TheLordofGlory

byB.B.Warfield

TABLEOFCONTENTS

INTRODUCTORY

THEDESIGNATIONSOFOURLORDINMARK

MARK'SCONCEPTIONOFOURLORD

THEDESIGNATIONSOFOURLORDINMATTHEW

MATTHEW'SCONCEPTIONOFOURLORD

THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD IN LUKE AND THEIRIMPLICATIONS

THEJESUSOFTHESYNOPTISTS

THEJESUSOFTHESYNOPTISTSTHEPRIMITIVEJESUS

THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD IN JOHN AND THEIRSIGNIFICANCE

THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD IN ACTS AND THEIRSIGNIFICANCE

THECORROBORATIONOFTHEEPISTLESOFPAUL

THEWITNESSOFTHECATHOLICEPISTLES

THEWITNESSOFTHEEPISTLETOTHEHEBREWS

THEWITNESSOFTHEAPOCALYPSE

THEISSUEOFTHEINVESTIGATION

INTRODUCTORY:THEDESIGNATIONSOFOURLORDINTHENEWTESTAMENT

They…crucifiedtheLordofGlory.

—1CORINTHIANS2:8.WhoisthisKingofGlory?TheLORDofhosts,HeistheKingofGlory.—PSALM24:10.

THEDESIGNATIONSOFOURLORD

PervasiveWitnessofN.T.toChrist

Theproper subjectof theNewTestament isChrist.Everypageof it, orperhapswemightbettersayeverylineof it,hasitsplaceintheportraitwhich is drawn of Him by the whole. In forming an estimate of theconception of His person entertained by its writers, and by thoserepresentedbythem,wecannotneglectanypartofitscontents.Wecanscarcelyavoiddistinguishinginit,tobesure,betweenwhatwemaycallthe primary and the subsidiary evidence it bears to the nature of Hispersonality,oratleastthemoredirectandthemoreincidentalevidence.It may very well be, however, that what we call the subsidiary orincidentalevidencemaybequiteasconvincing,ifnotquiteasimportant,as the primary and direct evidence. The lateDr. R.W.Dale found themost impressive proofs that the Apostles themselves and the primitiveChurches believed that Jesuswas onewithGod, rather in theway thisseems everywhere taken for granted, than in the texts in which it isdefinitelyasserted. "Such texts,"he remarks, "arebut like the sparklingcrystalswhichappearonthesandafterthetidehasretreated;thesearenot the strongest—though theymay be themost apparent—proofs thattheseaissalt:thesaltispresentinsolutionineverybucketofsea-water.Andso,"heapplieshisparable,"thetruthofourLord'sdivinityispresentin solution inwholepages of theEpistles, fromwhichnot a single text

couldbequotedthatexplicitlydeclaresit."

ScopeofthisDiscussion

We need offer no apology, therefore, for inviting somewhat extendedattention to one of the subsidiary lines of evidence of the estimate putuponourLord'spersonbythewritersoftheNewTestamentandbyourLord as reported by them.We certainly shall not, by so doing, obtainanything like a complete view of theNewTestament's evidence for thedignity of His person. But it may very well be that we shall obtain aconvincingbody of evidence for it.Whatwepurpose to do is to attendwith some closeness to the designations which the New Testamentwriters apply to our Lord as they currently speak of Him. Thesedesignationswillbepassedrapidlyunderoureyewitha twofoldend inview.Ontheonehandweshallhope,generally,toacquireavividsenseoftheattitude, intellectualandemotional,sustainedbytheseveralwritersof the New Testament, and by the New Testament as a whole, to ourLord'sperson.Ontheother,weshallhope,particularly,toreachaclearernotionof the loftinessof the estimateplaceduponHispersonby thesewriters,andbythosewhomtheyrepresent.Weareentering,then,inpartuponanexposition,inpartuponanargument.Wewishtolearn,sofarasthedesignationsappliedtoourLordintheNewTestamentarefittedtorevealthattous,howthewritersoftheNewTestamentwereaccustomedto think of Jesus; we wish to show that they thought of Him aboveeverythingelseasaDivinePerson.Fortheformerpurposewedesiretopass in review the whole body of designations employed in the NewTestamentofourLord;forthelatterpurpose,inpassingthismaterialinreview,wedesiretoorderitinsuchamannerastobringintoclearreliefits testimony to the profound conviction cherished by our Lord's firstfollowers that He was of divine origin and nature. In prosecuting ourexposition we shall seek to run cursorily through the entire NewTestament; in framingourargumentwe shall layprimary stresson theGospels, or rather on the Synoptic Gospels, and adduce the remainingbookschieflyascorroborativeandelucidativetestimonytowhatweshallfindintheevangelicalnarratives.Thuswehopetotakeatonceawideorevenacompleteviewofthewholefield,andtothrowintoprominencetheunitarypresuppositionby the entireNewTestamentof thedeityofour

Lord.

DesignationsofOurLordintheSynopticGospels

We turn, then, first to the Gospels, and in the first instance to theSynoptic Gospels.We observe at once that‚ on a prima facie view, thedesignations theyapply toourLord fall into threegeneralclasses.Theyseem tobeeitherpurelydesignatory,generallyhonorific,or specificallyMessianic.Of all purely designatorydesignations, thepersonal name isthemostnaturalanddirect.Wecanfeelnosurprise, therefore, to learnthatourLordisspokenofintheGospelsmostcommonlybythesimplename of 'Jesus.' Nor shall we feel surprise to learn that the simplesthonorific titles are represented as those most frequently employed inaddressing Him,—'Rabbi,' with its Greek renderings, 'Teacher' and'Master,'anditsGreekrepresentative, 'Lord.'NoMessianictitleagainismore often met with in the narrative of the Gospels than the simple'Christ,' although on our Lord's lips 'the Son of Man' is constant. Thegeneraleffectofthenarrativeonthereader,whopassesrapidlythroughit,notingparticularlythedesignationsemployedofourLord,isastrongimpression thatHe is thought of by the writers, and is represented bythemasthoughtofbyHiscontemporary followersandbyHimself,asapersonofhighdignityandunquestionableauthority;andthatthisdignityand authority were rooted, both in their and inHis estimation, inHisMessianic character. Ifweare to take thedesignationsemployed in theGospel narratives as our guide, therefore, we should say that thefundamentalgeneralfactwhichtheysuggestisthatJesuswasesteemedbyHisfirstfollowersasthepromisedMessiah,andwaslookeduponwithreverence and accorded supreme authority as such. Whether thisimpression is fully justified by the evidence when it is narrowlyscrutinized; and if so what the complete significance of the fact soestablished is;andwhethermore thanappearsupon thesurfaceof it isreally contained in the fact—these arematters whichmust be left to acloserexaminationofthedetailstodetermine.

StartingPointoftheSurvey

Inundertaking sucha closer examinationof thedetails, itwill conducenotonlytoclearnessoftreatment,butalsotosuretyofresult,totakeup

the severalGospels separately. And perhaps itmay be aswell to beginwith the Gospel of Mark. It is the briefest and in some respects thesimplestandmostdirectnarrativewehaveof thecareerofourLord.Itmaybesupposed,therefore,topresenttoustheelementsofourproblemintheirleastcomplicatedshape.

THEDESIGNATIONSOFOURLORDINMARK

NarrativeDesignation

In Mark what we may call the narrative designation of our Lord isuniformly the simple 'Jesus.'Mark employsnootherdesignation inhisentire narrative.2 On the other hand, he places this designation, in itssimplicity, in themouthofnooneelse. In theheadingofhisGospelhesets, it is true, that "solemn designation of theMessianic personality,"'JesusChrist.'ThisisadesignationnotonlywhichoccursnowhereelseinthisGospel,4butwhichoccurselsewhereinthefourGospelsonlyrarelyandonlyinsimilarformalconnections.Itseemsalready,hereatleast,tobe employed as a proper name. But in the narrative itself, as we haveintimated,Markusesonlythesimple'Jesus,'whichneverthelessheneverrepresentsasusedbyotherseitherinspeakingoforinspeakingtoJesus.

PopularDesignation

ThenamebywhichJesuswaspopularlyknown toHis contemporaries,accordingtoMark,wasapparentlythefullerdescriptiveoneof 'JesusofNazareth' (10:47, 16:6, 14:67). On one occasion He is represented asaddressedbythisfullname(1:24),andontwoothersbythename'Jesus,'enlarged by a Messianic title ('Jesus, Son of the Most High God' 5:7,'Jesus,SonofDavid'10:47).Theinferencewouldseemtobethat'Jesus'was too commonaname tobe sufficiently designatoryuntil ourLord'spersonhad loomedso large,at least in thecircles towhich theGospels

wereaddressed,astoputallotherJesusesoutofmindwhenthisnamewasmentioned. The employment of the simple 'Jesus' as the narrativenameinthisGospelis,therefore,anoutgrowthof,andatestimonyto,thesupremepositionHeoccupiedinthemindsofChristians.

FormulaofAddress

The formula by which Jesus is represented by Mark as ordinarilyaddressed is apparently the simple honorific title, 'Rabbi,' by which inthatage(Mt23:7)everyprofessedteacherwascourteouslygreeted.TheactualAramaicform'Rabbi'occurs,however,butseldominhisnarrative,and only on the lips of Jesus' disciples (9:5, 11:21, 14:45, Judas inbetrayingHim);althoughtheparallelform'Rabboni'occursonceonthelipsofapetitionerforhealing(10:51).Initsplacestandscustomarilyitssimplest and most usual Greek rendering, 'Teacher' (διδάσκαλε). Thegeneral synonomy of the forms of address, 'Teacher,' 'Master,' 'Lord'(διδάσκαλε,ἐπιστάτα,κύριε),asallalikeGreekrepresentativesof'Rabbi,'is fully established by a comparison of the parallel passages in theSynoptics,aswellasbysuchdefiningpassagesasJno1:38,20:16.

What is to be noted here is that in his report of the forms of addressemployedbythoseconversingwithJesus,MarkconfineshimselfamongGreekformulasto'Teacher'(διδάσκαλε)ashisstandingrepresentationof'Rabbi.' The use of 'Lord' (κύριε) in 7:28 is not strictly an exception tothis,sincethespeakeronthatoccasionwasaheathen,and'Lord'(κύριε)may be best viewed as indicative of this fact. It is the common Greekhonorific address, equivalent in significance to the Jewish 'Rabbi' or'Teacher.'

