911.14,24,28 JJ26) 1 'The simple 
 
 ‘ 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, cit., note 2. 
 
Witness of Epistle to the Hebrews 277 
 
 frequently than in Paul’s letters (2^ 3^ 6^*^ 7^^ 
 1019 j 22,24 1312^ . j|. 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 (10^^ 13®’^^) j while ‘Lord 
 Jesus’ (13“^) and ‘Jesus the Son of God’ (4^^) each 
 occurs once. The simple ‘ Lord ’ also is only occa- 
 sionally applied to our Lord ( 2^ 7^“* [12^^]) ; 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^^) It is notice- 
 able that in two of the three instances in which the term 
 ‘Lord’ is employed of Christ 2^) 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 ’ 
 
 (j 2 , 5 , 5,8 ^6 ^5,8 ^ 28 )^ i o£ 1 
 
 (4^^ 6® 7^ 10^^), and ‘the (or our) High Priest’ 
 (2^^ 3^ 4^^’^^ 5^^ 6^^ 7^® 8^ 9^^) or simply ‘ Priest’ (5® 
 y 3 .ii, [ 15 ], 17.21 10“^), which form respectively 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- 
 
 Jesus’ Humanityt^o^ 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 xbpio^s is 
 applied to Christ is not alien to Hebrews. We meet once (13^®) with 
 the designation ‘our Lord Jesus’: and at we read ‘that the Lord 
 springs from Judah.’ In ji® God is represented as saying to Christ, 
 ‘Xhou, Lord, hast laid the foundations of the earth,’ and 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.® 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.^ 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 ‘ Son,’ through whom no 
 doubt God works (i“), 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^) and — Its equivalent here — ‘ Lord ’ ( 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 
 
 Son’ is description which Is given of Him as 
 
 ‘ Son.’^ 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 xupto<^ refers 
 to God or to Christ, . . . (12^^).” 
 
 3 Cf. Riehm, Der Lekrhegriff des Hebrderhrlefes, 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. 
 
 ^ Cf. Riehm, pp. 270, 271 : “ He sees in Christ above all the Son of 
 God in the eminent sense of that word.” 
 
 ^ Cf. Riehm, op. cit., 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.® 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.*^ In a word, what is 
 
 Son, is an ethico-religlous 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 
 j2 seq, that make Him the ‘ Son of God.’ ” 
 
 ®Riehm offers this illustration to clarify the notion of djzabyaaiia', 
 “ 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 aizabyaffiia 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. 
 
 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 
 
2 8 o The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 given to us in the ‘ Son ’ is here declared to be God as 
 ‘ Son ’ standing over against God as ‘ Father.’® 
 
 It can cause no surprise, therefore, when the author 
 declares that it was of the ‘ Son ’ that God® 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.^® 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. 
 
 ® 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®) calls God the Father of Christ.” 
 
 ^ For this is the significance of the formulas of citation to which 1* 
 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'’’ and foil., lies surely in the fact that He is here twice, or at least 
 once, addressed in the vocative as 6 6 e 6 <s,’* Hofmann and even 
 Riehm are unnecessarily subtle here. 
 
28i 
 
 Witness of Epistle to the Hebrews 
 
 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, 
 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®), or by his noticing that God has “ ap- 
 pointed Him Heir of all things” (i^). ‘Firstborn’ 
 and ‘ Heir ’ are little more than specially honorific ways 
 of saying ‘ Son.’ God’s ‘ 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- 
 
 iiRiehm says (p. 286): “Still how can it occasion surprise that the 
 author in 1321 praises Jesus Christ with the doxology, & i) do^a e £9 
 rob? aiwva?, 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 Oiir 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 
 
 been thus expounded, “ made purifica- 
 tion of sins.” The soteriological inter- 
 est is present, therefore, even in this ontological 
 passage, and it is the joteriological 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^ 9^^ 12^^) : He is the 
 Ground of eternal Salvation (5^) : He is ‘the Author 
 of Salvation ’ (2^^, cf. Acts 3^^ 5^^) : He is ‘ the Author 
 and Perfecter of our Faith ’ ( I2“) : He is our Forerun- 
 ner into that which is within the veil (6"^) He 
 Is ‘ the Apostle and High Priest of our Confes- 
 sion ’ (3^) : He is ‘the Great Shepherd of the Sheep’ 
 
 12 The alrio<$ of Salvation (5^) is merely He who is the Cause or 
 Producer of Salvation. The dpyr^yo'^ of Salvation cf. 12-) 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 Tzpo- 
 dpopo<^ (6^®). So, e. g. G. Vos In the Princeton Theological Re^ienv, 
 July, 1907, p. 434, who classes apyriycx; and Tzpodpopu^ together as 
 implying identification in experience, in contrast with acrco<s In which 
 this is not present; but see to the contrary, Cremer, ed. 3 and subsequent 
 
JVitness of Epistle to the Hebrews 283 
 
 (13-®) : and, above all (for this is a favorite concep- 
 tion of this Epistle), He is our ‘ Priest’ (5^ ^3,11, [is], 17, 21 
 [8“^] 10^^) or more specifically^® our ‘High Priest’ 
 j ([2^^] 3^ 5^^ 6^® 7-® 8^ 9^^). 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 
 i also at once observable that the Messanic conception 
 undedies and gives form to them all. If Jesus is con- 
 ceived by the writer of this Epistle in His person 
 
 i fundamentally as the eternal ‘Son of God’; He Is 
 
 I 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 
 
 i 13 Dr, Vos {Princeton Theological Review, July, 1907, p. 432), 
 
 I supposes the use of the simple ‘ priest ’ to be due in general to the 
 j appeal to Ps. no (510 being exceptional), while ‘High Priest’ is the 
 j real preference of the author, resting on a reference in his mind to 
 j 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. 
 
 I ... 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, 
 I cf. Davidson, p. 147 : “ According to the representation of the Epistle, 
 
 there is no difference in principle between priest and high priest”; 
 j and Denney, Hastings’ B. D., iv. p. 98 a: “In the New Testament 
 
 i it is only in the Ep. to the Hebrews that Jesus is spoken of as 
 
 I fiiya? Ispetx^ and dp^tepeu ? — 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 
 ‘ Author and Perfecter of our faith ’ He endured the 
 cross, despising the shamie 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 * 
 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^^ 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 
 Jew^s 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 
 
J-Fitness 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 
 grea C contribution of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 to the apprehension of the nature of our Lord’s 
 work.^^ 
 
 On the conception of the Messiah as Priest, cf. Stanton, The 
 Je<vnsh and Christian Messiah, 1867, pp. 128-9; and esp. pp. 294 
 seq.; also Hastings’ B. D., iii., 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 (lepeof^ 6 Lev 4^.16 522) entirely 
 
 wanting, until it presented itself to the writer of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews (Stanton, Jenxiish 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 term 
 ‘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 o£ Early the New Testament In a class by Itself. 
 
 Conceptions 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 chrlstological 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.^ It Is In truth 
 
 1 Cf. Holtzmann, N. T. Theologie, i., 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 
 i^syncrasy 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 
 "^Designatirns”^ '■oughly 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.^ In the formal opening of the 
 Designations 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 Re^., 161). Cf. R. Palmer, The Dra?na 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 Mk ih Jno Rom ih i Cor ih Gal 
 I P 2 Pih [Jno 2 Jno 3], Jude i) — the full cere- 
 monious name, ‘Jesus Christ’ 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“^’“h cf. however, v. 
 r. ‘Jesus Christ’ in verse 21). The simple ‘Jesus’ 
 occurs more frequently ( 12^^ 14^“ 17® 1^10,10 20^ 
 22^^), 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^’^^), 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 12^^^). The term ‘Lord’ 
 seems to be a designation of Christ at 14^^: 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^^) but in a series of elab- 
 orately descriptive designations the simplest of which 
 is perhaps ‘ the King of Kings and Lord of Lords ’ 
 (19^^), varied to ‘the Lord of Lords and King of 
 Kings ’ (17^^, cf. 2^’^^ 3”^ 5^). Of the more common 
 Messianic designations, besides the fundamental ‘ the 
 Christ’ (ii^^ 12^^^; and in compounds and 
 
 ‘ Christ ’ ( 20^’^) , only ‘ the Son of God ’ occurs, and that 
 but once (2^^, cf. ‘ my Father,’ 2“^ 3^’“L ‘ His God and 
 Father,’ ‘my God,’ 3“’^“), and accompanied by 
 
 3 Such a phrase as ^ xoptaxij ijfxipa could not have been framed 
 unless Jesus had been to His followers ‘the Lord’ by way of eminence. 
 Cf. I Cor ‘the Lord’s Supper.’ 
 
The JFitness 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 ” 14^^) : 
 
 and by the preservation In this designation of the “ like 
 unto ” of the Danielle vision (7^^) — strengthened from 
 the simple (he to the emphatic ofiocov ^ — 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.”^ 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.”^ The Johannine desig- 
 nation of ‘ the Word of God ’ ( 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.® Probably the “man 
 child” (or “son”) of 12^ (cf. I2^^ “the man”) 
 tiltimately refers to our Lord: and If so It also Is 
 doubtless Messianic, taking hold at once of Is 66^ and 
 Psalm 2^ possibly even of Gen 4L In any event the 
 allusion is to the conquest of evil by this Son of the 
 woman. 
 
 4 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, 
 I ?, 13 1 ^ 14 ^ and even the Danielic ‘ Ancient of Days,’ 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 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^). 
 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^- I3^ cf. 7^^), or more commonly 
 simply “ the Lamb ” without express but always with 
 implied reference to the actual sacrifice 6 ^’^® 
 
 ^9,10,14,17 j 2 ^^ j ^1,4,4,10 jyl4 j ^7,9 2 i9>l^>22,27 2 2^’^).’’^ 
 
 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 
 
 The word is which is used 26 times of Christ in Revela- 
 
 tion (in 13I1 it is otherwise used). It is found elsewhere in the N. T. 
 only at Jno 21^® (plural), where it represents Christ’s followers. 
 Jesus is called ‘ Lamb ’ in Jno i 29 ,s 6 ^ 332^ j p 
 
 nowhere else except in Rev. (^apviovy In the whole N. T. ‘lamb ’ 
 (whether dp.v 6 ? or dpviov) occurs only of Christ except at Jno 21 
 ^dpvia) [cf. Lk lo® (dp-^v)~\. On the use of the diminutive dpviov 
 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.® 
 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.® Other prevailingly soterlological 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^) ; and others still to His trust- 
 worthiness, such as when He Is called ‘ the Faithful 
 and True’ (19^^, or ‘the Faithful Witness’ (i^), 
 and more elaborately ‘ the Amen, the Faithful and 
 True Witness, the beginning of the creation of God ’ 
 (3^^) ; or again, ‘ He that Is holy. He that Is true, 
 
 ® 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 lamb ’ without any 
 special signification, but only as a standing designation of Christ 
 (cf. 171^).” 
 
 9 Cf. Holtzmann, op. cit., i., 472: “This 29-[27-] times occurring 
 Lamb, the most individual christological conception of the author (see 
 Vol. II., 478) refers back most probably to Is 53'^.” Perhaps we ought 
 to say it refers back proximately to Jno i2», and forms one of those 
 subtle indications that this book is the composition of John — who was 
 one of the two disciples (Jno 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^). 
 