Significanceof'Teacher'

Theaddress 'Teacher' isusedbyMarkbroadly,andisputuponthe lipsbothofourLord'sdisciplesintheirordinarycolloquy(4:38,9:38,10:35,13:1),obviouslyastheircustomaryformofaddressingHim;andofotherswho approachedHim for every variety of reason (5:35, 9:17, 10:17, 20,12:14, 19, 32). There does not necessarily lie in this mode of address,therefore,anythingmorethanageneralpoliterecognitionofourLord'sclaim to be a teacher and leader of men, although of course this

recognitionmay rise on occasion abovemere courtesy and become theexpression of real reverence and dependence and a recognition of Hisauthority and sovereignty.When something like thiswas insincerely orfrivolouslyexpressed,ourLordwasoffendedby it,as in thecaseof therich young ruler who addressed Him flatteringly as 'Good Teacher'(10:17).ButwhentheexpressionwassincereitwasreceivedbyJesusingoodpart and the recognitionofHis authority involved in itwelcomedandrespondedto,evenwhentheauthoritysuggestedfarexceededthatofan ordinary Rabbi and involved at leastMessianic claims (10:35, 9:38,4:38). Not only does He accept this designation; He even adopts it,instructing His disciples to speak of Him to others as 'the Teacher'(14:14),—andthereisinvolvedperhapsinthisadoptionofthetitleallthatisexpressedinthedeclarationsofMt23:1–12.Althoughnotnecessarilyrecognizedasall thatHewasbyeveryonewhoapproachedHimsaying'Teacher,' yet under this designation He certainly is recognized asclaimingandcertainlydoes claimanauthority above thatof thosewhosharedthetitleof'Teacher'withHim(1:22,27etc.).

Significanceof'Lord'

SimilarlywearenotquiteattheendofthematterwhenwesaythattheheathenwomaninaddressingHimas'Lord'(7:28)onlymakesuseofthecommonGreekhonorificaddress.Whenonecomestoareligiousteacherpetitioningsogreatabenefit,thehonorifictitlewhichisemployedisapttobe chargedwitha far richermeaning thanmere courtesyor respect.AndJesusreceiveditinthiscaseatitsfullvalue;inasensebearingsomerelation to His own appellative use of the same term, 'Lord' (κύριος),whenHe declared Himself 'Lord of the Sabbath' and 'David's Lord' aswellashis'Son'(2:28,12:36,37).Itisinthisappellativeuseoftheterm'Lord'byJesus indeed thatwemaydiscover thedeepest significanceofthe application of that title to Him (1:3, 2:28, 11:3, 12:36, 37 [12:9,13:35]).Itisnodoubtsometimesverydifficulttodeterminewhetherinagiven instance it refers to God or to Jesus, a fact which has itssignificance. But the certain cases will themselves carry us very far.When,forexample,Jesusisquotedasdeclaringthat"theSonofManisLord even of the Sabbath" (or, perhaps, "of the Sabbath, too"), theimplicationisthatHeisLordofmuchmorethantheSabbath,andthat

thisHisLordship isanappanageofHisMessianicdignity.15AndwhenHeisrepresentedasarguingwiththescribesoverthesignificanceofthetitle'SonofDavid'(12:36,37),itcannotbedoubtedthatHehadHimselfas the Messiah in mind; and, whatever else His words suggest, theycertainlyintimatethatHeheldHimselfastheMessiahtobegreaterthanDavid as truly as He was greater than Solomon (Mt 12:42); that, in aword,David(asthatpropheticmonarchhimselfrecognized)wasnomoreHisfatherbyvirtueofHisdescentfromhim,thanhewasHisservantbyvirtueofhisessentialrelationtoHim.Hewasattheveryleast,andwaspredictedbyDavidhimselfas,David'ssovereign.

Such being the conception of His lordship which was inHismind, wemustassumeitwasthisloftydignitywhichHeclaimedforHimselfwhenHe instructedHis disciples, whomHe sent to bringHim the ass's coltwhichwas tobearHim intoJerusalem, to tell thosewhomightdisputetheirrighttoit,that"theLordhathneedofhim"(11:3);andthisisborneoutbythestronglyMessianiccharacterof thewholetransaction(verses9, 10, cf.Mt21:4, 5, Jno 12:14, 15).And surely some such implicationsattendalsothesemi-parabolicdesignationofHimselfasthe'LordoftheHouse'whosecomingistobewatchedfor(13:35).Andatleastasmuchas this is involved when the evangelist identifies Him with 'the Lord'whosewaywas to bemade ready forHim by theministry of John theBaptistinfulfillmentofthepropheticdeclarationsofIsaiahandMalachi(1:3);forthealterationsinthelanguageofthedeclarationsintroducedbytheevangelistmakeclearhispurpose toapply thesephrasesdirectly toJesus.

It is not necessary to presuppose that 'Rabbi' underlies this appellativeuse of 'Lord' (κύριος). In Mark 12:37 (and probably also 1:3) theunderlying term is Adhoni, and elsewhere it is doubtless Maran, orMarana(orMaraʾa).Inotherwordstheimplicationsoftheterminthisapplication of it are those of supremacy and sovereignty. Whence itemerges that Jesus is representedas claiming forHimself (2:28, 12:36,37, 13:35, 11:3), and as being recognized within His own circle aspossessing(11:3),supremesovereignty,—asovereigntysuperiortothatofthetypicalkinghimself(12:36,37),extendingoverthedivinelyordainedreligious enactments of the chosen people (7:28, cf. 7:15–19), and

entitlingHimtodisposeofthepossessions(11:3)andtheverydestiniesofmen (13:35). There is here asserted not only Messianic dignity andauthority, but dignity and authority which transcend those ordinarilyattributed even to theMessiah (12:36, 37), and are comparable only tothoseofGodHimself(1:3).

MessianicDesignations

The transition from such a designation of Jesus as 'Lord' to thedesignationofHimas'Messiah,'isonlyapassagefromthegeneraltotheparticular. What is noteworthy is, therefore, not that specificallyMessianictitlesarefreelyassignedtoJesusinthenarrative,butthatnoother titles thanMessianic ones seem tobe employedofHim.There isindicationindeedthatourLordwasrecognizedasaprophet(6:15,8:28);inpointoffact,thatHerecognizedHimselfasaprophet(6:4).Itisclearindeed thatHewaswidely spokenofasaprophetand thatHeHimselfaccepted thedesignationasappropriate.But this is littleemphasized inthisGospel,andwouldformnoexceptiontotherulethatnodesignationsaresuggestedforJesusexceptMessianictitles.Neithercanweconsiderthe designations 'Bridegroom' (2:19, 19, 20) and 'Shepherd' (14:27),whichJesusseemstohaveappliedincidentallytoHimself,exceptions.Inthe former of these Jesus, discoursing of John the Baptist (2:18)doubtlesswithintentionalreferencetoasayingofhiswhichisrecordedforusonly inJohn(3:29), identifiedHimselfon theonehandwith the'Bridegroom'ofOldTestamentprophecy(cf.Hos2:19),andsetHimselfforthontheotherastheHeadofthepeopleofGodnowtobegatheredintothepromisedkingdom:inotherwords,thedesignationisMessianicto the core. And certainly not less is to be said ofHis identification ofHimselfwiththemysterious'Shepherd'ofZech13:7,whoisthefellowoftheLordofHosts(14:27||Mt26:31;andcf.6:34||Mt9:36;andseeMt25:32,eschatologically;andJno10:2).Bythesideoftheseitmayalsobenecessary torecognizeasaMessianicdesignation, theepithet 'Beloved,'whichisappliedtoHiminthedivinecommendationsoftheSon—"ThouartmySon,theBeloved,inwhomIamwellpleased,""ThisismySon,theBeloved" (1:11, 9:7). But apart from these more unusual designationsnoneareappliedtoJesusinthewholecourseofthenarrativebyanyofthe characters introduced, including Jesus in His own person, but

familiarMessianictitles.Theseoccurinconsiderablevariety,andincludenotonlythesimple'Christ'withitsequivalents,'theKingofIsrael'or'ofthe Jews,' and 'the Son ofDavid,' but also themore significant ones of'theHoly One of God' and 'the Son of God,'—varied to 'the Son of theMostHigh God,' and 'the Son of the Blessed,'—and Jesus' own chosenself-designation,'theSonofMan.'

'JesusChrist'

Theevangelisthimselfnowhere in the courseofhisnarrative speaksofJesusbyoneof these titles.Aswehaveseen,hisnarrativenameofourLordisexclusivelythesimple'Jesus.'Noreaderwilldoubt,however,thatheconsideredallofthemapplicabletoJesus;andheannounceshisbook,intheheadinghehasprefixedtoit,asintendedtorecounttheoriginsof"theGospelofJesusChrist"—possiblyaddingalsothefurtherMessianicdesignation of "the Son of God." This compound name 'Jesus Christ'occurs extremely rarely in the Gospels, and never except in the mostformalandceremoniouscircumstances.Itappears,indeed,tobereservedasanaugustname,weightedwiththeimplicationoftheentirecontentofJesus' claims, and therefore suitable only for setting at the head ofdocuments designed to exhibit His life and work, or at the opening ofaccounts of significant periods or acts of His career. It is very fairlydescribed by Holtzmann, therefore, as "the solemn designation of theMessianicpersonality."24Althoughinittheterm'Christ'hasceasedtobean appellation andbecome a portion of a propername, its use as suchbears all the stronger testimony to the ascriptionof theMessiahship toJesus. Other Messiah than He had ceased to be contemplated asconceivable, and the very appellation 'Messiah' had become Hisdistinguishingname.

'TheChrist'

Although this compound name occurs nowhere else in Mark, and thereversecombination,'ChristJesus,'whichisalsoinuseinActsandPaul,never, the simple 'Christ' appears in his narrative with sufficientfrequency to evince that it was a favorite designation of the Messiah(8:29, 12:35, 13:21, 14:61, 15:32), applied as such to Jesus (8:29, 14:61,15:32)inordertomarkHimoutastheMessiah;andacceptedassuchby

Jesus,whothusassertsHimselftobetheMessiah(8:30,14:62,cf.9:41,12:35, 13:21). Its significance, as the simplest of all Messianic titles, iswellbroughtoutbythesynonymswithwhich it iscoupled.WhenPeterassigned it toourLord inhis great confession (8:29), ourLordatoncetakes itupas theequivalentofHisown favoriteself-designationof 'theSonofMan.'WhenourLordwould instruct the scribeswith respect totherealdignityoftheMessiah,HeasksthemhowtheycanspeakoftheChrist as 'the Son of David,' when David himself calls Him his 'Lord'(12:35,37).Whenthehigh-priestatHistrialadjuredHimtosaywhetherHewas'theChrist,theSonoftheBlessed,'inHisassentingreplyHecallsHimself the 'Son ofMan' (14:62, 63). And in likemanner the scoffingJewsmockingly addressedHimasHehungon the cross as 'theChrist,the King of Israel' (15:32). In all these instances the term is obviouslyusedasanappellation,andhasnodifferentcontentfromthegeneralonecommon to all the designations which impute Messiahship. It is thecomplete synonym of 'the King of Israel' (15:32), 'the Son of David'(12:35),'theSonoftheBlessed'(14:61),'theSonofMan'(8:31,14:62).Ina word it is the general title of the Messianic Sovereign, whom Jesusclaims to be in His acceptance of this designation, and whom He isassertedtobebyitsapplicationtoHimbyHisfollowers.