 The transition from these soterlological designations 
 to those which are more purely honorific, or perhaps 
 we might better say, ontological. Is very 
 
 Des“™nlfons 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 salth 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^®®'^ ). 
 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^)- 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^) 
 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^), or ‘the Root and the Offspring of 
 E^avld, the bright, the morning Star ’ (22^®) , 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^®), or ‘He that holdeth the seven stars In His 
 right hand. He that walketh In the midst of the seven 
 golden candlesticks ’ (2^), or ‘ He that hath the seven 
 spirits of God and the seven stars’ (3^). 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^^) ; ‘He that Is the ruler 
 of the kings of the earth’ (i^), ‘whose eyes are like 
 a flame of fire’ (2^®), and who, since His dominion 
 is universal. Is ‘ the Lord of Lords and King of Kings ’ 
 (17^^ 19^®) — 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^), ‘ the First and the Last, and the 
 Living One’ (i^®), ‘the Alpha and Omega, the First 
 and the Last, the Beginning and the End’ (22^^), in 
 whose hands are the destinies of men 
 
 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 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 
 apply to our Lord directly the simple 
 designation Lod. 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. This Is generally allowed; and those who 
 are set upon having the Apocalypse witness to a lower 
 chrlstology 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®) 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’ (48I®). 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®).” It is by 
 these lofty designations that Jesus is spoken of in the Apocalypse. Cf. 
 Swete on the passage. 
 
 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.: “ (i) He has the prerogatives of God. He 
 searches men’s hearts (2^3) ; He can kill or restore life (i^® 2^3) ; He 
 receives a worship which is rendered without distinction to God (5^®) ; 
 His priests are also priests of God (20®) ; He occupies one throne with 
 God (22^’®), and shares one sovereignty (ii^®). (2) Christ receives 
 
 the titles of God. He is the Living One (i^^), the Holy and True 
 (3"^), the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and 
 the End (22^®). Passages which in the O. T. relate to God are 
 
 without hesitation applied to Christ, e.g. Deut (i7^^)> Prov 3'® 
 
The Witness of the Apocalypse 295 
 
 “ inner connection between the divine predicates and 
 the historical individual who bears them ” is lackingd^ 
 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 
 eternal omniscient 2^® 19^^) » the searcher 
 
 of the reins and hearts (2^^), in whose hands 
 are the keys of death and hell If in 
 
 reminiscence of Is 44^ 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^ cf. i®), 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” cf. 2®), 
 
 “ I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the 
 
 (319), Dan 7^ Zech 4^0 (s®)- 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.” 
 
 ^2 So also substantially Kostlin and Hoekstra. See the refutation in 
 Gebhardt, pp. 86 seq. Bousset (Meyer’s Com. on Apoc.), 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^^) d® Indeed, in 
 the opening address we have one of 
 
 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 
 w^as 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” 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^^ and the 
 faithful and true witness,’ but ‘ the principle of the 
 
 13 Dr. B. W. Bacon, Hastings’ D. C. G., L, 43 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” (43). 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 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. 
 
 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., i., 81 a. 
 
The JF it ness of the Apocalypse 297 
 
 creation of God’ — 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. 
 
 Cf. Gebhardt, p. 93, and Dusterdieck, in loc. 
 
 1® 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’ (2I®, but see also 2-1 3®»“i, cf. 1® 14!) ; once ‘the beginning of 
 the creation of God’ (31^), as only the Divine Wisdom is called in 
 O. T. (Prov 8-2), and as Christ is called only by St. Paul in the N. T. 
 (Col ii 5 ). He is called once also the ‘Word of God’ (19I®), and 
 even this Johannine (Hellenistic) title is surpassed by the title of eter- 
 nity, ‘the First and the Last’ (iii 2® 22I®).” Cf. Stanton, The Jenvish 
 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 
 ^he'chrS^ cannot fail to 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^^). 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 
 OuTLord’? 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 
 Qdeity 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 
 'jtLord’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- 
 And Something iT^O'^^bly 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 
 mlist 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 ^nd 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, 
 cujpiinating in His ri^ng 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 Cf. Stanton, The Je^vish and the Christian Messiah, pp. 253, 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 in^ne. 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* crisply puts it, 
 
 ^The Kno<v:ledge 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 
 
 Evid*nce"o£ 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 
 
i 
 
 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. | 
 
 ! 
 
 ij 
 
 
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 ( apyriy 6 <i ) 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, 9L 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, 
 III, 125, 126, 150, 152, 176, 179, 182, 190, 214, 217, 
 222, 239, 250, 259, 265, 270, 275, 287. 
 
 The Christ of God, 15, iii, [287]. 
 
 Christ the Lord, 107, 126, 131, 145, 297. 
 
 Christ a King, 65, ill, 112. 
 
 The Christ the King of Israel, 16. 
 
 The Christ the Son of the Living God, 15, 129. 
 
 Christ Jesus, 15, 205 sq., 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, 154, 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 (5£<r7TOT7;?), 265, 269. See Master. 
 
 Door (the), 193. 
 
 307 
 
3 o 8 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 {xaerjyrjTTjD , 67, 1 25. 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), iio. 
 
 - Holy and Righteous One (the), 216. 
 
 Holy and True (He that is), 290. 
 
 House-Master ( ) , 67, 68, 91, 100, 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, i8o. 
 
 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 
 
309 
 
 Index of Designations 
 
 Jesus Master, g8, 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, 240, 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 ( xopio^s ), 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 35, 36, 46, 47, 66, 69 sq., 91, 
 97, 99, loi sq., 108, 125, 131, 133, 140 sq., 150, 152, 
 154, 156, 179, 180, 181 sq., 203, 207 sq., 209 sq., 222 
 sq., 230 sq., 236 sq., 24O, 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 (o xupto<s oura?), ii, 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 ( i7rc<rrariy9 ) , 3, 99, 100, 125* See Guide ( xad 7 jY 7 jTrj<s ), 
 Teacher ( 3 iddffxaXo<s) , Despot {S£(ttt 6 t 7 ]?) , Master of 
 the House or House-Master {ohodsaTtdrrj^i). 
 
 Master of the House (oixodeffTTorr)^) . See House-Master. 
 Master { 8 e<T 7 : 6 Tr]<s) and Lord Jesus Christ (our), 265* 
 Mediator of the New Covenant, 281, cf. 246. 
 
 Messiah, 183, 192, cf. Christ. 
 
 Nazarene (the), 63, 125. 
 
 Only-hegotten, 178, 195. 
 
 Only-begotten Son, i 79 j 188, I 95 » iqS. 
 
 Only-begotten from the Father, 178, I99* 
 
 Only-begotten Son of God, 270. 
 
 Only-begotten God, 178, 195* 
 
 Paraclete, 193. See Advocate. 
 
 Priest, 276, 282 sq. See High Priest. 
 
 Prince ( ), 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 (traT^) of God (the), 84, 126, 215, 216. 
 
 Sent of (^d (the), 186. 
 
Index of Designations 3 ^^ 
 
 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, I 5 » l 6 , l 8 , 23, 58, 112, 125, 126, 131, 
 132, 150, 248. 
 
 Son of Joseph, 180. 
 
 Son (of God), 21, 23, 37 , sq., 91 sq., I17, 126, 128, 130, 
 
 134, 139 sq., 150, 152, 153, 170, 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, 
 
 190, 195, 212 sq., 215, 218, 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, no, 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 { 8 iddffxaXo<s)^ 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 
 
 3:1 
 
 
 78 
 
 4:1 
 
 
 289 
 
 5:1 
 
 EXODUS 
 
 15 
 
 20:5 
 
 
 45 
 
 33:11 
 
 LEVITICUS 
 
 217 
 
 4: 5 
 
 
 285 
 
 16 
 
 
 285 
 
 6; 22 
 
 
 285 
 
 24:11 
 
 
 219 
 
 16 
 
 NUMBERS 
 
 219 
 
 12: 6-8 
 
 DEUTERONOMY 
 
 217 
 
 6:4 
 
 
 187 
 
 10: 17 
 
 
 294 
 
 18: 15 
 
 
 215 
 
 32: 18 
 
 
 78 
 
 33:2 
 
 JUDGES 
 
 48 
 
 3:9 
 
 
 269 
 
 3:15 
 
 
 269 
 
 6:36 
 
 I SAMUEL 
 
 269 
 
 10: 19 
 
 
 269 
 
 14:39 
 
 2 SAMUEL 
 
 269 
 
 22: 3 
 
 I KINGS 
 
 269 
 
 2: 24 
 
 2 KINGS 
 
 44 
 
 13:5 
 
 NEHEMIAH 
 
 269 
 
 9:2 
 
 
 269 
 
 
 PSALMS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 2 
 
 
 135, 215 
 
 2: 2 
 
 
 109, 216 
 
 7 
 
 
 135 
 
 7:10 
 
 
 269 
 
 16: 10 
 
 
 217 
 
 17:7 
 
 
 269 
 
 29: 1 
 
 
 224 
 
 40:7 
 
 
 76 
 
 45:6, 7 
 
 
 280 
 
 89:27 
 
 
 135 
 
 106: 21 
 
 
 269 
 
 no 
 
 46, 47 , 
 
 143, 283 
 
 118:26 
 
 
 76 
 
 M 
 
 0 
 
 00 
 
 PROVERBS 
 
 88, 91 
 
 3:12 
 
 
 294 
 
 8 : 22 
 
 ISAIAH 
 
 297 
 
 9:1, 2 
 
 
 193 
 
 19:20 
 
 
 269 
 
 35:4 
 
 
 132 
 
 40: 1 
 
 
 84, 132 
 
 i-ii 
 
 
 49 
 
 3 
 
 
 49 , 143 
 
 42:1 
 
 
 113, 215 
 
 43:3, II 
 
 
 269 
 
 44:6 
 
 
 295 
 
 45:15, 21 
 
 
 269 
 
 23 
 
 226", 233 
 
 48:16 
 
 
 294 
 
 49:20 
 
 
 269 
 
 53 
 
 54 , 
 
 132, 192 
 
 53:7 
 
 
 291 
 
 60:16 
 
 
 269 
 
 61 : 1 
 
 131, 
 
 154, 190 
 
 63:8 
 
 
 269 
 
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", 79, 80, 84^ 90, 99, 128, 
 
 16:38, 
 
 60, 63 45 
 
 
 130, 139, 246 
 
 34: II 
 
 14I 
 
 4:3. 6 
 
 78, 128, 129, 134, 139, 154 
 
 
 DANIEL 
 
 11 
 
 137 
 
 7 
 
 133 
 
 16 
 
 193 
 
 7:9 
 
 294 
 
 18 
 
 61** 
 
 13 
 
 24^ 30, 38", 39. 42, 116, 122, 
 
 5:17 
 
 77 ! 
 