Anarthrous'Christ'

In the remarkablepassage, 9:41, alonedoes 'Christ' appearwithout thearticle. And therefore it has been frequently supposed to be employedtherenotasanappellationbutasapropername,andthereforeagaintobeoutofplaceonJesus'lipsandtobeaccordinglyanintrusionintothetext fromthe laterpointofviewofHis followers.Thereseems tobenoreason,however,why'Christ'(χριστός)evenwithoutthearticlemaynotbetakenappellatively(cf.Lk23:2);andinthatcase,noreasonwhyourLordmaynothavetoldHisfollowersthatnoonewhoshoulddothemabenefit"inthenamethattheyaretheChrist's,"i.e.,onthegroundthattheyaretheservantsoftheMessiah,shouldlosehisappropriatereward.InthisviewourLordwouldnodoubtbeonceagainclaimingforHimselfthe Messianic dignity; but He would not be doing it in languageinappropriate upon His lips, especially at a period in His ministrysubsequent to the great confession of Peter at Cæsarea Philippi (8:29),

afterwhich,weare expressly told (8:31,32), Jesusbegan to teachbothformallyandquiteopenlywhatandwhoHewasandwhatwastobefallHim in the prosecution of His mission. The thought thus brought outdiffersinnothingfromthatofMt10:42andthemodeofexpressingthethought is equally appropriate with that recorded there, on the lips ofOnewhoknewHimselftobeTeacherandLordonlybecauseHewastheChrist.AtthesametimeitmustnotbetooeasilyassumedthatourLordcouldnot speakofHimself as 'Christ' takenevenasaproper,orquasi-proper,name,althoughweneednotdwelluponthisatthispoint.

RoyalTitles

It was because He announced Himself as the 'Christ' and was widelyunderstood to possess claims upon that dignity that, when He wasarraignedbeforePilate, itwaspreciselyuponHispretensions tobe 'theKingoftheJews'thatHewasinterrogated(15:2,26).OnJewishlipsthistitlenaturallywascorrectedto'theKingofIsrael'(15:32),whichagainisidentifiedwiththeappellation'theChrist'(15:32).InthisformalsoJesuswas far from repelling the Messianic ascription, but on the contraryexpresslyallowsit(15:2).Toallappearance,however,neither'theChrist,'nor'theKingofIsrael,'wasmorecurrentasaMessianicdesignationthanthe kindred form 'the Son of David' (12:35, cf. 11:10), though this titleappearsinMark'snarrativeonlyonceasactuallyappliedtoJesus(10:47,48).TheblindmanatthegatesofJericho,hearingthatJesusofNazarethwaspassingby,andwishingtoaskafavoratHishandsastheexpectedKingofIsrael,knewnobetternamebywhichtoaddressHimthan'SonofDavid.' Itwas the faith thusexpressedwhichJesus commended inhimwhen He responded to his appeal,—thus accepting this Messianic titlealso(10:49,51,52,cf.11:10).Itisquiteuntenable,therefore,tosupposethatJesuswishedtorepelthisdesignationinthequestionHeputasHetaught inthetemple(12:35),"Howsaythescribesthat theChrist is thesonofDavid,"when"Davidhimself"(andspeaking"intheHolySpirit")"callsHim rather Lord?"He does not deny thatHe isDavid's son;HeassertsthatHeisDavid'sLord.Itseems,therefore,notquiteexacteventosay thatHewishes tosuggest thatHissonshipderives fromahighersource thanDavid: thatHe is, inaword, theSonofGodrather thanofDavid.ButitseemsclearthatHedesirestointimatethatasLordofDavid

Hewassomethingfarmorethanwasconveyedbytheaccustomed—andsofaracceptable33—titleof'SonofDavid':andsomethingofthishigherdignity than mere kingship belonging to Him is doubtless inherent inthis,therefore,higherMessianictitleof'SonofGod.'

'SonofGod'

This higher title, if it is not applied to Jesus by Mark himself in theheading of his Gospel (1:1), is at least in the course of the narrativerepeatedly represented as applied to Him by others, and is expresslyapprovedassoappliednotonlybytheevangelist(3:11),butbyourLordHimself(14:62).Theformofthetitlevariesfromthesimple'SonofGod'([1:1]3:11,cf.15:39)tothe'SonoftheBlessed'(14:61)andthe'SonoftheMostHighGod'(5:7).Itis,intheinstancesrecitedbyMark,foundchieflyonthelipsoftheuncleanspiritswhomJesuscastout(3:11,5:7);thoughit is employed also, apparently as a culminatingMessianic title, by thehighpriestatHistrial,seekingtoobtainfromJesusanacknowledgmentofHisgreatpretensions(14:62),andwasfranklyacceptedbyourLordasfairlysettingthesepretensionsforth(14:63).AsaMessianictitleitdiffersfrom those which have been heretofore engaging our attention, inemphasizing, as they do not, the supernatural side of the office andfunctions of theMessiah:He comes as the representative ofGod to doGod'swill in theworld.From thispointof viewanotherMessianic titleapplied to Him by a demoniac—'the Holy One of God' (1:24),—rangeswith it:andtheemploymentby theuncleanspiritsof thisclassof titlesonly(cf.3:11and1:34)maybeduetothefactthattheywerevoicesfromthespiritualworldandwereassuchlessconcernedthanthepeopleofthelandwithnationalhopesorearthlydevelopments.

'TheSon'

By the side of the passages in which the precise title 'Son of God' isemployed,therestandsanotherseriesinwhichJesusspeaksofHimself,orisrepresentedasspokenofbyGod,simplyas'theSon'(13:32,cf.12:6,1:11, 9:7), used obviously in a very pregnant sense: and these naturallysuggesttheircorrelativesinwhichHespeaksofGodasHis'Father'inthesame pregnant manner (8:38, cf. 13:32, 14:36). The uniqueness of therelationintendedtobeintimatedbythismodeofspeechissharplythrust

forwardintheparablerecordedinMark12.Thereweremanyslaveswhoweresentoneaftertheothertotherebellioushusbandmen;butonlyoneson—who is called "the beloved one," a term which is not so muchdesignatoryofaffectionasofthatonwhichspecialaffectionisgrounded,andisthereforepracticallyequivalentto"onlybegotten,"or"unique."Itispossible that it isby thisepithet thatGoddesignates thisHisSononbothoftheoccasionswhenHespokefromheaveninordertopointHimoutandmarkHimasHisown(1:11,9:7)—"ThisismybelovedSon."Themeaningis thattheSonstandsoutamongallotherswhomaybecalledsonsasinauniqueandunapproachedsensetheSonofGod.Ofcourseitis possible to represent this as importing nothing more than that thepersonsodesignatedistheMessiah,singledouttobethevice-gerentofGodonearth;anditisnoticeablethatitisastheMessiahthatJesuscallsGodappropriatingly'HisFather'whenHedeclaresthattheSonofManisto come in the glory of His Father with the holy angels (8:38), andcertainly itwas in lowlysubjection to thewillofGod thatHeprayedatGethsemane,"Abba,Father,removethiscupfromme"(14:36).Butthisexplanation seems scarcely adequate; in any case there is intimated inthisusageaclosenessaswellasauniquenessofrelationexistingbetweenJesusandGod,whichraisesJesusfarbeyondcomparisonwithanyothersonofman.Andthatremarkablepassage,13:32,inwhichJesusdeclaresHisignorance,thoughHebetheSon,ofthedayofHisadvent,exaltsHimapparently above not men only, but angels as well, next to the FatherHimself,withwhomratherthanwiththeangelsHeseemstobeclassed.

OurLord'sownTestimonytoHisMessiahship

AlltheseMessianicdesignationsarerepresentedasnotonlyascribedtoJesusbutacceptedbyHim.Theyarenot,however,currentlyemployedbyHim;asreportedinthisnarrative,Hedoesindeedmakeoccasionaluseofthem—'theChrist'(9:41,cf.8:29,12:35,13:21),the'SonofDavid'(12:35),the'Son[ofGod]'(13:32,cf.12:6)—butonlyexceptionally.TheMessianicdesignationwhichHeisrepresentedasconstantlyapplyingtoHimselfisalsoonepeculiar toHimself—'theSonofMan.'That thisdesignation isactually employed as a Messianic title, is apparent not only from itsobvious origin in the vision of Daniel 7:13, to which reference isrepeatedly made (8:38, 13:26, 14:62), but also from the easy passage

which ismade, in thecourseof theconversationsreported, fromoneoftheotherdesignationstothis,wherebytheyareevincedasitssynonyms.Thusin8:31insequencetoPeter'sconfessionofHimas'theChrist,'wearetoldthatJesusbegantoteachthat"theSonofManmustsuffermanythings."Similarlyin13:26ourLordnotifiesusthatalthoughmany"falseChrists"shallarisewhomaydeceivemen,yetwhencertainsignsoccur,"then shall they see the Son ofMan coming." Again when exhorted todeclare whether He is "the Christ, the Son of the Blessed" (14:61), Heresponds in theaffirmativeandadds:"Andyeshallsee theSonofMansittingattherighthandofpower."Evidentlyifwearetoask,'WhoisthisSonofMan,'wemustgiveanswer,shortly,'TheChristofGod.'Anditliesin theevidencenotonly that thiswas theunderlying conceptionofourLord as reported in this Gospel but also that it was—however dimly—apprehendedbythoseHeaddressed.ThereisperhapsnosinglepassageinMark so clear to this effect as John 12:34, where themultitude arerepresentedaspuzzledbyourLord'steachingthatthe"SonofManmustbeliftedup,"inviewoftheirconvictionthat"theChristabidethforever.""Wehaveheardoutofthelaw,"theysay,"thattheChristabidethforever:andhowsayestthouthattheSonofManmustbeliftedup?WhoisthisSonofMan?"Thisisasmuchastosaythatthat'SonofMan'whoistheMessiahisknowntothemandisknowntothemastheeternalKing:butnoother'SonofMan'isknowntothem—whoistobe"liftedup"fromtheearth that He may draw all men unto Him. The same implication islatent, however, in the instances reported by Mark, the conversationsrecorded inwhichwouldhavebeenunintelligiblehadtherenotbeen inthe hearers' minds some intelligence of the phrase 'Son of Man' as aMessianictitle,althoughitwasapparentlynotaMessianictitleeitherinsuchcurrentusethatitcamenaturallytotheirlipsorsounambiguousastobeeasilycomprehendedbytheminalltheimplicationswhichourLordcompressedintoit.

'SonofMan'

ThedifficultycreatedbyourLord'suseofthisphraseseems, indeed,asrepresentedbyMark,not somuch tohave lain in apprehending that itinvolvedaclaimtoMessianicdignity,asincomprehendingthecharacterof the Messianic conception which He expressed by it. The constant

employmentofthisdesignationofHimselfbyourLordinpreferencetothemore current ones, such as, say, 'Son of David' or 'King of Israel,'appearstomarkineffectanattemptonourLord'spart, inclaimingforHimself the Messianic dignity, at the same time to fill the conceptionitselfwith a new import. The nature of the revolutionwhichHewouldworkintheMessianicidealcurrentamongthepeople,inotherwords,issignalized byHis avoidance of the current designations of theMessiahandHischoiceforHisconstantuseofamoreorlessunwontedonewhichwould direct their attention to a different region of Old Testamentprophecy.Hesays,ineffect,IntheconceptionyouarecherishingoftheMessianic king, you are neglecting whole regions of prophecy, and areformingmostmistakenexpectationsregardingHim:itisfromtheSonofMan of Daniel rather than from the Son of David of the Psalms andSamuelthatyoushouldtakeyourstartingpoint.Nosingletitle,ofcourse,sumsuptheentiretyofourLord'sconceptionoftheMessianicfunction:there are elements of it adumbrated in very different sections of OldTestamentprediction.ButHeelected,apparently,topointtothepicturewhichDanieldrawsoftheestablishmentoftheKingdomofGodonearthasfurnishingastartingpointforarevisionoftheMessianicidealcurrentamongthosetowhomHispreachingwasinthefirstinstanceaddressed.

Itmaybedifficult,inviewofthevariedelementswhichenteredintoHisMessianicconception,toinferwithconfidencefromthesubstanceofthesayingsinwhichJesusreferstoHimselfasthe'SonofMan,'preciselytheMessianicconceptionHeunderstood tobecoveredby thatdesignation.And much less can we suppose that His whole Messianic idea isembedded in these sayings.He refers toHimself by this designation inonly a portion of the sayings which must be utilized in an attempt todetermineHisMessianicconception;and there isnoreason tosupposethat He always uses this designation when giving utterance toconceptionswhichHesubsumedunderit.Nevertheless,havingguardedourselvesagainstrashnessofinferenceandunduenarrownessofviewbyreminding ourselves of these obvious facts, we must certainly, in anattempttodiscoverthesignificanceofthedesignation'SonofMan'intheGospelofMark,beginbyobservingtheactualconnectionsinwhichJesusisrepresentedinthatGospelasemployingit,withaviewtodiscovering,as far as possible, from the substance of these sayings the actual

implicationswhichitembodiedforHim,andthroughHimforthewriterofthisGospelwhoreportsjustthesesayingsfromHislips.

Usageof'SonofMan'

From these sayings, then,we learn that the life of the 'Son ofMan' onearthisessentiallyalowlyone:Hecamenottobeministeredunto,buttominister (10:45). Suffering belongs therefore to the very essence ofHismission (8:31, 9:12, 31, 10:33, 14:21, 41) andhas accordingly beenpre-announced forHim in theScriptures (9:12, 14:21).But this suffering isnotinHisownbehalf,butforothers,theformofHisministrytowhomis"togiveHislifearansomformany"(10:45).ButjustbecauseHisdeathisasufficingransom,deathcannotbeall:havinggivenHislifeasaransomformany the 'SonofMan' shall rise again (8:31,9:9,31, 10:34).Nor isthisvindicationbyresurrectionall.Heisto"riseagain"afterthreedays(8:31,9:31,10:34),butisto"come"again"incloudswithgreatgloryandpower" (13:26, cf. 14:62) at some more remote, undesignated time(13:32),toestablishtheKingdominwhichHeshallsitattherighthandofpower(14:62).AtthisHiscomingHe"shallsendforththeangelsandgathertogetherHiselectfromthefourwinds,fromtheuttermostpartoftheearthtotheuttermostpartofheaven"(13:27);andshallshowHimselfashamedofallwhoshallhavebeenashamedofHimandofHiswordsinthe adulterous generation with which He dwelt on earth (8:38). It isclearlythejudgmentscenethatisherebroughtbeforeus,andtheeternaldestiniesofmenarerepresentedaslyinginthehandsofthe'SonofMan.'"Hiselect,""thosewhomHehaschosen,"aregatheredintotheKingdom;Hisenemies,thosewhohaverejectedHim,areleftwithout.AccordinglyitisnotsurprisingthatHewhocametogiveHislifearansomformany(10:45)andwhoistocomeagaininordertodistributetomentheirfinaldestiniesshouldhaveauthoritygivenHimevenwhileonearth toorderthereligiousobservancesbywhichmenaretrainedinthelifewhichlooksbeyondthelimitsofearth(2:28)andeventoforgivesins(2:10).Perhapsinthelightof8:38,13:27,inthephrase"onearth"wemayseeacontrastnotsomuchwiththe"power"ofGodtoforgivesins"inheaven"(cf.verse7), as with the authority to award the destinies of all flesh (13:27 "Hiselect";8:38thosethatareashamedofHim)hereaftertobeexercisedintheheavenlykingdombythe'SonofMan'Himself.

Meaningof'SonofMan'

Whatperhapsmoststrikesusinthisseriesofutterancesisitsprevailingsoteriological, or perhaps we should say soteriologico-eschatological,ratherthanchristologicalbearing.ToMarkthe'SonofMan,'asreflectedin the sayings he cites from the lips of the Lord, is the divinely sentRedeemer, come tominister to men and to give His life a ransom formany,whoasRedeemerbringsHischosenonestogloryand,holdingthedestiniesofmeninHishands,castsoutthosewhohaverejectedHim—evenwhileyetonearthpreadumbratingthefinalissuebyexercisingHisauthority over religious ordinances and the forgiveness of sins.Little issaid directly of the person of this Redeemer. It is a human figure,ministering, suffering, dying,—though clothed alreadywith authority inthemidstofitshumility(orshouldwenotrathersay,itshumiliation?)—whichmoves before us in its earthly career: it is a superhuman figurewhichistoreturn,clothedinglory—"sittingattherighthandofpower"andcomingwiththecloudsofheaven(14:62),or"comingincloudswithgreatpowerandglory"(13:26)—"inthegloryofHisFatherwiththeholyangels" (8:38), those holy angels who are sent forth byHim to doHisbidding,thattheymaygathertoHimHischosenones(13:27).Althoughthere are intermingled traits derived from other lines of prophecy, thereference to the great vision of Daniel 7:13, 14 in these utterances isexpressandpervasive,andwecannotgoastrayinassumingthatJesusisrepresented as, in adopting the title of 'Son of Man' for His constantdesignationofHimself, intendingtoidentifyHimselfwiththatheavenlyfigure of Daniel's vision, who is described as "like to a son ofman" incontrastwiththebestial figuresof theprecedingcontext,andashavingcommitted toHimbyGod a universal and eternal dominion. PrimarilyHispurposeseemstohavebeentorepresentHimselfastheintroduceroftheKingdomofGod;andindoingso,toemphasizeontheonehandthehumiliationofHisearthlylotasthefounderofthekingdominHisblood,and on the other the glory of His real station as exhibited in Hisconsummationofthekingdomwithpower.Soconceived,thisdesignationtakesitsplaceattheheadofalltheMessianicdesignations,andinvolvesa conception of the Messianic function and personality alike whichremoves it as far as possible from that of a purely earthly monarchy,administeredbyanearth-bornking.UnderthisconceptiontheMessianic

person is conceived as a heavenly being, who comes to earth with adivinelygivenmission;Hisworkonearthisconceivedaspurelyspiritualandascarriedoutinastateofhumiliation;whileHisgloryispostponedtoa futuremanifestationwhich is identifiedwiththe judgmentdayandtheendoftheworld.Inthefigureofthe'SonofMan,'inaword,wehavethespiritualandsupernaturalMessiahbywayofeminence.

MARK'SCONCEPTIONOFOURLORD

If,now,we review the seriesofdesignationsapplied toourLord in theGospelofMark,asawhole,weshall,we think,be ledby theminto theheartofMark'srepresentationofJesus.

ADivineInterventioninChrist

WhatMarkundertookinhisGospelwasobviouslytogiveanaccountofhowthatgreatreligiousmovementoriginatedwhichwecallChristianity,butwhichhecalls"theGospelofJesusChrist"—thegladtidings,thatis,concerning Jesus Christ which were being proclaimed throughout theworld. To put it in his own words, he undertook to set forth "thebeginningoftheGospelofJesusChrist"(1:1).Theaccountwhichhegivesof the beginning of this great religious movement, by means of his'Gospel,'isbrieflythatitoriginatedinadivineintervention;andthatthisdivine intervention was manifested in the ministry of the divinelypromised and divinely sent Messiah who was no other than the manJesus.Thismanisrepresentedascoming,endowedwithampleauthorityfor His task; and as prosecuting this task by the aid of supernaturalpowersbywhichHewasatoncemarkedoutasGod'sdelegateonearthandenabled,inthefaceofalldifficultiesandoppositions,toaccomplishtoitsendwhatHehadsetHishandtodo.

Christ'sLifeThoroughlySupernatural

ItisidletospeakofMarkpresentingusinhisaccountofJesuswiththepicture of a purely human life. It belongs to the very essence of hisundertaking toportray this lifeassupernatural;and, frombeginning toend, he sets it forth as thoroughly supernatural. The Gospel opens,therefore, by introducing Jesus to us as the divinely givenMessiah, inwhomGodhadfromtheagespastpromisedtovisitHispeople;heraldedas suchby thepromisedmessengermaking ready theway of theLord;andwitnessedbythismessengerasthe"mightiest"ofmen,whoboreinHishandstherealpotenciesofanewlife(1:8);andbyGodHimselffromheaven as His Son, His beloved, in whom He was well pleased (1:11).Anointed and tested for His task, Jesus is then presented as enteringuponandprosecutingHisworkasGod'srepresentative,endowedwithallauthority and endued with all miraculous powers. His authority wasmanifested alike in His teaching (1:22), in His control of demonicpersonalities (1:27), in the forgivenessof sins (2:10), inHis sovereigntyover the religiousordinancesof Israel (2:28), inHis relations tonatureandnature'slaws(4:41),inHisdominionoverdeathitself(5:42).Aseachofthesetypicalexercisesofauthorityissignalizedinturnandcopiouslyillustrated by instances, the picture of a miraculous life becomes evermorestriking,andindeedstupendous.EventhefailureofHisfriendstocomprehendHimand themaliceofHisenemies inassaultingHim,aremade by the evangelist contributory to the impression of an utterlysupernaturallifewhichhewishestomakeonhisreaders.Solittlewasitanormal human life that Jesus lived that His uncomprehending friendsweretemptedtothinkHimbesideHimself,andHisenemiesproclaimedHimobviouslysufferingfrom"possession"(3:20–30).Whateverelsethislifewas,itcertainlywasnot,inviewofanyobserver,a"natural"one.The"unnaturalness" of it is not denied: it is only pointed out that this"unnaturalness" was systematic, and that it was systematically in theinterests of holiness.What ismanifested in it, therefore, is neither thevagariesoflunacynorthewickednessofdemonism.Whatisexhibitedisthe binding of Satan and the destruction of satanic powers (cf. 1:27 etsaepe). To ascribe these manifestations to Satan is therefore toblasphemetheSpiritofGod.Nobody,itappears,dreamedofdoubtinginany interest the abnormality of this career: and we should notmisrepresentMarkifwesaidthathiswholeGospelisdevotedtomakingthe impression that Jesus' life and manifestation were supernatural

throughandthrough.