 
 132, 133. 136", 221, 289, 
 
 6: 24 
 
 70 
 
 
 295 
 
 7: 21 
 
 69, 70", 71", 129, 141, 142, 
 
 14 
 
 30, 38", 42, 136^ 221 
 
 
 154 
 
 22-27 132 
 
 7:22 
 
 142 
 
 10:16 
 
 102 
 
 29 
 
 129 
 
 
 HOSEA 
 
 8:2, 6 
 
 69. 70^ 
 
 2: 19 
 
 12, 45, 124" 
 
 8 
 
 69. 70". 154 
 
 20 
 
 13 
 
 17 
 
 128 
 
 13:4 
 
 269 
 
 19 
 
 67. 69 
 
 
 ZECHARIAH 
 
 20 
 
 85. 87, 129, 135", 154, 166 
 
 2:5 
 
 265 
 
 21 
 
 69". 70^ 
 
 4: 10 
 
 295 
 
 25 
 
 69 ^ 7 o^ 71“ 
 
 9:9 
 
 189 
 
 27 
 
 79 . 99 
 
 13:7 
 
 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®, 58“, 59, 62, 63, 
 
 13 
 
 77 
 
 
 73, 78, 240, 243, 288 
 
 15 
 
 13. 84 
 
 16 
 
 17, 57. 58", 59^ 6l^ 62", 74, 
 
 27 
 
 18, 69, 78, 129 
 
 
 240 
 
 28 
 
 69. 70“ 
 
 17 
 
 57. 58, 59. 60®, 61, 62® 74 
 
 36 
 
 13 
 
 18 
 
 14. 17. 57', 58 ^ 59 . 62, 63, 
 
 10: 2 
 
 61“ 
 
 
 73, 184, 240, 242, 243, 288 
 
 22 
 
 154 
 
 18-25 80 
 
 23 
 
 85, 86 
 
 20 
 
 131 
 
 24 
 
 67". 69, 71, 142" 
 
 21 
 
 57. 58*, 59. 64, 91, 107", 131, 
 
 25 
 
 67'. 69, 71, 91 
 
 
 144 
 
 33 
 
 129 
 
 23 
 
 63, 88, 90, 132 
 
 34 . 
 
 40 77" 
 
 25 
 
 58. 59 
 
 11:2 
 
 58^ 59^ 6o^ 62^ 65, 74^ 
 
 2:2 
 
 77 . 131 
 
 3 
 
 60, 74, 76", 77, 128, 129, 130, 
 
 4 
 
 59 . 76 
 
 
 154. 190 
 
 15 
 
 78, 80 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 23 
 
 61, 63 
 
 14 
 
 76 
 
 3:3 
 
 II. 63, 73, 91, 143 
 
 19 
 
 85. 87, 129, 135, 154 
 
 9 
 
 112 
 
 25 
 
 70, 82" 
 
3 H 
 
 
 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 n : 25-30 
 
 82 
 
 17:9 
 
 85®, 87, 153 
 
 26 
 
 
 82 
 
 18 : 10 
 
 76, 85, 217 
 
 27 
 
 77 , 79 , 
 
 81, 82, 83 ) 88, 90, 
 
 12 
 
 85®, 87, 152 
 
 
 91, 92 : 
 
 , 140, 155, 156, 169, 
 
 15 
 
 69, 70’, 71 
 
 
 200 
 
 
 22 
 
 85®, 87" 
 
 12:8 
 
 
 72, 87, 128, 129 
 
 23 
 
 85, 87, 154 
 
 18 
 
 
 84, 246 
 
 24 
 
 66 
 
 22 
 
 
 99 
 
 26 
 
 154 
 
 23 
 
 
 78, 79 
 
 21 
 
 69, 
 
 24 
 
 
 99 
 
 25, 26, 27 
 
 70 
 
 32 
 
 
 85, 87, 129 
 
 31, 32, 34 
 
 70 
 
 35 
 
 
 154 
 
 19: 16 
 
 66, 67, 69 
 
 38 
 
 
 66, 69 
 
 28 
 
 86^ 136, 265 
 
 40 
 
 
 85’, 87, 129, 154 
 
 20: 1 
 
 68 
 
 42 
 
 
 10 
 
 8 
 
 70 
 
 13:24 
 
 
 68^ 91 
 
 15 
 
 68, 91 
 
 27 
 
 
 70 
 
 17 
 
 58 
 
 36 
 
 
 68, 91 
 
 18 
 
 85®, 87" 
 
 37 
 
 
 69, 85, 87 
 
 19 
 
 85 
 
 39 
 
 
 137 
 
 28 
 
 77, 85, 87^ 152 
 
 41 
 
 
 86", 129, 137 
 
 30 18, 58, 59, 
 
 69, 70®, 71, 78 
 
 43 
 
 
 87^“ 
 
 31 
 
 18, 70", 71^ 78 
 
 52 
 
 
 68 
 
 33 
 
 69, 7o^ 71 
 
 54 , 
 
 55 , 56 
 
 99 
 
 21 : 1 
 
 58, 59 
 
 57 
 
 
 73 
 
 3 7 o‘, 72 
 
 , 102, 141, 210 
 
 14: 1 
 
 
 58, 59 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 28, 
 
 30 
 
 69, 70=* 
 
 5 
 
 10, 72, 77 
 
 33 
 
 
 79®, 129, 137, 138 
 
 9 
 
 18, 77, 78", 79 
 
 15:2 
 
 
 59 
 
 10 
 
 99 
 
 22 
 
 18, 
 
 69, 70", 71, 78, 129 
 
 11 12, 
 
 > 58, 64, 73, 99 
 
 25 
 
 
 70" 
 
 12 
 
 58, 59 
 
 27 
 
 
 69, 70" 
 
 15 
 
 18, 78" 
 
 16; 13 
 
 
 85 
 
 30 
 
 70 
 
 14 
 
 
 73 
 
 33 
 
 68 
 
 16 
 
 15, 21, 
 
 74 , 79 ®, 85, l29^ 
 
 37 
 
 81, 134, 139 
 
 
 134, 137, 138, 243 
 
 38 
 
 81, 99 
 
 17 
 
 
 75, 129 
 
 42 
 
 68, 70 
 
 20 
 
 
 63, 75 , 85 
 
 44 
 
 68 
 
 21 
 
 14, 57 , 58% 59 , 63, 74, 184, 
 
 46 
 
 12, 73 
 
 
 240 
 
 
 22: 1 
 
 84, 91, 139 
 
 22 
 
 
 69, 70'* 
 
 2 
 
 45, 81 
 
 27 
 
 86 
 
 •®, 87, 91, 137, 265 
 
 16, 24, 36 
 
 66, 67 
 
 28 
 
 
 86, 87 
 
 41-46 
 
 75 
 
 17:4 
 
 
 69, 70", 71® 
 
 42 
 
 18 
 
 5 ! 
 
 80, 84, 90, 99, 139, 215, 245 
 
 43 
 
 77 , 91, 143 
 
 8 
 
 
 58- 
 
 43-45 
 
 70, 72 
 
Index of Passages of Scripture 315 
 
 22:44 
 
 PAGE 
 70, 91 
 
 45 
 
 18, 47 
 
 23 : 1-12 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 65 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 
 7>io 
 
 67 
 
 8 
 
 67 
 
 10 
 
 67’, 75 
 
 39 
 
 77 
 
 24:5 
 
 75, 185 
 
 23 
 
 85 
 
 27 
 
 85’, 86 
 
 30 
 
 85, 86’, 91, 265 
 
 31 
 
 86’, 87^ 137 
 
 35 
 
 156 
 
 36 
 
 81, 86, 88, 140, 153 
 
 37 
 
 86 
 
 39 
 
 , 85, 86 
 
 42 
 
 70, 72, 141 
 
 43 
 
 67, 68 
 
 44 
 
 72, 85, 86 
 
 45, 46, 48, 
 
 50 70 
 
 25:1 
 
 13", 45, 84, 91 
 
 5, 6, 10 
 
 13, 84 
 
 II 
 
 70’ 
 
 18, 19 
 
 70 
 
 20, 21, 22 
 
 71 
 
 23, 24, 26 
 
 71’ 
 
 31 71, 77, 86, 87, 91, 136, 
 
 137, 
 
 265’ 
 
 32 
 
 13, 208 
 
 34 
 
 71, 77 
 
 37 
 
 70, 71, 91, 142 
 
 40 
 
 71, 77 
 
 44 
 
 70, 71, 91, 142 
 
 26: 2 
 
 85 
 
 3, 14 
 
 61, 62 
 
 18 
 
 67, 210 
 
 22 
 
 66, 69, 70’ 
 
 24 
 
 85 
 
 25 
 
 66, 69 
 
 31 
 
 13, 84 
 
 31-46 
 
 87 
 
 36 
 
 61, 62 
 
 45 
 
 85, 153 
 
 48 
 
 154 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 26 : 49 
 
 66, 69 
 
 51 
 
 58, 59 
 
 61 
 
 99 
 
 63 
 
 43, 74, 75, 79’, 85, 137 
 
 64 
 
 75, 85’, 86’, 91, 212 
 
 68 
 
 74 
 
 69, 71 
 
 58’, 64 
 
 75 
 
 58, 59 
 
 27:7-10 
 
 66 
 
 II 
 
 77 
 
 16 
 
 61 
 
 17 17, 
 
 58’, 61*, 62, 64, 75, 185, 
 
 240 
 
 17-22 
 
 63 
 
 22 17, 58®, 61 
 
 ’, 62, 64, 75, 185, 
 
 240 
 
 29 
 
 77 
 
 33 
 
 61, 62 
 
 37 
 
 58*, 64, 77, 99 
 
 40 
 
 79, 80, 137 
 
 42 
 
 77 
 
 43 
 
 80, 134, 137 
 
 47 
 
 99 
 
 54 
 
 99, 138 
 
 63 
 
 70’ 
 
 5 
 
 58, 59’ 
 
 6 
 
 72 
 
 9 
 
 58, 59 
 
 18 
 
 51 
 
 18-20 
 
 81, 83, 88, 92, 94 
 
 19 140, 156, 
 
 170’, 1 71, 200, 
 
 267 
 
 MARK 
 
 5, 14, 15. 17, 32» 52, 57. 
 
 58, 150, 152’, 184, 240, 243, 
 288 
 
 9’, ii’, 12, 55, 143, 151 
 76 
 33 
 5 
 
 151 
 
 13, 21, 22*, 33, 44, 52, 128, 
 134. 139, 150, 152, 246 
 
 37, 128, 137 
 9, 33, 51, 52, 128 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 13 
 
 22 
 
316 
 
 The Designation 
 
 s of Our Lord 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 1:24 5, 6 
 
 ", 20", 44, 55, 1 14", 128, 
 
 9:7 
 
 13, 21, 22^ 44, 52, 
 
 99 , 134, 
 
 129, 
 
 , 151, 153, 217 
 
 
 139, 150, 152, 246 
 
 
 25, 26 
 
 21 
 
 9 
 
 24, 28, 
 
 153, 153 
 
 27 
 
 9 , 33 , 34 , 51, 52, 129 
 
 II 
 
 
 40" 
 
 34 
 
 20, 44, 128 130, 152 
 
 12 
 
 24, 28^ 
 
 55 , 152" 
 
 35 
 
 40 
 
 17 
 
 
 8, 71 
 
 38 
 
 39, 40", 52, 128 
 
 25 
 
 
 52 
 
 41 
 
 32 
 
 31 
 
 24, 28^ 53 , 
 
 151, 153 
 
 2:5 
 
 137 
 
 38 
 
 
 8', 69 
 
 7 
 
 29, 41, 99 
 
 41 
 
 15, 16, 
 
 23, 185 
 
 8 
 
 209 
 
 10:17, 
 
 20 
 
 8 
 
 10 24, 29, 33, 41, 51, 52, 128, 
 
 33 
 
 24, 28, 53, 151, 152 
 
 136, 
 
 , 151^, 152, 208 
 
 34 
 
 
 28^ 1 51 
 
 II 
 
 52 
 
 35 
 
 
 8'-' 
 
 17 
 
 39 , 40, 52 
 
 37 
 
 
 151, 265 
 
 18 
 
 12 
 
 45 
 
 24, 28^ 39, 40, 52^ 
 
 55 , 135, 
 
 19, 20 
 
 12, 13, 45, 151 
 
 
 152" 
 
 
 28 9", 1I^ 24, 29, 33, 41, 51, 52, 
 
 47 
 
 5', 6^ 
 
 , 18, 150 
 
 128' 
 
 136, 150", 152 
 
 48 
 
 
 18, 150 
 
 3:11 19', 
 
 20, 43, 44, 1 14®, 129, 
 
 49 
 
 
 18 
 
 134 : 
 
 . 139, 152 
 
 51 
 
 7 , 
 
 9 , 18, 71 
 
 20-30 
 
 34 
 
 52 
 
 
 18 
 
 27 
 
 51 
 
 II : I 
 
 
 153 
 
 4: 38 
 
 7, 8^ 69 
 
 3 
 
 9", 10, 12, 52, 
 
 102, 14I, 
 
 41 
 
 33 , 51, 52, 99 , 129 
 
 
 150, 210 
 
 
 5:7 5 , 6 , 
 
 19", 44 , 129, 130, 134, 
 
 9 
 
 
 10, 39 
 
 i 39 » 
 
 150, 152, 153 
 
 10 
 
 10, 
 
 , I8^ 39 
 
 19 
 
 9 
 
 21 
 
 
 7 , 69 
 
 35 
 
 8 
 
 12 
 
 
 21, 42 
 
 42 
 
 33 , 51 
 
 2, 
 
 4 
 
 42 
 
 43 
 
 52, 128 
 
 6 
 
 21, 22^ 23, 42, 44, 
 
 . 45 , 52, 
 
 6:2, 3 
 
 99 
 
 
 139, 150, 178 
 
 
 4 . 15 
 
 12‘‘ 
 
 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", 151 
 
 25 
 
 
 152 
 
 29 
 
 15*, 17, 23 150, 151, 152 
 
 32 
 
 
 8 
 
 30 
 
 15 
 
 35 
 
 15 , 16", i8 , 23, 46, 52, 150, 
 
 31 16, 17, 24, 28, 152, 153 
 
 
 151 
 
 
 32 
 
 17 
 
 36 
 
 9®, 10, II", ^2^ 
 
 143, 224 
 
 38 21, 22, 24^ 26, 28, 29 , 30, 
 
 37 
 
 9®, 10, ii^ 12^, 16, 
 
 47 , 143, 
 
 37 , 
 
 41, 136, 137, 151, 168, 
 
 
 224 
 
 
 265 i3-’i 
 
 7, 69, 71 20 
 
 9’5 
 
 8, 69 
 
 151 
 
Index of Passages of Scripture 
 
 317 
 
 PAGE page 
 
 13:21 
 
 15", 23, 152 
 
 1:76 
 
 
 
 
 105®, 
 
 , 106 
 
 26 
 
 24", 28, 30, 41^ 1 5 1, 265 
 
 2:9 
 
 
 
 
 
 145 
 
 27 
 
 28, 29", 30, 37, 137 
 
 n 
 
 17, 
 
 102, 103, 
 
 104, 
 
 105, 
 
 107, 
 
 32 
 
 2I^ 23", 28, 36, 44, 45, 50, 
 
 
 112, 130, 131, 
 
 > 14I: 
 
 . 144, 
 
 145, 
 
 
 140, 152, 153, 156, 171 
 
 
 298 
 
 
 
 
 35 
 
 9, ii^ 12, 52, 141 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 145 
 
 14: 14 
 
 8, 210 
 
 21 
 
 
 
 
 
 97 
 
 20 
 
 151 
 
 23 
 
 
 
 
 114, 
 
 115 
 
 21 
 
 24, 28", 55, 152 
 
 26 
 
 
 97 , 
 
 109, 
 
 130, 
 
 145 
 
 27 
 
 12, 13 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 
 
 107 
 
 36 
 
 21, 22 
 
 32 
 
 
 
 
 
 193 
 
 41 
 
 24, 28, 152=* 
 
 43 
 
 
 
 
 
 97 
 
 45 
 
 7 
 
 46 
 
 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 6i 
 
 15", 16, 19, 24, 44", 150“, 
 
 49 
 
 
 
 
 I18, 
 
 128 
 
 
 152" 
 
 52 
 
 
 
 
 
 97 
 
 62 
 
 15, 16", 19, 20, 21, 24“, 28", 
 
 3:4 
 
 
 
 104, 
 
 105, 
 
 106 
 
 
 30, 41, 43 , 44 , 45 , 136, 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 107 
 
 
 137, 150, 151", 152, 168 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 112 
 
 63 
 
 16, 20, 43 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 67 
 
 5^ 6 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 
 76, 
 
 122 
 
 15:2 
 
 18, 150 
 
 21 
 
 
 
 
 
 97 
 
 7 
 
 61, 62 
 
 22 
 
 
 115, 117, 
 
 128, 
 
 139, 
 
 246 
 
 32 
 
 15“, I6^ I8^ 150, 152 
 
 23 
 
 
 
 
 
 97 
 
 39 
 
 19, 44", 45 , 99 , 134, 138, 
 
 4:1 
 
 
 
 
 
 97 
 
 
 152 
 
 3 , 
 
 9 
 
 ii6, 128, 
 
 129, 
 
 139, 
 
 154 
 
 i6;6 
 
 5, 6 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 
 
 128 
 
 19 
 
 5, 98, 206 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 123, 
 
 128 
 
 20 
 
 5 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 
 
 107 
 
 
 
 32 
 
 
 
 
 
 128 
 
 
 LUKE 
 
 34 
 
 20, 
 
 98, 99 *, 1 1 3 *, 
 
 II4, 
 
 122, 
 
 1 : 16 
 
 106 
 
 
 128 
 
 !, 153, 217 
 
 
 
 
 17 
 
 105^ 106 
 
 38 
 
 
 
 
 
 71 
 
 24 
 
 113 
 
 41 
 
 97 , 
 
 in, 116, 
 
 128, 
 
 129, 
 
 139 
 
 27 
 
 131 
 
 43 
 
 
 
 40, 
 
 123*, 
 
 128 
 
 31 
 
 97 , 98 
 
 5:4 
 
 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 32 
 
 99, no, 112, 116, 117, 130, 
 
 5 
 
 
 lOO^ 
 
 lOI^ 
 
 142 
 
 
 131, 139, 144 
 
 8 
 
 
 97, IOI^ 
 
 102, 
 
 128, 
 
 142=^ 
 
 33 
 
 no, 1 31 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 
 97 
 
 34 
 
 no 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 
 
 lOI 
 
 35 
 
 78, no, 114, ii6, 117, 130, 
 
 21 
 
 
 
 
 
 99 
 
 
 139, 144 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 120, 
 
 I 2 I, 
 
 129 
 
 38 
 
 123 
 
 32 
 
 
 
 
 
 122 
 
 43 
 
 102, 105, 142 
 
 34 , 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 
 123 
 
 45 
 
 103, 144 
 
 6:5 
 
 
 120, 
 
 I 2 I, 
 
 128, 
 
 129 
 
 47, 68-79 107 
 
 22 
 
 
 
 120^ 
 
 129 
 
 69 
 
 112 
 
 40 
 
 
 
 
 
 100 
 
The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 318 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 6:46 
 
 
 101, 141, 154 
 
 12:8 
 
 
 120’, 1 2 1* 
 
 7:6 
 
 
 lOI, 154 
 
 9 , 
 
 10 
 
 120 
 
 13 
 
 
 97, 102, 103 
 
 13 
 
 
 99 
 
 16 
 
 
 io6, 107“ 
 
 36 
 
 
 102, 121, 122, 142* 
 
 18 
 
 
 60 
 
 40 
 
 
 120 , I 2 I* 
 
 19 76, 
 
 97, 102, 103, 122, 128, 
 
 41 
 
 
 lOl 
 
 154, 190 
 
 
 42 
 
 
 97, 102", 103 
 
 20 
 
 
 122, 190 
 
 43 
 
 
 102, 142“ 
 
 31 
 
 
 102 
 
 13:15 
 
 
 97, 102, 103 
 
 33 
 
 
 122 
 
 23, 
 
 25 
 
 lOl 
 
 34 
 
 
 120, I2I, 129, 154 
 
 33 , 
 
 34 
 
 107 
 
 39 
 
 
 99", 106 
 
 14: 21 
 
 
 lOl 
 
 40, 49 
 
 
 99 
 
 15:2 
 
 
 99 
 
 8:24 
 
 
 71, 100 
 
 16:15 
 
 
 208 
 
 28 98, 99, 
 
 116, 129, 139, 153 
 
 17:5, 6 
 
 97, 102, 103 
 
 41 
 
 
 97 
 
 13 
 
 
 98, 100^ 
 
 45 
 
 
 100 
 
 22, 
 
 24 
 
 120, 121^ 
 
 49 
 
 
 99 
 
 25 
 
 
 121 
 
 9:8, 14 
 
 
 106 
 
 26, 
 
 30 
 
 120, 121 
 
 20 
 
 
 15, 109, III 
 
 37 
 
 
 lOl 
 
 22 
 
 
 120, 121^ 153 
 
 18:6 
 
 
 97, 102, 103 
 
 26 
 
 120, 
 
 I2I^ 122^ 137, 265 
 
 8 
 
 
 120, 121^, 122 
 
 33 
 
 
 71, 100 
 
 18 
 
 
 99 
 
 36 
 
 
 97 
 
 31 
 
 
 120, 121^ 
 
 38 
 
 
 71, 99 
 
 32 
 
 
 120 
 
 44 
 
 
 120, 121 
 
 33 
 
 
 I 2 I 
 
 48 
 
 
 123 
 
 37 
 
 
 97 ^ 98, 99 
 
 49 
 
 
 100 
 
 38 
 
 
 98, 112 
 
 50 
 
 
 97 
 
 39 
 
 
 112 
 
 58 
 
 
 120, 121, 129, 154 
 
 40 
 
 
 97 
 
 59, 61 
 
 
 101 
 
 41 
 
 
 lOI 
 
 H 
 
 0 
 
 M 
 
 
 97, 102, 103 
 
 19: 8 
 
 
 97, lOI, 102, 103 
 
 3 
 
 
 192, 290 
 
 10 
 
 
 107, 120^ 122, 135 
 
 16 
 
 
 123 
 
 14 
 
 
 99 
 
 17 
 
 
 lOI 
 
 31 
 
 
 102“, 106, I4I^ 210 
 
 21 
 
 
 118" 
 