JesustheMessiah

Thisis,ofcourse,however,notquitethesameassayingthatMarkhassethimselftoportrayinJesusthelifeofasupernaturalperson.Whetherthesupernaturallifehedepictsissupernaturalbecauseitisthelifeonearthofasupernaturalperson,orbecauseitisthelifeofamanwithwhomGoddwelt and through whom God wrought, may yet remain a question.Certainly very much inMark's narrative would fall in readily with thelatterhypothesis.TohimJesusisprimarilytheMessiah,andtheMessiahis primarily the agent of God in bringing in the new order of things.UndoubtedlyMark'sfundamentalthoughtofJesusisthatHeisthemanof God's appointment, with whom God is. Designating Him currentlymerely by His personal name of 'Jesus,' and representing Him ascurrentlyspokenofbyHiscontemporariesmerelyas'JesusofNazareth'andaddressedbythesimplehonorifictitlesof'Rabbi,''Teacher,''Lord'—His fundamental manifestation is to him plainly that of a man amongmen.ThatthismanwastheMessiahneednotinitselfimportmorethanthatHewas the subject of divine influencesbeyondall othermen, andthevehicleofdivineoperationssurpassingallotherhumanexperience.Itmayfairlybeasked,therefore,whatrequiresustogobeyondthedivineofficetoexplainthissupernaturallyfilledlife?Willnottheassumptionofthe Messiahship of Jesus fully account for the aboundingsupernaturalism of His activity as portrayed by Mark? Questions liketheseareinpointoffactconstantlyraisedaroundusandveryvariouslyanswered.Butitbehoovesustobeonourguardrespectingthemthatwebe not led into a false antithesis, as if we must explain Mark'spresentationof the supernatural life of Jesus either on thebasis ofHisofficeasMessiahoronthebasisofHissuperhumanpersonality.

There isnonecessary contradictionbetween these twohypotheses;andwemustnotintroducehereafactitious"either—or."Whatitbehoovesustodo is simply to inquirehow thematter lay inMark'smind;what thereal significance of the Messiahship he attributed to Jesus, andrepresentedJesusasclaimingforHimself, is;andwhetherhepositsforJesusandrepresentsHimasassertingforHimselfsomethingmorethanahumanpersonality.

Jesus'PersonEnhancesHisDesignations

Wecannothavefailedtonoteinreviewingthedesignationsappliedinthecourse of Mark's narrative to our Lord, a tendency of them all whenappliedtoHimtogrowinrichnessofcontent.Theterm'Lord'ismerelyanhonorificaddress,equivalenttoour'Sir':butwhenappliedtoJesusitseems to expand in significance until it ends by implying supremeauthority. The term 'Messiah' is a mere term of office and might beapplied toanyonesolemnly setapart fora service:butwhenapplied toJesusittakesonfullerandfullersignificanceuntilitendsbyassimilatingHim to the Divine Being Himself. He who simply reads over Mark'snarrative, noting the designations he applies to our Lord, accordingly,will not be able to doubt that Mark conceived of Jesus not merely asofficiallytherepresentativeofGodbutasHimselfasuperhumanperson,or that Mark means to present Jesus as Himself so conceiving of Hisnature and personality. The evidence of this is very copious, but alsooften rather subtle; and, in endeavoring to collect andappreciate it,wemightaswell commencewith someof theplainest items, although thismethodinvolvesasomewhatunorderedpresentationofit.

JesusaSuperangelicPerson

Letuslook,then,firstatthatremarkablepassage(13:32)inwhichJesusacknowledgesignoranceofthetimeofHis(second)coming.Here,inthevery act of admitting limitations to His knowledge, in themselvesastonishing, He yet asserts for Himself not merely a superhuman butevenasuperangelicrankinthescaleofbeing.

Inanypossibleinterpretationofthepassage,HeseparatesHimselffromthe"angelsinheaven"(notetheenhancingdefinitionoflocality,carryingwithitthesenseoftheexaltationoftheseangelsaboveallthatisearthly)asbelongingtoadifferentclassfromthem,andthatasuperiorclass.ToJesusasHeisreported,andpresumablytoMarkreportingHim,wesee,Jesus "the Son" stands as definitely and as incomparably above thecategoryofangels,thehighestofGod'screatures,astotheauthoroftheEpistletotheHebrews,whoseargumentmaybetakenasacommentaryuponthispassage(Heb1:4,2:8).NoristhispassagesingularinMarkin

exaltingJesus indignityandauthorityabove theangels.Already in theaccount of the temptation at the opening of His ministry we find theangelssignalizedasministeringtoHim(1:13),andelsewheretheyappearasHissubordinatesswellingHistrain(8:38)orHisservantsobeyingHisbehests (13:27, "He shall send the angels"). Clearly, therefore, toMarkJesusisnotmerelyasuperhumanbutasuperangelicpersonality:andthequestionatonceobtrudesitselfwhetherasuperangelicpersonisnotbythatveryfactremovedfromthecategoryofcreatures.

JesusofHeavenlyOrigin

A similar implication, as has already been pointed out, is embedded inthe title 'Son ofMan,'whichMark represents as ourLord's stated self-designation. The appeal involved in it to Daniel 7:13, 14 is a definiteassertionfortheMessiahofaheavenlyasdistinguishedfromanearthlyorigin, with all the suggestions of preëxistence, divine exaltation andauthority,andendlesssovereigntynecessarilyconnectedwithaheavenlyorigin. It would be impossible to frame aMessianic conception on thebasis of this vision of Daniel and to suppose theMessiah to be inHispersonameremanderivingHisoriginfromtheearth.ThisissufficientlyillustratedindeedbythehistoryoftheMessianic idealamongtheJews.ThereisverylittleevidenceamongtheJewsbeforeorcontemporarywithourLord,ofresorttoDaniel7:13,14asabasisforMessianichopes:butwherever this occurs it is the conception of a preexistent, heavenlymonarch who is to judge the world in righteousness which is derivedfrom this passage. No other conception, in fact, could be derived fromDaniel,wheretheheavenlyoriginof theeternalKingis thrownintothesharpest contrast with the lower source of the preceding bestial rulers.JudaismmaynothaveknownhowtoreconcilethisheavenlyoriginoftheMessiahwithHisbirthasahumanbeing,andmayhave,therefore,whensoconceivingtheMessiah,sacrificedHishumanconditionentirelytoHisheavenly nature and supposed Him to appear upon the earth as adevelopedpersonality.ThatourLorddoesnotfeelthisdifficultyorsharethis notionmanifests, in thematter ofHis adoption of the title 'Son ofMan' as His favorite Messianic self-designation, His independence ofwhateverJewishtraditionmaybesupposedtohaveformeditself.ButHisadoption of the title at all, with its obvious reference to the vision of

Daniel,5necessarilycarriedwith it theassertionofheavenlyoriginationandnature.

Jesus'EarthlyLifeaMission

This in turn carried with it, we may add, the conception that He had"come"toearthuponamission,aconceptionwhichdoesnotfailtofindindependentexpression in suchpassages,as 1:38,2:17, 10:45.For, thattheassertionsinthesepassagesthatHe"cameforth"topreach,thatHe"came"not to save the righteousbut sinners, thatHe "came"not tobeministereduntobuttoministerandtogiveHislifeasaransomformany,refer to His divine mission (cf. also 11:9, 10), lies on their face. It issuggested by the pregnancy of the expressions themselves, and theconnectionsinwhichtheyareemployed;anditissupportedbytheevenmore direct language of some of the parallels. In themselves theseexpressionsmaynotnecessarilyinvolvetheideaofpreëxistence(cf.9:11andJno.1:7ofJohntheBaptist);buttheyfallreadilyinwithit,andsofarsuggest it thatwhensupportedbyother formsofstatement implying it,theycannotwellbetakeninanyothersense.

Jesus'FunctionsDivine

Itis,however,aboveallinthepicturewhichJesusHimselfdrawsforusofthe'SonofMan'thatweseeHissuperhumannatureportrayed.Forthefigurethusbroughtbeforeusisdistinctlyasuperhumanone;onewhichisnotonlyinthefuturetobeseensittingattherighthandofpowerandcoming with the clouds of heaven (14:62)—in clouds with great powerand glory (13:26), even in the glory ofHis Fatherwith the holy angels(8:38)who doHis bidding as the Judge of all the earth, gatheringHiselectforHim(13:26)whileHepunishesHisenemies(8:38);butwhichinthe present world itself exercises functions which are truly divine,—forwho is Lord of the Sabbath but the God who instituted it incommemorationofHisownrest(2:28),andwhocanforgivesinsbutGodonly(2:10,cf.verse7)?TheassignmenttotheSonofManofthefunctionofJudgeoftheworldandtheascriptiontoHimoftherighttoforgivesinsare,ineachcase,butanotherwayofsayingthatHeisadivineperson;forthesearedivineacts.

TheUniquenessofJesus'Sonship

WehavealreadyhadoccasiontopointouttheuniquenessandclosenessoftherelationtoGodwhichisindicatedbythedesignation'SonofGod'asascribedtoJesus.IntheparableofMark12notonlyisitemphasizedthat God has but one such son (verse 6), but He is as such expresslycontrasted with all God's "servants" (verses 2 and 4) and expresslysignalized as God's "heir" (verse 7). As we read this parable the mindinevitably reverts again to the representation of the Epistle to theHebrews,which in its doctrine of the Son (cf.Heb 1:4, 3:6 etc.),mightalmost appear a thetical exposition of it. And in the immediaterecognition of Jesus as the 'SonofGod' by the evil spirits—"as soon asever they caught sight ofHim"—we can scarcely fail to see a testimonyfrom the spiritual world to a sonship in Jesus surpassing that ofmereappointment to an earthly office and function and rooted in what liesbeyondthistemporalsphere.Itisnoteworthyalsothatwhenrespondingto the adjuration of the high priest to declare whether He were 'theChrist,theSonoftheBlessed,'JesuspointsapparentlytoHisexaltationat the right hand of power andHis comingwith the clouds of heaven,which they were to see, as the warranty for His acceptance of thedesignation: as much as to say that to be 'the Christ, the Son of theBlessed,' involves session at the right hand of God and the eternaldominion promised in Daniel (Mk. 14:62). And it is noticeable fartherthat immediatelyuponourLord's acceptanceof the ascription thehighpriest accusedHimofblasphemy (14:63),whichappears tobeanopenindication that to claim to be 'the Son of the Blessed'was all onewithclaiming to be a divine person. Even the heathen centurion's enforcedconviction, as hewitnessed the circumstances of Jesus' death, that thisman certainly was 'a Son of God,' appears to be recorded for no otherreason (15:39) than to make plain that the supernaturalness of Jesus'person was such as necessarily to impress any observer. No doubt aheathencenturionisbutapoorwitnesstoJesus'essentialnature;andnodoubthisdesignationofHimas"asonofGod"mustneedsbetakeninasenseconsonantwithhisstandpointasaheathen.But itmanifestshowfrom his own standpoint Jesus' death impressed him—as the death, towit,ofoneofsuperhumandignity.Anditsrecordseemstoroundoutthetotal impressionwhichMark appears towish tomake inhisuse of the

phrase, viz., that the superhuman dignity of Jesus was perforcerecognizedandtestifiedtobyallclassesandbyeveryvarietyofwitness.The spiritual denizens of another world (1:24, 1:34, 3:11, 5:7), theappointedguardiansof the spiritual lifeof Israel (14:61),JesusHimself(12:6,13:32,14:62),GodinHeaven(1:11,9:7),andeventheheathenmanwho gazed upon Him as He hung on the cross, alike certify to Hiselevation, as theSonofGod, in the supernaturaldignityofHisperson,aboveall that isearthly,all"servants"and"ministers"ofGodwhatever,including the very angels. Certainly this designation, 'Son of God,' iscolored so deeply with supernatural implications that even apart fromsuch a passage as 13:32 where the superangelic nature of the Son isopenlyexpressed,wecannotavoidconcluding(cf.especially12:6,14:62,15:39) thatasupernaturalpersonalityaswellasasupernaturaloffice isintended tobeunderstoodby it.And if so, in viewof thenatureof thetermitself,itisdifficulttodoubtthatthissupernaturalnessofpersonalityisintendedtobetakenattheheightoftheDivine.WhatcantheSon,theunique and "beloved" Son of God, who also is God's heir, incontradistinction from all His servants, even the angels, be—but GodHimself?