 34 
 
 
 102^, 141 
 
 22 
 
 1 1 8*, 
 
 140, 155, 156, 169 
 
 38 
 
 
 112 
 
 25 
 
 
 99 
 
 39 
 
 
 99 
 
 27 
 
 
 118 
 
 20: 13 
 
 
 117, 139, 178 
 
 39 
 
 
 97, 103 
 
 14 
 
 
 99 , “7 
 
 40 
 
 
 101, 102 
 
 41 
 
 
 103, III, 112 
 
 41 
 
 
 97, 102, 103 
 
 21:7 
 
 
 99 
 
 13 : 1 
 
 
 101 
 
 27 
 
 
 120, I21^ 122 
 
 30 
 
 
 120, 121, 154 
 
 36 
 
 
 120 , I 2 I 
 
 39 
 
 
 97, 102, 103 
 
 22:11 
 
 
 99, 210 
 
 45 
 
 
 99 
 
 21 
 
 
 99 
 
M 
 
 
 Index of Passages 
 
 of Scripture 319 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 22:22 
 
 
 120 , I 2 I I 
 
 :8 
 
 178, 193 
 
 28 
 
 
 99 
 
 9 
 
 178, 190, 193, 273 
 
 29 
 
 
 II8® 
 
 II 
 
 76, 190 
 
 31 
 
 
 102 
 
 14 
 
 177, 178", 195, 197, 199, 225, 
 
 33 » 
 
 38 
 
 lOI 
 
 
 265 
 
 39 
 
 
 99 
 
 15 
 
 190 
 
 47 
 
 
 61, 154 
 
 17 
 
 14, 57 , 177, 183, 184, 243, 
 
 48 
 
 
 97, 120, 121 
 
 
 288 
 
 49 
 
 
 lOI 
 
 18 
 
 178, 195, 197, 199* 
 
 52 
 
 
 97 
 
 20 
 
 183, 217 
 
 61 
 
 
 97®, 102®, 103* 
 
 21 
 
 217 
 
 67 
 
 
 III® 
 
 23 
 
 181 
 
 69 
 
 
 120, 121® 
 
 25 
 
 183 
 
 70 
 
 
 116, 137 
 
 27 
 
 76, 190 
 
 23:2 
 
 16, 
 
 17. 99 , III", 112 
 
 29 
 
 192®, 290, 291 
 
 3 
 
 
 112 
 
 30 
 
 180®, 190 
 
 4 . 14 
 
 99' 
 
 33 
 
 180 
 
 18, 
 
 22, 23, 25 
 
 99 
 
 34 
 
 180, 192, 195 
 
 28 
 
 
 97 
 
 35 
 
 291 
 
 34 
 
 
 118 
 
 36 
 
 192® 
 
 35 
 
 
 III, 113, 114 
 
 38 
 
 7, 69, 180® 
 
 37 
 
 
 112 
 
 41 
 
 183®, 192 
 
 38 
 
 
 99 , 112 
 
 42 
 
 100 
 
 39 
 
 
 HI® 
 
 45 
 
 180, 217 
 
 41 
 
 
 99 
 
 49 
 
 69, 180, 189, 190, 195® 
 
 42 
 
 
 98 
 
 51 
 
 24 
 
 43 
 
 
 209 2 
 
 : II 
 
 225, 265 
 
 46 
 
 
 118 
 
 13 
 
 245 
 
 24:3 
 
 
 98, 102®, 206 
 
 16 
 
 196 
 
 7 
 
 
 120®, 121® 3: 
 
 : 2 
 
 6, 7, 69, 180®, 181 
 
 
 
 99 
 
 15 
 
 194 
 
 5 
 
 
 97 
 
 16 
 
 178, 195, 196, 197, 198 
 
 6 
 
 
 130 
 
 16-21 179 
 
 19 
 
 12, 97, 98, 
 
 99, 106, 107, 218 
 
 17 
 
 191, 195, 196, 197, 199 
 
 21 
 
 
 65, 107 
 
 18 
 
 178 
 
 25 
 
 
 130 
 
 19 
 
 190, 193 
 
 26 
 
 
 111, 265 
 
 20 
 
 193 
 
 34 
 
 
 102, 103® 
 
 21 
 
 193, 197 
 
 46 
 
 
 III® 
 
 26 
 
 180® 
 
 49 
 
 
 118 
 
 28 
 
 183 
 
 JOHN 29 
 
 i:i 177®, 178®, 182, 199, 240 31, 34 
 
 2 180 35 
 
 178, 193 36 
 
 178, 193, 273 4:1 
 
 40®, 178, 193 5 
 
 12, 13’, 45 » 194 
 191 
 
 119. i 95 » 196*, 198 
 I 95 ^ 196=* 
 179, 181 
 61 
 
320 
 
 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 ri 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 
 PAGEr 
 
 4 : II, 
 
 15 69, 181 
 
 6:53 
 
 
 194 ' 
 
 19 
 
 12, 69, 181, 182 
 
 62 
 
 
 194) 
 
 21, 
 
 22 196 
 
 65 
 
 
 196'! 
 
 25 
 
 183", 190" 
 
 68 
 
 69, 
 
 I8I, 217! 
 
 26 
 
 183 
 
 69 
 
 20", 1 1 3, 
 
 1 14, I9IJ 
 
 29 
 
 180", 183, 193 
 
 7: 5 
 
 
 263^ 
 
 31 
 
 69, 180 
 
 15 
 
 
 i 8 oj 
 
 34 
 
 191 
 
 16, 18 
 
 
 I9I J 
 
 42 
 
 107, 180, 193 
 
 25 
 
 
 1801 
 
 44 
 
 182 
 
 26 
 
 
 180, 1831 
 
 49 
 
 69, 181 
 
 27 
 
 
 183, I90J 
 
 5 = 2 
 
 61 
 
 28, 29 
 
 
 19I) 
 
 7 
 
 69, 181 
 
 31 
 
 180, 
 
 , 183, I90I 
 
 12 
 
 180 
 
 33 
 
 
 191 ; 
 
 17 
 
 196 
 
 35 
 
 
 180 j 
 
 i 8 
 
 187, 196, 197, 198 
 
 40 
 
 12, 180, 
 
 182, 217!'' 
 
 19 
 
 195', 196', 197 
 
 41 
 
 180, 183^, 
 
 193, 217 £ 
 
 20, 
 
 21, 22 195, 196^ 197 
 
 42 
 
 
 183 1 
 
 23 
 
 191, I95^ 196* 
 
 46, 51 
 
 
 180^ i 
 
 24 
 
 191 
 
 52 
 
 
 182 ) 
 
 27 
 
 194, 196 
 
 8 : 12 
 
 
 193" 3 
 
 30 
 
 191 
 
 14-16 
 
 
 191 ; 
 
 36, 
 
 37 191, 196 
 
 16, 18 
 
 
 191, 196 
 
 43 
 
 190, 196 
 
 19 
 
 119, 
 
 187, 196"! 
 
 44 
 
 187 
 
 26 
 
 
 191 f 
 
 45 
 
 196 
 
 27 
 
 
 196 I 
 
 6 : 14 
 
 12, 76, 180, 182, 190^ 217 
 
 28 
 
 
 195, 196 I 
 
 15 
 
 w 
 
 6 ^ 
 
 00 
 
 M 
 
 29 
 
 
 191 j 
 
 23 
 
 179, I8I 
 
 36 
 
 
 195, 196! 
 
 25 
 
 180 
 
 38 
 
 
 196" 
 
 27 
 
 20, 192, 194", 196 
 
 40 
 
 
 180 
 
 29 
 
 19I 
 
 42 
 
 
 40^ 191“ 
 
 32 
 
 196 
 
 49 , 54 
 
 
 196 
 
 33 
 
 193 
 
 9:2 
 
 
 69, 180 
 
 34 
 
 69, 181 
 
 4 
 
 
 191 
 
 35 
 
 193 
 
 5 
 
 
 193 
 
 37 
 
 196 
 
 II, 16 
 
 
 180" 
 
 38, 
 
 39 191 
 
 17 
 
 
 12, 182 
 
 40 
 
 195, 196, 197 
 
 22 
 
 
 183 
 
 41 
 
 193 
 
 24 
 
 
 180* 
 
 42 
 
 180 
 
 33 
 
 
 180 
 
 44 
 
 191, 196 
 
 35 
 
 
 195^ 196 
 
 45 
 
 196 
 
 36, 38 
 
 
 69, 181 
 
 46 
 
 1 1 9, 180, 196^ 
 
 39 
 
 
 190 
 
 49 
 
 193 
 
 10: 2 
 
 
 13, 193 
 
 50, 
 
 52 180 
 
 7 , 9 
 
 
 193 
 
Index of Passages of Scripture 
 
 321 
 
 PAGE 
 
 10: 10 
 
 
 190 
 
 II, 
 
 14 
 
 193 
 
 15 
 
 
 119, 187, 196* 
 
 16 
 
 
 193 
 
 17, 
 
 18 
 
 196 
 
 24 
 
 
 183 
 
 25, 
 
 29 
 
 196 
 
 30 
 
 119, 187, 196, 197, 198, 200 
 
 32 
 
 
 196 
 
 33 
 
 • 
 
 180, 196 
 
 36 
 
 20^ 21 
 
 , 114", 134, 191, 192, 
 
 
 195', 
 
 196^ 
 
 37 
 
 
 196 
 
 38 
 
 
 196^ 197, 198, 200 
 
 11 ; 2 
 
 
 179, 181 
 
 3 
 
 
 69, 181 
 
 4 
 
 
 21, 195", 196 
 
 8 
 
 
 69, 180 
 
 9 » 
 
 10 
 
 193 
 
 12 
 
 
 69, 181 
 
 16 
 
 
 61 
 
 21 
 
 
 69, 181 
 
 25, 
 
 
 193, 273 
 
 27 
 
 69, 
 
 181, 183, 190, 195* 
 
 28 
 
 
 180, 181 
 
 32, 
 
 34 
 
 69, 181 
 
 37 
 
 
 180" 
 
 39 
 
 
 69, i8i 
 
 42 
 
 
 191 
 
 47 , 
 
 50 
 
 180 
 
 54 
 
 
 61 
 
 12: 13 
 
 
 181, 189, 190 
 
 14 
 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 
 10, 189, 190 
 
 21 
 
 
 70, 1 81 
 
 23 
 
 
 194 
 
 26, 
 
 27, 28 
 
 196 
 
 34 
 
 
 24, 183, 194 
 
 35 , 
 
 36 
 
 193 
 
 38 
 
 
 181 
 
 44 , 
 
 45 
 
 191 
 
 46, 
 
 47 
 
 191", 193 
 
 49 
 
 
 191, 196 
 
 50 
 
 
 196 
 
 13:1, 3 
 
 
 196 
 
 6, 9 
 
 
 69, 181 
 
 PAGE 
 
 13:13 180^181^210,224 
 
 13-16 
 
 
 69 
 
 14 
 
 
 180^, 181^ 
 
 16 
 
 
 180 
 
 20 
 
 
 40, 1 91 
 
 25 
 
 
 69, 181 
 
 31 
 
 
 194 
 
 36 
 
 
 69, 181 
 
 37 
 
 
 181 
 
 : 2 
 
 
 196 
 
 5 
 
 
 69, 181 
 
 6 
 
 
 196, 273 
 
 7 
 
 
 187, 196 
 
 8 
 
 
 69, 181 
 
 9 119, 187, 196, 197, 198, 200, 
 225 
 
 10, II, 12 
 
 
 196 
 
 13 
 
 
 195, 196" 
 