JesusAssimilatedtoJehovah

It has already been suggested that something of this implication isembeddedintheemploymentofthedesignation'Bridegroom'(2:19,20)of our Lord. For there is certainly involved in it not merely therepresentation,afterwardscopiouslydevelopedintheNewTestament,ofourLordastheBridegroomofthepeopleofGod,byvirtueofwhichHisChurch isHisbride (Mt22:2,25:1,Jno3:29,Rom7:4,2Cor 11:2,Eph5:29,Rev19:7,21:2,9),butalsoareminiscenceofthoseOldTestamentpassages, ofwhichHos2:19maybe taken as the type (cf.Ex20:5, Jer2:20,Ezek16:38,60,63),inwhichJehovah'srelationtoHispeopleissetforth under the figure of that of a loving husband to hiswife. In otherwords, the use of 'the Bridegroom' as a designation of our Lordassimilates His relation to the people of God to that which in the OldTestament is exclusively, even jealously, occupied by JehovahHimself,and raises thequestionwhetherJesus isnot thereby, in somesense, atanyrate,identifiedwithJehovah.Thisquestiononceclearlyraised,other

phenomena obtrude themselves at once upon our attention. We areimpelled, for example, to ask afreshwhat sense ourLordput upon thewordsofthe110thPsalm,"TheLordsaiduntomyLord,'SitThouonmyright hand till Imake Thine enemies the footstool of Thy feet,' "when(Mk.12:35et seq.)Headduced themtorebuke theJews forconceivingthe Christ as only the son of David, whereas David himself in thispassage,andthatspeakingintheSpirit,expresslycallsHimhisLord?Itis notmerely the term 'Lord'which comes into considerationhere; buttheexaltationwhichtheapplicationoftheterminthisconnectiontoHimassigns to the Messiah. The scribes would have had no difficulty inunderstanding that the Messiah should be David's "greater son," whoshould—nay, must—because Messiah, occupy a higher place in theKingdomofGod thanevenHisgreat father.Thepointof theargumentturns on the supreme exaltation of the Lordship ascribed to Him,implying something superhuman in the Messiah's personality andthereforeinHisorigin.Whoisthis'Lord'whoistositattherighthandofthe 'Lord' who is Jehovah, and to whom David himself therefore doesreverence? It is hard to believe that our Lord intended—or wasunderstood by Mark to intend—by such a designation of the Messiah,who He Himself was, to attribute to Him less than a superhuman—orshallwenotevensayadivine—dignity,byvirtueofwhichHeshouldberecognizedasrightfullyoccupying the throneofGod.Tositat therighthandofGod is toparticipate in thedivinedominion,15which,as it isagreaterthanhumandignity,wouldseemtorequireagreaterthanhumannature. To be in this senseDavid's Lord falls little if anything short ofbeingDavid'sGod.

JesusIdentifiedwithJehovah

Inestimating thesignificanceof suchapassage,wemustnotpermit tofalloutofsighttheconstantuseoftheterm'Lord'intheLXXversionofthe Old Testament for God. There it is "practically equivalent to God(θεός)andistherenderingofthesolemnnameofJehovah."Thewritersof theNew Testament, andMark among them,must be understood tohave been thoroughly familiar with this use of the term, and couldscarcelyfailtoseeinitsappellativeapplicationtoChristasuggestionofHis deity, when the implications of the context were, as we have seen

them repeatedly to be, of His superhuman dignity and nature.ParticularlywhentheyapplytoHimOldTestamentpassagesinwhichtheterm 'Lord'refers toGod,wecanscarcelysupposetheydosowithoutaconsciousness of the implications involved, and without a distinctintention to convey them.When, for example, in the opening verses ofMark,weread:"EvenasitiswritteninIsaiahtheprophet,BeholdIsendmymessengerbefore thy face,who shall prepare thyway;The voice ofone crying in thewilderness,makeye ready thewayof theLord,makeHispathsstraight,—[so]Johncame,"etc.,wecannoteasilyridourselvesoftheimpressionthattheterm'Lord'isappliedtoJesus.Theformerofthe two prophetic citations here brought together is distinctlymade torefer toChrist,byachange inthepronounsfromthe formtheybear intheoriginal—thoughthereferenceintheoriginalistoJehovah:andthisby an inevitable consequence carries with it the reference of the latteralsotoChrist.ButintheoriginalofIsaiah40:3againthereferenceoftheterm'Lord'istoJehovah.HereweseeJesusthenidentifiedbymeansofthecommonterm'Lord'withJehovah.OfcourseitmaybesaidthatitisnotJesuswhoisidentifiedwithJehovah,butthecomingofJesuswhichisidentifiedwiththe"adventofJehovah"toredeemHispeoplepredictedsofrequently intheOldTestament.22AndthisexplanationmightserveverywellintheabsenceofotherindicationsinthisGospelthatJesuswasviewed as a superhuman being. In the presence of such indications,however,—especiallysoclearan instanceas isaffordedby thesayingofJesus in 13:32—and in the presence of other suggestions of theidentificationofJesuswiththeJehovahoftheOldTestament,—suchasisafforded by His adoption of the title of 'Bridegroom,'—the naturalimplicationofjoiningthispredictiontoitsfellowinwhichwehearofthe"messenger"coming"beforetheface"ofJesus("thy")and"preparingHisway"("thy"),mustbepermittedtodeterminethequestioninfavoroftheapplicationoftheterm'Lord'toJesusHimself.AndinthatcaseitisthepersonofJesuswhichisidentifiedwithJehovah.

Mark'sMethod

It cannotbedoubted, therefore, thatMarksees inJesusa supernaturalperson,—notmerelyapersonendowedwith supernaturalpowers,butaPersoninHisownpersonalitysuperiortoangelsandthereforestanding

outsidethecategoryofcreatures.Hedoesnot,however,dwelluponthis.It emerges in his narrative, almost,wemay say, by accident. This is inaccordancewiththecharacterofhisundertaking,whichisillustratedbymany kindred phenomena.His is not theGospel of reflection: it is theGospelofaction.Thisevangelistisnotaccustomedtostoptomuseuponthe events he records or to develop all their significance. He does notattempt to give even a full record of the teaching of Jesus. He has sethimself toexhibit "thebeginningof theGospelofJesusChrist";andheexhibitsthis"beginning"inavividpictureofthewonderfulcareerofthedivineMessiah,preservingonlycasuallycertainofourLord'ssayingsassubstantial elements in his presentation of His career and onlyincidentallysuggestingwhatourLordwasindescribingwhatHedid.HisconcernistoportrayfullythesupernaturallifewhichJesuslived,atthebeginningoftheGospel,asthefountainfromwhichhasflowedthegreatmovementinwhichhewashimselfanactor.Indoingthishismethodisofapiecethroughout.Hedoesnotrecordforus, forexample, thegreatsayinginwhichJesusdeclares:"Allauthorityhasbeengivenuntomeinheavenandinearth"(Mt28:18).Hesimplyexhibitstheexerciseofthisauthority by Jesus in detail (1:22, 27, 2:10, 28, 3:27, 4:41, 5:42, etc.);leavingittothereadertoinferthegift.Similarlyhedoesnotstopinhisrapidly moving narrative to say, "Lo, here is a supernatural person":muchlessdoeshepausetodevelopthatconceptionintoitsimplications.HedoesnotevenchargehimselftocitefromJesus'lipsHisownclaimstodivine origin andHis own conception ofHis unique relationswith theFather.Whathe givesus on these themes is incidental to thenarrativeandfallsoutinitalmostbyaccident.

Mark'sSilence

Whathegivesus isample,nevertheless, tomakeitclearthatMarkwasnotignorantofthesethings.HowcanitbesaidthatMarkknowsnothingofthepreëxistenceofChristwhenherecordsJesus'constantapplicationtoHimself of the title 'Son ofMan'?How can it be said that he knowsnothing of the supernatural birth of Jesus when he records Jesus'assertion of a superangelic nature forHimself?How should one aboveangelsenterintothesphereofhumanlifeexceptbyasupernaturalbirth?UnlessweconsideritmorecrediblethatMarkclaimedforHimaneven

more supernatural descent as an adult from heaven?Mark, in a word,leaves the exposition of these things to others. It isMatthew andLukewhocompletethestorybytherecordofthesupernaturalbirth.ItisJohnwhodevelopsalltheimplicationsofJesus'preexistence.ButallthatthesebringtoexpressionintheirfulleraccountsisimpliedinMark'snarrative,in which he incidentally tells us of the dignity of that person's naturewhosewonderful careerhehasundertaken todescribe.And there isnoreasonwhywe should suppose him ignorant of the implications of hisown facts, especially when his purpose in writing did not call for theexplicationof these implications. In aword, it seems clear enough thatthere liesbehind thenarrativeofMarknotanundevelopedchristology,butonlyanunexpressedone.Togiveexpressiontohischristologydidnotliewithinthelimitsofthetaskhehadundertaken.

Mark'sConceptionoftheMessiahship

WemustguardourselvesespeciallyfromimaginingthattherecognitionfoundinMarkofthedeityofJesusisinanywaycloudedbytheemphasishe places on the Messiahship of Jesus as the fundamental fact of Hismission.WehavealreadyhadoccasiontopointoutthattheMessiahshipand the deity of Jesus are notmutually exclusive conceptions.Even onthe purely Jewish plane it was possible to conceive the Messiah asupernatural person: and He is so conceived, for example, in theSimilitudesofEnochandtheVisionsof4Esdras.Therecognitionofthedeity of Jesus byMark—and by Jesus as reported byMark—in nowayinterfereswiththecentralplacetakeninMark'snarrative—andinJesus'thoughtofHimselfasreportedbyMark,—byourLord'sMessianicclaims.ItonlydeepenstheconceptionoftheMessiahshipwhichispresentedasthe conception which Jesus fulfilled. The result is merely that theChristianmovementbecomes,fromthepointofviewofthehistoryoftheMessianicideal,anattempttoworkachangeinthecurrentconceptionoftheMessianicoffice—achangewhich involved itsbroadeningtocoverawider area of Old Testament prophecy and its deepening to embodyspiritual rather than prevailingly external aspirations.We have alreadynotedthatourLord'spreferenceforHisself-designationofthetitle'SonofMan'overothermorecurrent titles is indicatoryofHisenlargedandenrichedconceptionoftheMessiahship:andwehavealreadyhintedthat

even the title 'Son of Man' only partly suggests the contents of Hisconception, elements of which found their adumbration in yet otherportionsofOldTestamentprediction.Among these further elementsofOld Testament prophecy taken up into and given validity in Hisconception,thereareespeciallynotablethosethatportraytheRighteousServantofJehovah,culminating inthe53dchapterofIsaiah,andthosethat set forth what has appropriately been called the "Advent ofJehovah,"—the promises, in a word, of the intervention of JehovahHimselftoredeemHispeople.ItmaybeveryeasytodolessthanjusticetotheMessianicidealcurrentamongtheJewishpeopleatthetimeofourLord,centeringas itdidinthehopeoftheestablishmentofanexternalkingdom endowed with the irresistible might of God. Of course thisKingdom of God was conceived as a kingdom of righteousness; and itmaybepossible to show thatmost of the items that enter into theOldTestamentpredictions, including thatof redemption fromsin,werenotwhollyneglectedinoneoranotherformofitsexpression.Thedifferencebetween it and the Messianic conception developed by Jesus and Hisfollowers may thus almost be represented as merely a difference ofemphasis. But a difference of emphasis may be far from a smalldifference;andtheeffectofthedifferenceinthiscasecertainlyamountedto a difference in kind. This new Messianic ideal is unmistakablyapparent in Mark's conception and in the conception of Jesus asrepresented by Mark's record of His sayings. We can trace in Mark'srecord the influence of factors recalling the Righteous Servant (10:45,9:12, 14:21, 1:24)and theDivineRedeemer (1:3)aswellas theDanielicSonofMan.Butthesefactorsattainfullerexpressionintherecordsoftheother evangelists. So that here too we find them bringing out intoclearness what already lies inMark rather than adding anything reallynewtohispresentation.