 16 
 
 
 193, 196 
 
 20, 21 
 
 
 196 
 
 22 
 
 
 69, 181 
 
 23 
 
 
 196 
 
 24 
 
 
 191, 196 
 
 26 
 
 
 196 
 
 28 
 
 196, 
 
 197", 198 
 
 31 
 
 
 196“ 
 
 I, 8, 9, 10 
 
 
 196 
 
 II 
 
 
 7 
 
 15 
 
 
 180, 196 
 
 16 
 
 
 196 
 
 20 
 
 
 180 
 
 21 
 
 
 191 
 
 22 
 
 
 190 
 
 24, 26, 28 
 
 
 196 
 
 3 
 
 
 196 
 
 5 
 
 
 191 
 
 10 
 
 
 196 
 
 15 
 
 
 119, 196 
 
 17, 23, 25, 
 
 26, 27 
 
 196 
 
 28 
 
 
 191, 196" 
 
 32 
 
 
 196 
 
 I 
 
 184, 
 
 195, 196" 
 
 2 
 
 184, 
 
 185, 197 
 
 3 14, 177, 
 
 179, 183^ 
 
 184, 191, 
 
 240, 243", 273 
 
 196, 225, 265 
 
 5 
 
4 
 
 322 \The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 17:6 
 
 
 II9 
 
 1:7 
 
 213 * 
 
 8 
 
 
 191" 
 
 
 14, 16 204 
 
 10 
 
 
 II9 
 
 21 
 
 98, 209, 210 
 
 II 
 
 
 196 
 
 24 
 
 207^ 208“, 21 1 
 
 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 
 
 II 
 
 
 196 
 
 31 
 
 210 
 
 14. 17, 29, 
 
 30 
 
 180 
 
 32 
 
 204, 214"* 
 
 33 
 
 
 189 
 
 33 
 
 210, 213 
 
 37 
 
 
 189®, 190 
 
 34 
 
 209, 210, 211 
 
 39 
 
 
 189 
 
 36 
 
 104, 109^ 204, 209, 210^ 
 
 19:3 
 
 
 189 
 
 
 211^ 212, 214 
 
 5 
 
 
 180 
 
 38 
 
 14, 186, 205, 208, 219 
 
 7 
 
 
 195 
 
 47 
 
 209, 21 1 
 
 12 
 
 
 189 
 
 3:2 
 
 61, 63 
 
 13 
 
 
 61, 62 
 
 3 
 
 217 
 
 15 
 
 
 189 
 
 6 
 
 14, i86, 204, 205, 219^ 
 
 17 
 
 
 62 
 
 13 
 
 204, 212, 215 
 
 19 
 
 
 180, 189 
 
 14 
 
 215, 216*, 217 
 
 21 
 
 
 189 
 
 15 
 
 210, 217, 225, 282 
 
 20:2, 13 
 
 
 181 
 
 16 
 
 210, 219 
 
 15 
 
 
 70, 181 
 
 18 
 
 214, 216 
 
 16 
 
 
 7, 180* 
 
 20 
 
 14, 204, 205, 206®, 214, 242, 
 
 17 
 
 
 196 
 
 
 243 
 
 18 
 
 
 181 
 
 21-26 216 
 
 20 
 
 
 179, i8i 
 
 22 
 
 12, 215, 216, 217 
 
 21 
 
 
 191", 196 
 
 23 
 
 216 
 
 24 
 
 
 61 
 
 26 
 
 212, 215^ 216 
 
 25 
 
 
 i8i 
 
 4:2 
 
 204 
 
 28 
 
 
 181, 187, 200 
 
 7 
 
 219 
 
 29 
 
 
 200 
 
 8-12 212 
 
 31 176, 179, 
 
 183, 189, 195", 
 
 10 
 
 14, 186, 204, 205, 219^ 
 
 240 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 210, 219 
 
 121:2 
 
 
 61 
 
 13 
 
 204 
 
 7, 12 
 
 
 179, 181 
 
 17 
 
 219 
 
 15 
 
 
 181, 192, 290* 
 
 i8 
 
 204^, 219 
 
 20, 21 
 
 
 181 
 
 19, 
 
 24-30 208 
 
 
 ACTS 
 
 25-27 216 
 
 
 
 203, 204, 207 
 
 26 
 
 109 
 
 4 
 
 
 213" 
 
 27 
 
 204“, 215, 216“ 
 
 6 
 
 
 210 
 
 28 
 
 204’, 215, 216, 319 
 
Index of Passages of Scripture 323 
 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 4:33 
 
 
 98, 
 
 206, 209, 210 
 
 10: 36 
 
 14, 205, 210^ 211“ 
 
 5:14 
 
 
 
 209, 21 1 
 
 38 
 
 204'* 
 
 28 
 
 
 
 219 
 
 42 
 
 217, 2i8, 250 
 
 29-32 
 
 
 212 
 
 43 
 
 208, 218, 219 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 204 
 
 48 
 
 14, 205, 210, 219 
 
 31 
 
 
 107, 
 
 208, 217, 282 
 
 11 : 16 
 
 209, 210 
 
 40 
 
 
 
 204^ 219 
 
 17 14, 98, 205 , 207, 209, 210 
 
 41 
 
 
 
 219* 
 
 20 
 
 98, 206, 209, 210 
 
 42 
 
 14. 
 
 204, 205, 
 
 206, 214, 242 
 
 21 
 
 209^ 211^ 
 
 6:4 
 
 
 
 61 
 
 23 
 
 209, 211 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 204^ 
 
 24 
 
 211 
 
 7:37 
 
 
 
 12, 17 
 
 26 
 
 63 
 
 52 
 
 
 
 212, 216, 217 
 
 12:11, 17 
 
 209 
 
 55 
 
 
 
 204 
 
 13:2, 10, II, 12 209, 21 1 
 
 56 
 
 
 
 212, 218 
 
 16-41 
 
 212 
 
 59 
 
 
 98, 207^ 
 
 208, 209, 210 
 
 23 
 
 107, 204, 217 
 
 60 
 
 
 207^ 208 , 210 
 
 24 
 
 217 
 
 8:5 
 
 
 
 212, 214 
 
 33 
 
 204, 213, 218 
 
 12 
 
 
 14. 
 
 186, 205, 219 
 
 35 
 
 216, 217 
 
 16 
 
 
 98, 206 
 
 , 209, 210, 219 
 
 44, 47, 48 21 1 
 
 22, 
 
 24 
 
 
 209 
 
 49 
 
 209, 211 
 
 25 
 
 
 
 209, 21 1 
 
 14:3 
 
 209, 211 
 
 32 
 
 
 
 192, 240 
 
 10 
 
 210 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 204 
 
 23 
 
 209, 21 1 
 
 37 
 
 
 
 14, 186 
 
 15:8 
 
 208 
 
 39 
 
 
 
 2 II 
 
 II 
 
 207, 209, 210 
 
 9: 1 
 
 
 
 209, 210 
 
 14, 17 
 
 219 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 204“, 207, 2I0‘‘‘ 
 
 26 14 
 
 , 98, 205^ 207, 209, 210, 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 210“ 
 
 
 219 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 207, 209, 210^ 
 
 35 » 36 
 
 209, 211 
 
 II 
 
 
 
 209, 210 
 
 40 
 
 209 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 207, 210 
 
 16: 10 
 
 210 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 219 
 
 14 
 
 209, 211 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 209, 210, 219 
 
 15 
 
 211 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 219 
 
 18 
 
 14, 205, 219 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 204, 209, 210 
 
 31 
 
 98, 207, 209, 210, 217 
 
 20 
 
 
 204", 
 
 212, 213, 215 
 
 32 
 
 209, 211 
 
 21 
 
 
 
 219 
 
 17:3 
 
 14’, 204, 205, 206, 214 
 
 22 
 
 
 
 213, 214 
 
 7, 18 
 
 204 
 
 27 
 
 
 204^ 
 
 209, 210, 219 
 
 31 
 
 21 8^ 250 
 
 28 
 
 
 
 210 
 
 18: 5 
 
 14, 204, 205, 206, 214 
 
 29 
 
 
 
 209 
 
 8, 9 
 
 209, 21 1 
 
 31 
 
 
 
 209, 21 1 
 
 25 
 
 204, 209, 210, 211 
 
 34 
 
 
 
 205 
 
 28 
 
 14, 204, 205, 206, 214 
 
 35 » 
 
 42 
 
 
 209, 21 1 
 
 19:4 
 
 204 
 
 10: 34-42 
 
 
 210 
 
 5 
 
 98, 206, 209, 210, 219 
 
324 
 
 
 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 19 : lo 
 
 
 2 II 
 
 5:19 
 
 247 
 
 13 
 
 98, 
 
 204^ 206, 209, 210, 219 
 
 21 
 
 232 
 
 15 
 
 
 204 
 
 6:4 
 
 241, 253 
 
 17 
 
 
 98, 206, 209, 210, 219 
 
 8, 9 
 
 241 
 
 20 
 
 
 209, 21 1 
 
 23 
 
 239 
 
 20:19 
 
 
 209, 21 1 
 
 7:4 
 
 45 
 
 21 
 
 98. 
 
 205’, 207, 209, 210, 217 
 
 8:3 225, 
 
 233, 250, 251=^ 
 
 24 
 
 
 98, 207, 209, 210, 217 
 
 9, 10 
 
 241 
 
 28 
 
 
 210, 218^, 245, 248 
 
 15 
 
 253 
 
 31 
 
 
 14 
 
 17 
 
 241 
 
 35 
 
 
 98, 207, 209, 210, 217 
 
 29 
 
 251 
 
 21 : 13 
 
 98, 
 
 , 207, 209, 210, 217, 219 
 
 32 
 
 250, 251" 
 
 14 
 
 
 21 1 
 
 34 
 
 232 
 
 N 
 
 00 
 
 
 204®, 207, 210 
 
 39 
 
 239 
 
 10 
 
 
 207, 2 1 o'* 
 
 9:1 
 
 241 
 
 14 
 
 
 216, 217 
 
 5 21 1, 236’, 240, 248, 250, 254, 
 
 16 
 
 
 208, 210, 219 
 
 255. 259 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 207, 210 
 
 20 
 
 251 
 
 23 : II 
 
 
 209, 210 
 
 10:4 
 
 241 
 
 24:24 
 
 
 14, 205, 2o6^ 242 
 
 6, 7 
 
 240, 241 
 
 25; 19 
 
 
 204 
 
 9 
 
 225, 226^ 
 
 26:9 
 
 
 204', 219 
 
 12 223, 227, 231, 232 
 
 10 
 
 
 210 
 
 13 
 
 226 , 231, 232 
 
 15 
 
 
 204, 207, 209, 210 
 
 17 
 
 241 
 
 17 
 
 
 210 
 
 II : I, 2, 3, 8 
 
 227 
 
 23 
 
 
 214, 217 
 
 12: 5 
 
 241 
 
 28: 23 
 
 
 204 
 
 19 
 
 227 
 
 31 
 
 14, 
 
 98, 205^ 207, 209, 210 
 
 14:4 
 
 227 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 233 
 
 
 
 ROMANS 
 
 9 
 
 224, 231, 241 
 
 1 : z 
 
 
 242, 288 
 
 II 
 
 226", 227, 233 
 
 3 
 
 
 248, 25I^ 259 
 
 15 
 
 241 
 
 4 223, 225", 248, 249 , 251 , 259 
 
 15:6 
 
 233, 252 
 
 7 
 
 
 227, 253 
 
 8, 18, 20 
 
 241 
 
 9 
 
 
 251 
 
 38 
 
 230^ 
 
 2: 16 
 
 
 232 
 
 16:5, 7, 9, 10 
 
 241 
 
 3 : 22 
 
 
 232 
 
 18 
 
 239 
 
 25 
 
 
 233 
 
 27 
 
 235 
 
 30 
 
 
 235 
 
 1 CORINTHIANS 
 
 5:1 
 
 
 232 
 
 1 : 2 
 
 232 
 
 6, 8 
 
 
 241 
 
 3 
 
 227, 252, 253 
 
 8-10 
 
 
 252 
 
 8 
 
 233 
 
 10 
 
 
 233» 251, 252-* 
 
 9 
 
 251 
 
 XI 
 
 
 232, 252 
 
 12, 17, 23, 24 
 
 241 
 
 15 
 
 
 247' 
 
 31 
 
 226^ 232 
 
 *7 
 
 
 232 
 
 2:8 223, 224, 231, 
 
 236, 248, 265 
 
Index of Passages of Scripture 
 
 325 
 
 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 2: 10 
 
 
 
 
 241 
 
 3:3, 14 
 
 241 
 
 x6 
 
 
 
 
 232 
 
 16 
 
 226^ 232 
 
 3:1 
 
 
 
 
 241 
 
 4:4 225, 
 
 250,^ 254‘‘ 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 227 
 
 5 225, 
 
 226“, 239 
 
 23 
 
 
 
 233, 
 
 241* 
 
 6 
 
 241 
 
 4: I, 10, 15 
 
 
 
 241 
 
 5:10 
 
 233 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 
 227 
 
 16 
 
 240, 241 
 
 5*7 
 
 
 
 
 241 
 
 17 
 
 241 
 
 6:15 
 
 
 
 
 241 
 
 18 
 
 233, 241 
 
 7: 17 
 
 
 
 
 227 
 
 19, 20 
 
 241 
 
 22 
 
 
 
 
 241 
 
 6: 15 
 
 241 
 
 8:4 
 
 
 
 188, 
 
 235 
 
 8:9 225, 233, 
 
 250, 259 
 
 4-6 
 
 
 
 
 228 
 
 21 
 
 232 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 187, 
 
 , 227 
 
 10: 7 
 
 241= 
 
 6 223, 
 
 227, 228, 
 
 229, 
 
 232, 
 
 253 
 
 17 
 
 226, 232 
 
 11, 12 
 
 
 
 
 241 
 
 n : 2 
 
 45 
 
 9: 21 
 
 
 
 
 241 
 
 3, 10, 13, 23 
 
 241 
 
 10: 9 
 
 
 
 
 226'' 
 
 31 
 
 233 
 
 16, 22 
 
 
 
 
 232 
 
 12:2, 10, 19 
 
 241 
 
 26 
 
 
 
 
 226 
 
 13:13 
 
 267 
 
 31 
 
 
 
 
 233 
 
 14 170, 
 
 188, 230'* 
 
 11 : 1 
 
 
 
 
 241 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 233 
 
 GALATIANS 
 
 
 20 
 
 
 
 
 288 
 
 I : I 
 
 288 
 
 26 
 
 
 
 224, 
 
 239 
 
 3 
 
 227, 253 
 
 27 
 
 
 
 
 224 
 
 4 
 
 253 
 
 31 
 
 
 
 
 252 
 
 6, 10 
 
 241 
 
 12:3 
 
 
 226^, 
 
 227, 
 
 239 
 
 16 
 
 251^ 
 
 4-6 
 
 
 
 230, 
 
 267 
 
 22 
 
 241 
 
 27 
 
 
 
 
 241 
 
 2: 16 
 
 241 
 
 15:3. 12, 
 
 13, 14, 16 
 
 
 
 241 
 
 17 
 
 240, 241" 
 
 17, 18 
 
 , 19, 20 
 
 
 
 241 
 
 20 
 
 24I^ 251" 
 
 21 
 
 
 
 
 247 
 
 21 
 
 241 
 
 23 
 
 
 
 
 241 
 
 3: 13, 16 
 
 241 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 
 253 
 
 20 
 
 235 
 
 27 
 
 
 
 
 233 
 
 24, 27, 29 
 
 241 
 
 28 
 
 
 233 
 
 251, 
 
 253" 
 
 4:4 225, 
 
 25I^ 252 
 
 31 
 
 
 
 
 239 
 
 4-6 
 
 253 
 
 45 , 47 , 48, 49 
 
 
 
 247 
 
 6 
 
 251, 253" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 19 
 
 241 
 
 
 a CORINTHIANS 
 
 
 
 5:1, 2, 4 
 
 241 
 
 z : 2 
 
 
 
 
 227 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 233, 
 
 253 
 
 EPHESIANS 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 
 251 
 
 1 : 2 
 
 227, 253 
 
 21 
 
 
 
 
 241 
 
 3 222, 234, 
 
 241, 252 
 
 2:10, 15, 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 241 
 
 5 
 
 233 
 
326 
 
 The Designal ions of Our Lord 
 
 32 
 
 1 : 6 
 
 17 
 
 20 
 
 2:11 
 
 12 
 
 18 
 3 -I 
 
 II 
 
 14 
 
 4:1 
 
 4 
 
 4-6 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 8, 10 
 
 13 
 
 15) 
 
 5: 5 
 9 
 
 20 
 
 21 
 28 
 32 
 
 6:4 
 9 
 
 23 
 
 1 : 2 
 10, 13, 
 20, 21, 
 2: 1 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 16, 30 
 3:8 
 9 
 
 20 
 
 21 
 4: 20 
 
 PHILIPPIANS 
 
 17, 18 
 23, 29 
 
 1 : 2 
 3 » 
 
 12 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 245 
 
 1:13 
 
 
 246, 25I^ 253" 
 
 234, 
 
 253 
 
 15 
 
 
 254'. 297 
 
 
 233 
 
 15-19 
 
 250 
 
 
 62 
 
 16, 
 
 17 
 
 224 
 
 
 241 
 
 19 
 
 
 233 
 
 
 253 
 
 27. 
 
 28 
 
 241 
 
 
 242 
 
 2:2, 5 
 
 
 241 
 
 239, 
 
 242 
 
 6 
 
 
 239, 242 
 
 
 253 
 
 8 
 
 
 241 
 
 
 231 
 
 9 
 
 
 236 
 
 
 230 
 
 10 
 
 
 233 
 
 
 267 
 
 19 
 
 
 231 
 
 
 227 
 
 20 
 
 
 241 
 
 233, 
 
 253 
 
 3:11 
 
 
 241 
 
 
 232 
 
 17 
 
 
 253 
 
 250, 
 
 251' 
 
 24 
 
 
 226, 239 
 
 
 241 
 
 4:1 
 
 
 231 
 
 
 245 
 
 II 
 
 
 61 
 
 
 233 
 
 
 
 
 244, 
 
 253 
 
 
 I 
 
 THESSALONIANS 
 
 
 241 
 
 I : I 
 
 
 227, 230, 243, 253 
 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 
 253 
 
 
 241 
 
 9 
 
 
 187 
 
 
 22 6'“* 
 
 10 
 
 
 240, 251“ 
 
 
 231 
 
 2: 6 
 
 
 241 
 
 227, 
 
 253 
 
 14 
 
 
 206, 243 
 
 
 
 3:1 
 
 
 243 
 
 227, 
 
 253 
 
 II 
 
 
 227, 253 
 
 
 241 
 
 13 
 
 
 233. 253 
 
 
 241 
 
 4:6 
 
 
 232 
 
 
 241 
 
 16 
 
 
 241 
 
 , 248, 
 
 251 
 
 5:2 
 
 
 233 
 
 235 » 
 
 248 
 
 9 
 
 
 243 
 
 
 248 
 
 18 
 
 
 206, 243 
 
 224', 
 
 250 
 
 23, 
 
 28 
 
 243 
 
 » 232, 
 
 233 
 
 
 
 
 226, 
 
 253 
 
 
 2 
 
 THESSALONIANS 
 
 
 241 
 
 I : I 
 
 
 227, 253 
 
 239, 
 
 241 
 
 2 
 
 
 227, 230, 253" 
 
 
 241 
 
 7 
 
 
 233 
 
 
 244 
 
 8 
 
 
 232 
 
 225, 
 
 233 
 
 9 
 
 
 226^ 232'“ 
 
 
 253 
 
 10 
 
 
 233' 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 227, 232, 245 
 
 241, 
 
 253 
 
 2:2 
 
 
 233 
 
 
 253 
 
 16 
 
 
 253 
 
 COLOSSIANS 
 
Index of Passages of Scripture 327 
 
 1: 1 
 
 I TIMOTHY PAGE 
 
 244, 245 
 
 2 
 
 227, 253 
 
 2:3 
 
 244, 245 
 
 5 
 
 232, 235, 247" 
 
 3 : 16 
 
 265 
 
 4: 10 
 
 244 
 
 1 : 2 
 
 2 TIMOTHY 
 
 227, 253 
 
 8 
 
 269 
 
 10 
 
 244 
 
 2: 19 
 
 226=* 
 
 22 
 
 232 
 
 4: 14 
 
 226=^ 
 
 18 
 
 232 
 
 1:3 
 
 TITUS 
 
 244, 245 
 
 4 
 
 227, 244, 245, 253 
 
 2: 10 
 
 244 
 
 13 
 
 244. 245", 25 5^ 265 
 
 3:4 
 
 244, 245 
 
 6 
 
 23 3» 244, 245 
 
 3 
 
 PHILEMON 
 
 253 
 
 6, 8, 20 
 
 241 
 
 1 : 2 
 
 HEBREWS 
 
 277, 278, 279, 281 
 
 3 
 
 265 
 
 4 
 
 37 , 43 
 
 5 
 
 277^ 280 
 
 6 
 
 281 
 
 8 
 
 277, 278 
 
 10 
 
 277“, 278 
 
 2:2 
 
 278 
 
 3 
 
 277' 
 
 8 
 
 37 
 
 9 
 
 265, 277 
 
 10 
 
 282^ 
 
 17 
 
 277, 283 
 
 3:1 
 
 277^ 282, 283 
 
 6 
 
 43, 276, 277 
 
 14 
 
 276 
 
 4: 12 
 
 178 
 
 14 
 
 277', 283 
 
 15 
 
 277, 283 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 5:5 
 
 276, 277 
 
 6 
 
 277, 283 
 
 7 
 
 268 
 
 8 
 
 277 
 
 9 
 
 288=* 
 
 10 
 
 277, 283'" 
 
 6:1 
 
 276 
 
 3 
 
 277 
 
 20 277", 
 
 282^ 283 
 
 7:3, 11 
 
 277^ 283 
 
 14 
 
 277" 
 
 15, 17, 21 
 
 277, 283 
 
 22 
 
 277 
 
 26 
 
 283 
 
 28 
 
 277 
 
 8: 1, 4 
 
 277, 283 
 
 6 
 
 282 
 
 9:11 276, 
 
 277, 283 
 
 14 
 
 276 
 
 15 
 
 282 
 
 24, 28 
 
 276 
 
 10: 10 
 
 277* 
 
 21 
 
 277, 283 
 
 29 
 
 277 
 
 11:17 
 
 197 
 
 26 
 
 276 
 
 12: 2 
 
 277, 282" 
 