THEDESIGNATIONSOFOURLORDINMATTHEW

WhenweturntoMatthew'sGospel,andobservethedesignationsappliedinittoourLord,whatchieflystrikesusisthat itrunsinthismatteronpreciselythesamelineswithMark,withonlythisdifference,thatwhatismoreorlesslatentinMarkbecomesfullypatentinMatthew.

TheNarrativeName,andExceptions

Thenarrative nameof ourLord is inMatthew (as inMark) the simple'Jesus';which(asinMark)neveroccursasotherthanthenarrativename,withthesingleexception(whichisnoexception)thatinannouncingHisbirththeAngeloftheLordisreportedascommanding,"ThoushaltcallHisnameJesus" (1:21).AndnotonlydoesMatthew, likeMark, reservethe simple 'Jesus' for his narrative name, but, also like Mark, hepracticallyconfineshimselftoit.Theonlyoutstandingexceptionstothisare that Matthew sets (like Mark) the solemn Messianic designation'Jesus Christ' in the heading of his Gospel (1:1), and follows this up(unlikeMark)byrepeatingitbothattheopeningofhisformalnarrative(1:18), andat an importantnewstartingpoint inhisnarrative (16:21v.r.);andthatheemploysacertain fulnessofdesignationthroughout theformalgenealogywithwhich theGospelbegins,bywhichheplaces the'Jesus'ofwhomheistospeakclearlybeforethereadersandclearlyastheMessiah."Thebookof thegenerationofJesusChrist, theSonofDavid,the Son ofAbraham" (1:1) is the phraseologywithwhich he opens thisgenealogy: he closes itwith thewords, "Mary ofwhomwasborn Jesussurnamed Christ" (1:16); and in the summary which he adjoins hecalculates the generations "unto Christ" (1:17)—a designation whichmeetsusagainat11:2.ThusMatthewinbeginninghisGospel leavesnoroomfordoubtingthathepurposestopresentthestoryofJesus' lifeasthelifeoftheMessiah;butassoonashehasgiventhatformalemphaticenunciation, he takes up thenarrativewith the simple 'Jesus' andwithonly the twobreaks at 11:2 and 16:21 v. r. carries it onwith the simple'Jesus' to theend.Thesimple 'Jesus'occurs thus inhisnarrativeabout139 times,and is replacedonlyby thecompound 'JesusChrist' (1:1, 18,

16:21;v.r.,cf.1:16),andbythesimple'Christ'(1:17,11:2,cf.1:16),each,atmostthreetimes.

'Christ'asaProperName

Inthissparinguseof 'JesusChrist'and'Christ'byMatthewhimself,theterm'Christ'appearstobeemployednotasanappellativebutasapropername.In2:4,nodoubt,"theChrist" isusedinthegeneralsenseof"theMessiah":Heroddidnot inquireof "the chiefpriests and scribesof thepeople" where Jesus was born, but where, according to prophecy, "theMessiah should be born": but just on that account there is no directreference to Jesus at all here. The commentators are very generallyinclinedtolookupontheuseof"theChrist"in11:2asasimilarinstance,as if what John had heard in the prison was that "the works of theMessiah"—such works, that is, as were expected of theMessiah,—wereoccurringabroad;andaccordinglysentandaskedJesuswhetherHewasindeed "the ComingOne." Attractive as this explanation is, however, itscarcely seems to fit in with the connection. Jesus' exhibition of Hisworkstothemessengerswouldhardlyinthesecircumstanceshavebeenan answer to John's inquiry, so much as rather a refusal to give ananswer. And the connection of the pronoun "Him" in verse 3 with itsantecedent"Christ"ofverse2appearstorequireustotakethattermnotasageneralbutasaparticularone:Johnsurelyisnotsaidtohavesentto"theMessiah" and inquired of "Him" whetherHe was theMessiah. Inotherwords if "theChrist" (ὁΧριστὸς) canbe takenas apropername,designatingJesus,surelyitmustbesotakenhere.AndthatitcanbesotakenandissotakenbyMatthew,itsusein1:17appearstoshow.

"TheChrist" in1:17alsohassometimes, tobesure,beenunderstoodasthegeneralterm,"theMessiah."Butthisthrowsitoutofrangenotonlywiththeothernamesinthissimplesummary,whereinthecorrespondingterms in the accounting are most simply given—Abraham, David, theBabylonian deportation; but also with the precedent phrase, 'Jesus,surnamedChrist,'ofverse16towhichitrefersbackandwhichittakesupandrepeats.Forthatthe'Christ'inthisphraseisasimplepropernameisnotonlysuggestedbytheabsenceofthearticlewithit,butisindicatedbythecurrencyofasimilarmodeofspeechinthecaseof like instancesofdouble names. It appears then that the addition, "surnamedChrist," is

intendedinthispassageasaformalidentificationoftheparticularJesusin question; and the employment of "Christ" instead of "Jesus" in thesubsequentsummary(verse17)isperhapsbestexplainedintheinterestsof this clearness of designation, the article accompanying it having theforceof"theaforesaidChrist."

WhysoSeldomUsed

Matthewthusnotifiesusatthebeginningofhisnarrativethatthe'Jesus'withwhomheistodealhasanothername,towit, 'Christ'(1:16),andsopreparesthewayforanoccasionalemploymentofthisothername(1:17,11:2).Ouronlysurpriseisthatheemploysitsoseldom.Theaccounttobegivenof this isprobably that,afterall, in thecircles forwhichMatthewwrote, this 'Jesus' had become so unapproachably the only 'Jesus' whowould come to mind on the mention of the name, that the moredistinctivesurname'Christ'wasnotneededinspeakingofHimtosecureHis identification; it isemployed, therefore,onlywhensomesuggestionof His Messiahship was intruding itself upon the mind, as is the casecertainlyat11:2;andnodoubtalsoat1:17;andwemayaddequallysoin1:1 (cf. "the Son of David"), 1:18 and 16:21 (cf. v. 20), where thecompound 'JesusChrist'occurs.This is torecognize,ofcourse, that thesurname 'Christ' was the name of dignity as distinguished from thesimple name of designation, and preserved, even when employed as apropername, its implicationsofMessiahship;but this is inanyeventamatterofcourseandshouldnotbeconfoundedwith thequestionof itsappellativeuse.Theemploymentoftheterm'Christ'asapropernameofJesus so far from losing sightofHis claim toMessiahship, accordingly,bearswitnesstosocompleteanacquiescenceinthatclaimonthepartofthecommunityinwhichthisusageofthetermwascurrent,thattheveryofficial designation was conceived as His peculiar property and Hisproper designation (cf. 27:17–22). The sparingness of Matthew'semployment of it, on the other hand, manifests how little our Lord'sdignity as Messiah needed to be insisted on in the circles for whichMatthewwrote, andhow fully the simple name 'Jesus' could convey tothereadersallthatwaswrappedupinHispersonality.

Jesus'PopularName

Besides this sparing use of 'Jesus Christ' and 'Christ,' then, MatthewmakesuseinhisownpersonofnootherdesignationinspeakingofourLordthanthesimple'Jesus,'althoughonthreeoccasionsheadduceswithreferencetoHimdesignationswhichhefindsintheprophets:'Immanuel'(1:23),'Lord'(3:3),'theNazarene'(2:23).Theimplicationsofthefirsttwoofthesewemayleaveforlaterreference.ThelastbearswitnesstothefactthatJesuswascurrentlyknownbyHiscontemporariesas"aNazarene,"thatistosay,thatHisordinarydistinctivedesignationamongthepeoplein the midst of whom His ministry was passed would be, 'Jesus theNazarene,'asthemaid,indeed,isrecordedtohavespokenofHiminthecourtofthehighpriest(26:71).Thisexactdesignation,however,doesnotelsewhereoccurinMatthew'snarrative,althoughitsbroaderequivalent,fromthestandpointofaJerusalemite,'JesustheGalilean,'isrepresentedasemployedbythecompanionmaid(26:69),andthemultitudeseekingtodoHimhonorisrepresentedasdescribingHimwithgreatfulnessas"theprophetJesusfromNazarethofGalilee"(21:11).Thesimple'Jesus,'ashasbeenalreadypointedout,He isnotrepresentedascalled,exceptby the angel announcing His birth (1:21), but Pilate is quoted asdesignatingHimbyHisfullname,"Jesus,surnamedChrist"(27:17,22),andwearetoldthattherewassetoverHisheadonthecrossthelegend,"This is Jesus, the King of the Jews" (27:37). In both instances theadjunct is, no doubt, scornful, though it is less obviously so on Pilate'slipsthanintheinscriptiononthecross.

EarlyUseof'Christ'asaProperName

The employment by Pilate of the full name, 'Jesus, surnamed Christ,'seems to bearwitness that already before Jesus' deathHehadbeen soprevailinglyspokenofastheMessiahthatthisofficialdesignationmightseem to have become part ofHis proper name. The alternatives are tosupposethatMatthewdoesnotreporttheexactwordsofPilate,whomaybe thought rather to have used the phrase appearing in the parallelpassage inMark—"theKingof theJews";orelse that thetermChrist isemployedhere in its fullofficial senseasanappellative,—"Jesuswho iscommonly called the Christ."10 The former, however, is a purelygratuitous suggestion; Mark and Matthew do not contradict butsupplementoneanother.Andthelatterseemsnotquiteconsonantwith

thelanguageused.Thereseems,moreover,reallynoreasonwhywemaynotsupposePilatetohavecaughttheterm"Christ"asappliedtoJesus,and to have understood it as a proper name, especially when we areexpressly told by Luke (23:2) that the accusation which was lodgedagainstHimtooktheformthatHehadproclaimedHimselftobe"Christ,aKing."Nor,indeed,doesthereseemanycompellingreasonwhyitmaynot already have been employed of Jesus by His followers sufficientlyconstantlytohavebeguntobeattachedtoHimasatleastaquasi-propername(cf.11:2).Onheathenears,asweknow,theterm"Christ"wasapttostrike as apropername; and, in any event, the title 'Christ' began veryearly,atleastinChristiancircles,tobeappropriatedtoJesusinmuchtheconnotationof a propername, becausemendidnotwait forHis deathbeforetheybegantohopeitwouldbeHewhoshoulddeliverIsrael.12Ifwemaysuppose,asinanyeventwemust,thatevenasapropername,oras a quasi-proper name, there clung to the term 'Christ' a sense of itshonorificcharacter, itwouldappearquitepossiblethatPilate,"knowingthat itwasfromenvythattheyhaddeliveredHimup,"meantbygivingJesusHisfullandevidentlyhonorificname,toplayuponthemultitude,that they should demand "Jesus, surnamed Christ," rather thanBarabbas.