 14 
 
 278 
 
 24 
 
 277, 28a 
 
 13:8, 12 
 
 277 
 
 20 
 
 277®, 283 
 
 21 
 
 277, 281 
 
 JAMES 
 
 
 I : I 
 
 264® 
 
 2 : 1 
 
 264“ 
 
 5:7, 8 
 
 264® 
 
 10, II 
 
 265 
 
 14, 15 
 
 264® 
 
 1 PETER 
 
 
 I : I 
 
 267, 288 
 
 2 
 
 267 
 
 3 
 
 267, 268 
 
 5 
 
 273 
 
 7 , II, 13 
 
 267 
 
 19 192, 
 
 267, 290 
 
 2:3, 5, 13, 21, 25 
 
 267 
 
328 
 
 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 PACE 
 
 3:15 
 
 226, 267'* 
 
 5:13 
 
 271, 274 
 
 16, i8, 21 267 
 
 15 
 
 272 
 
 4:1, 11, 14 
 
 267 
 
 18 
 
 271 
 
 13 
 
 265, 267 
 
 20 
 
 20, 217, 271, 272®, 273 
 
 5:1, lo, 14 
 
 267 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 JOHN 
 
 
 2 PETER 
 
 3 
 
 27I^ 238 
 
 I : X 
 
 245, 269, 270, 288 
 
 7 , 9 
 
 271 
 
 2, 8 
 
 269^ 270 
 
 
 3 JOHN 
 
 II 
 
 245, 269^ 270* 
 
 7 
 
 219', 274 
 
 14, 16 
 
 269“ 
 
 
 JUDE 
 
 17 
 
 270 
 
 I 
 
 263, 264, 288 
 
 2: 1 
 
 245, 270 
 
 4 
 
 245, 266, 270 
 
 20 
 
 245, 269^ 270" 
 
 17, 21, 25 266 
 
 3:3 
 
 245, 269 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 268 
 
 
 THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 8, 9, 10 
 
 268^ 269^ 
 
 I ; I 
 
 288" 
 
 12 
 
 265, 269^ 
 
 4 
 
 296 
 
 15 
 
 268^ 269“ 
 
 5 
 
 288*, 290, 291®, 293"* 
 
 18 
 
 245, 269^ 270" 
 
 6 
 
 288, 297 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 289, 292 
 
 
 I JOHN 
 
 8 
 
 294, 295 
 
 1 : 1 
 
 178, 271 
 
 9, 10 
 
 288 
 
 2 
 
 273 
 
 13 
 
 289* 
 
 3 
 
 271, 272^ 274, 288 
 
 14 
 
 289, 295* 
 
 7 
 
 271, 272 
 
 17 
 
 295, 297 
 
 2: 1 
 
 271* 
 
 18 
 
 293’, 294’, 295", 296 
 
 8 
 
 273 
 
 2: X 
 
 288, 293 
 
 12 
 
 274 
 
 8 
 
 293, 295, 297 
 
 20 
 
 20, 217 
 
 12 
 
 288, 293 
 
 22 
 
 271* 
 
 18 
 
 288, 293*, 295, 297 
 
 3:8 
 
 271 
 
 23 
 
 294', 295 
 
 II, 12 
 
 272 
 
 27 
 
 288, 297 
 
 23 
 
 271, 272, 274 
 
 3:1 
 
 293 
 
 4:2, 3 
 
 271 
 
 2 
 
 288 
 
 9 
 
 178, 197, 271, 272, 274 
 
 5 
 
 288, 297 
 
 10 
 
 271, 272 
 
 7 
 
 20, 217, 288, 292, 293, 294 
 
 10-14 
 
 272 
 
 12 
 
 288 
 
 13 
 
 271 
 
 14 
 
 291, 297* 
 
 14, 15 
 
 271*, 272 
 
 19 
 
 295 
 
 5:1 
 
 271* 
 
 21 
 
 288, 297 
 
 5 
 
 271, 272" 
 
 4:3 
 
 296 
 
 6 
 
 271 
 
 II 
 
 269 
 
 8 
 
 272 
 
 5:4 
 
 292 
 
 9, 10, II 
 
 271 
 
 5 
 
 288, 293 
 
 12 
 
 271*, 272 
 
 6 
 
 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, i6 
 
 290 
 
 9 
 
 290 
 
 7:9 
 
 290 
 
 10 
 
 288* 
 
 10 
 
 244, 290 
 
 II 
 
 291 
 
 I 4 » 17 
 
 290 
 
 12 
 
 295 
 
 ii:i5 
 
 269, 288^ 294 
 
 13 
 
 178, 289 
 
 12:5 
 
 289 
 
 x6 
 
 288, 293 
 
 10 
 
 288" 
 
 20:4 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 IX 
 
 290 
 
 6 
 
 288*, 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' 
 
 16 
 
 288, 293 
 
 15:3 
 
 290 
 
 20 
 
 288 
 
 17:6 
 
 288 
 
 21 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
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)j 
 70 
 
 Beyschlag, 234, 235 
 Bigg, 266, 267, 268*, 270^ 
 
 Bisping, 105, 106, 208 
 Blass, 59®, 67, 106, 208, 219 
 Bleek, 108, 110, 281 
 Blom, A. H., 206^, 208'*, 212, 213, 
 215, 216“ 
 
 Bornemann-Meyer, 240 
 Bousset, 26, 41, 113, 126, 134, 158, 
 163, 164, 165, 166®, 167, 174, 
 193, 256^ 257, 259, 287, 295 
 Briggs, 41, 42 
 Bristow, J. B., 115 
 Bruce, 172 
 Burkitt, 153 
 Castalio, 105 
 
 Charles, 13, 42", 55^ 56, 84, 113, 
 126, 247 
 
 330 
 
 Chase, F. H., 172, 219 
 Cheyne, 24 
 Clemens, J. S., 296 
 Clementine Homilies, 270 
 Conybeare, 171^ 173, 219 
 Cremer, 171, 173, 282 
 
 Dale, R. W., i 
 
 Dalman, 7^, 8, ii*, i6^ 17*, 18, 19^ 
 23, 26", 27, 37, 38*, 39“, 41*, 46, 
 47", 55, 61, 65, efy 88, loi, 
 104", 129, I33^ 134, 135, 166, 
 168, 169" 
 
 Daplyn, E., 84, 247 
 Davidson, A. B., 49^, 276^ 279, 280, 
 281, 283, 285, 293, 296 
 Delitzsch, 6, 16, 47^, 67, 280, 281 
 Denney, 283, 285 
 De Wette, 109^, 208, 219, 289^ 
 Drummond, R. B., 126, 255 
 Diisterdieck, 296 
 Dwight, 255 
 
 Ebrard, 186 
 Edersheim, 76^ 
 
 Edwards, T. C., 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^ 242, 243^ 
 
 Felton, 208 
 Fritzsche, 16, 62 
 
 Fritzsche, Volkmar, 24, 166, 170 
 
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, 2o^ 105, 108, 109, no, 112, 
 117, 119 
 
 Harnack, 153^ 170, 171^ 202^, 203 ^ 
 211, 237, 241" 
 
 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^ 
 
 Herner, Sven, 9, n, 49, 102, 105, 
 208^, 209, 210, 227, 264^ 268, 
 277 
 
 Hoekstra, 291, 295 
 Hofmann, 108, 119, 280 
 Holtzmann, 5, 6, lo^ n, 14, 15, 18, 
 20, 40, 59, 67^ io8^ 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, 
 251* 
 
 Kostlin, 295 
 Kiibel, 61 
 Kiinoel, 106^ 
 
 Kurtz, 281 
 
 Lange, 40 
 Lechler, 208 
 Lightfoot, 249, 270 
 Loisy, Abbe, 170 
 Lowrie, 281 
 Liinemann, 281 
 Lutgert, 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®, 131^ 133, 
 160, 168^, 169, 175 
 Mayor, 263, 264, 265, 266^ 270 
 Meyer, 6, 10, 16, 18, 19, 23®, 40^, 
 43, 47, 57, 61, 99, 106, 107, 
 108^, 109, no, 178, 187, 208, 
 211, 219", 225", 246, 251, 287 
 Moulton, J. H., 59 
 Moulton and Geden, 58 
 Moulton-Winer, 59^ 
 
 Nestle, 223 
 Nosgen, 61, 108, 208 
 
 Oehler, 48 
 Olshausen, 106, 208 
 
 Palmer, R., 287 
 Paulus, io8^ 109 
 Pfleiderer, 162, 165 
 
332 The Designations of Our Lord 
 
 Plummer, A., 66, 98, 99, 100, 102, 
 io6^ 107, ii6®, 118, II9^ 171, 
 211 
 
 Poly carp, Martyrdom of, 270 
 Porter, T. C., 297 
 Preuschen, 171 
 
 Rackham, 206, 208 
 Rashdall, 219 
 Renan, 302 
 Rendall, 208 
 
 Riehm, 276, 278®, 279®, 280“ 281 
 Riggenbach, E., 171, 173 
 Robinson, J. Armitage, 13®, 22®, 80, 
 84, 1 1 5, 222, 223, 247, 250 
 Ross, A. E., 296 
 Rushbrooke, W. G., 149 
 
 Salkinson, 67 
 Salmond, 42 
 
 Sanday, 82, 119, 133, 169, 172, 174, 
 195, 198, 223, 229, 230, 240®, 
 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 
 Schurer, 113, 126 
 Schwartzkopff, 166 
 Smith, W. B., 163, 165 
 Somerville, D., 47®, 227, 228, 234 
 Spitta, 270® 
 
 Stanton, 41®, 42, 47, 48, 55, 67, 107, 
 133, 136, 167, 173, 2i7» 222, 
 285, 297, 301 
 Stead, F. Herbert, 243 
 Steck, 259 
 Stier, 186 
 Strauss, i8 
 
 Streatfeild, G. S., 40 , 46, loi 
 Stuart, Moses, 211 
 Suetonius, 65 
 
 Swete, 6, 7®, 8, 12, 13, 16, 19, 22, 
 23 » 40 » 43 » 47 i 52, 244, 285, 
 290, 294® 
 
 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®, 240, 270® 
 Vos, G., 282, 283, 285 
 
 Weinel, 221, 259 
 
 Weiss-Meyer, 8, 9, 10, 6i, 65, 106, 
 io8\ 109, no, H2®, 117, 119, 
 123®, 169, 227, 241, 251, 255, 
 
 273 
 
 Weiss, J., 41 
 Weisse, 167 
 
 Wellhausen, 6, 7, 10®, 15, 18, 20®, 
 22, 24, 43, 44, 53, 54^ 60, 66, 
 67, loo, 153 
 
 Wendt-Meyer, 206, 208, 219 
 Wernle, 220, 221®, 260 
 Westcott, 6, 7, 20, 76, 178, 182, 184, 
 186, 191, 271®, 273, 274® 
 Westcott-Hort, 218, 240 
 Wettstein, 67, 270 
 Winer, 59, 21 1, 240, 245, 246 
 Wittichen, 167 
 Woolsey, T. D., 69, 104 
 Wrede, 158, 165, 175, 221®, 260 
 Wiinsche, 67 
 
 Zahn, 24®, 43, 62, 69, 70®, 76, 78®, 
 79®, 80®, 8i®, 82, 172 
 Zeller, 23, 167 
 
 Zigabenus, Euthymius, 40, 105 
 Ziemssen, Reinhold, 132, 140, 141, 
 144 
 
•V 
 

 
Date Due 
 
 ACULTY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 : IV 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ii;pi.|..y»WI«»i 
 
 1^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 "T*^ 
 
 \ ■ 
 
 
 
 
 JUN 3 0 j 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '/?nt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f