SimpleHonorificAddresses

LikeMark, Matthew represents Jesus as customarily addressed by thesimple current honorific titles. The actual Aramaic form, 'Rabbi,'however, oddly enough, is retained only in repeating the only tworemarks recorded inMatthew'snarrativeasmade to theLordbyJudasIscariot (26:25, 49). Its usual Greek rendering, 'Teacher' (διδάσχαλε),alsotakesarelativelyinferiorplaceinMatthew,beinglargelysupplantedby themore Greek 'Lord' (κύριε), perhaps as the representative of theAramaic Mâri. A tendency seems even observable to reserve 'Teacher'(διδάσκαλε)forthenon-committal,respectfuladdressofthosewhowerenot followers of Jesus (12:38, 22:16, 24, 36, 9:11, 17:24, cf. 19:16). It isemployed, however, in the case of a scribe who came to Jesus anddeclared his purpose to becomeHis constant follower (8:19, cf. 19:16).AndourLordplaces itonHisdisciples' lipswhenHe instructs themto"gointothecitytosuchaman,andsayuntohim,TheTeachersays,My

time is at hand; I keep the passover with my disciples at thy house"(26:18). Similarly in didactic statements He refers (10:24, 25) to therelation between Him and His followers as well under the terms of'Teacher and disciple' as under those of 'servant and Lord,' 'theHouseholderand thehousehold': and forbidsHis followers tobe called'Rabbi,' becauseHe alone is their 'Teacher,' as pointedly asHe forbidsthemtobecalled 'guides,'becauseHe, theChrist, alone is their 'Guide'(23:7–10).

MasteroftheHouse

Twonew termsarebroughtbeforeus in these last-quoteddeclarations,—'House-master' (οἰκοδεσπότης, Mt 10:25, 24:43; cf. Mk 13:25) and'Guide' (καθηγητής, 23:10 only in N. T.); both of which seem to havehigher implications than 'Teacher' (διδάσκαλος), although both areplacedintheclosestconnectionwithitasitspracticalsynonyms(10:24,25, 23:8, 10). 'Guide' (καθηγητής) occurs indeed nowhere else: andwecansayofitonlythatourLordchoseitasoneofthedesignationswhichexpressed His exclusive relation to His disciples. He was their onlyTeacher, Guide, Master and Lord. But 'House-master' (οἰκοδεσπότης)seems tohavebeen rathera favorite figurativeexpressionwithHim, tosetforthHisrelationtoHisdisciples,whetherindidacticorinparabolicstatement.InoneofHisparables,indeed,itisnotHewhoisthe'House-master'(οἰκοδεσπότης),butGod,whileHeisGod'sSonandHeir(21:33et seq.) in distinction from the slaves which make up otherwise thehousehold;andtheuniquenessofHisrelationtotheFatherasHisSonisthrown up into the strongest light, and is further emphasized in theapplication,where Jesus speaks ofHimself as the chief cornerstone onwhich the Kingdom of God is built (verse 42) and on their relation towhich thedestiniesofmenhang (verse44). Inotherparables,however(13:24et seq.‚ 20:1 et seq.), the 'House-master' (οἰκοδεσπότης) is JesusHimself,andthefunctionsthatareascribedtoHimassuchhaveespecialreferencetothedestiniesofmen.Asthe 'House-master' (οἰκοδεσπότης)HedistributestomentherewardsoftheirlaborsinaccordancewithHisownwill,doingasHewillwithHisown(20:15):andbearswiththetaresinthefieldinwhichHehassowngoodcornuntilthetimeofharvestshallcome,whenHewill send the reapers—whoare "HisAngels"—to gather

themoutandburnthemwithfire(13:24etseq.,36etseq.).Inaword,tothe 'House-master' (οἰκοδεσπότης) who is expressly pressly identifiedwith'theSonofMan'(13:38)theinalienablydivinefunctionofJudgeoftheearthisassigned,anditiswiththishighconnotationinHismindthatHe speaks of Himself as such, over against His "domestics," when HewarnsthemnottoexpectbettertreatmentatthehandsofmenthanHehasreceived(10:25).TheimplicationsofsovereigntyinherentinthetermrunupinitsapplicationthereforeintothesovereigntyofGod:as'House-master'(οἰκοδεσπότης),JesusispicturedasourdivineLord.

'Lord'asanAddress

If'Teacher'(διδάσκαλε)somewhatsinksinvalueasanhonorificformofaddress inMatthewascomparedwithMark, itsmoreGreekequivalent,'Lord' (κύριε), on the other hand, is more frequently and variouslyemployed byMatthew than byMark. It appears upon the lips alike ofapplicantsforourLord'smercy,whetherJewish(8:2,9:28,17:15,20:30,31,33)orheathen(8:6,8,15:22,25,15:27),andofHisdisciples(8:21,25,14:28,30,16:22,17:4,18:21,26:22);butneveronthelipsofonewhoisnotinsomesenseafollowerofJesus,eitherassuitorforHisgraceorasHis professed disciple. 'Lord' (κύριε) is accordingly a higher mode ofdesignationinMatthewthan'Teacher'(διδάσκαλε),andimportsacloserbond of connection with Jesus and a more profound and operativerecognitionofHisauthority.Itoccurssometwenty-onetimesasaformofaddresstoJesus,and,besidesonceasanaddresstoGod(11:25),onlyasingletime(toPilate,27:63),outsideofparables,asanaddresstoanyoneelse. Even in its parabolic use, indeed, its reference is always (except21:30only)eithertoGod(18:25,[26],27,31,18:32,34,21:42,cf.6:24)ortoJesuspicturedinpositionsofsupremeauthority([13:27];20:8,24:45,46, 48, 50, 25:[11], [11], 18, 19, [20], 21, 21, [22], 23, 23, [24], 26, cf.10:24, 25). It cannot be said, of course, that this supreme authority isexplicit in every case of the actual use of the term: in a number ofinstancesthetermmayexpressnomorethanhighrespectandageneralrecognition of authority, and in several instances it is represented inparallelpassages in theotherevangelistsbyoneoranotherof its lowersynonyms.Butitstendencyisdistinctlyupwards;andnoreadercanfailtocatchaveryhighnoteinitsrepeateduse,orcanfeelsurprisewhenitis

observed to be connected usually with at least Messianic implications(15:22,20:30,31,7:21,21)and is foundoccasionally tobesuggestiveofsomethingevenhigher (25:37,44).Norwillhebesurprised toperceivethatinitshighestconnotationitappearscharacteristicallyuponthelipsof our Lord Himself, who represents men as seeking to enter theKingdom of Heaven by crying to Him 'Lord, Lord' (7:21), and asaddressingHimontheDayofJudgmentasHesitsKingonthethroneofHisglorybytheappropriatetitleof'Lord'(25:37,44).Inthelattercase,of course,nothing is lackingof recognitionofdivinemajesty itself: this'Lord'isnotonly"theSonofMan"comeinHisglorywithalltheangelswithHim(verse31),'theKing'(verses34,40)seatedonthethroneofHismajesty (verse 31), but 'the Judge of all the earth,' distributing to eachmanhiseternaldestiny,accordingtotherelationinwhicheachstandstoHisownperson.

'Lord'asanAppellation

ItisclearenoughfrompassageslikethesethatourLordisrepresentedbyMatthew as conceiving His relation to His followers as very properlyexpressedbytheterm'Lord.'ButtheappellativeuseofthetermofJesusis nevertheless not common inMatthew. Nomore inMatthew than inMarkisJesusspokenofbytheevangelisthimselforrepresentedasfreelyspokenofbyothersas 'theLord.'Even in thewordsof theangelat thetomb, "Come, see the placewhere the Lord lay" (28:6), thewords "theLord" are probably not genuine. Nevertheless, on the lips of our LordHimself the appellative use of the termdoes occur, and that in no lowsignificance.HedeclaresHimselfas 'theSonofMan' tobe 'Lordof theSabbath' (12:8).He instructsHisdisciples in requisitioning theassandher colt forHis formal entry into Jerusalem to reply to all challengerswith the simple words, "The Lord has need of them" (21:3),—and thenarrator connects this instruction with the fulfillment of the prophecythattheKingofZionshallenterit"ridinguponanass,anduponacolt,thefoalofanass"(verse5).HewarnsHisfollowersthatastheyknownotonwhat day 'their Lord' cometh (24:42),—that Lordwho is the Son ofMan,whoistocomeingloryforthejudgmentoftheworld(verse44),—they are to preserve a constant attitude of watchfulness. And inaccordancewiththesedeclarationsHeexplainsthatthoughDavid'sson,

He,theChrist,ismuchmorethanDavid'sson,—asDavidhimselfintheSpiritrecognized,—evenDavid's'Lord'(22:43–45),andthat,aLordwhositson therighthandof theLordwho isJehovah. It is in fullharmonywiththesedefinitionsofHisLordshipcitedfromtheLord'sownlipsthatthe evangelist himself (3:3) applies to Him the term 'Lord' in thatprophecyof Isaiah, inwhichthere ispromised"avoiceofonecrying inthe wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord," Jehovah; thusidentifying His coming with the promised advent of Jehovah and HispersonwithJehovahwhowastocome.Howeverlittlethereforethemereformofaddress'Lord'asappliedtoChristmaynecessarilyimplyinHima superhumandignity, it is clear that the actual Lordship accredited toHim by Matthew, and by Himself as reported by Matthew, stretchesaboveallhumanclaims.

MessianicTitles

Wecannotfailtohaveobserved,aswehavecontemplatedthesehonorificaddressesandtitlesaccordedtoourLord,thatitisHisMessianicdignitywhichproximatelyunderlies themall.Andweshallbepreparedby thisobservationtonotethatwithMatthewaswithMark,thepresentationofHim as the promisedMessiah belongs among the primary ends of theevangelist, and that in the process of this presentation a considerablenumberofMessianictitlesareascribedtoHim.Matthewbearswitness,likeMark,tobesure,thatthepeoplerecognizedinHimaprophet(21:46,21:11, 16:14) and that Jesus Himself was far from repelling thisattribution(13:57);butlittlestressislaiduponthisanditmaybeeasilyunderstood that prophetic powers were conceived by Matthew, as byMark,tobeincludedinHisMessianicendowment.Wehaveseenthathehimself calls Jesus in the formal opening of his Gospel (1:1), at thebeginning of the narrative proper (1:18), and at the new beginningmarkedbyHisopenproclamationofHisdignity (16:21),by thesolemncompound name of 'Jesus Christ,' thus carefully announcing HisMessianicclaimsasgoverningtheveryframe-workofhisGospel.Andwehaveseenhimfollowingupthisceremonioususeofthefullname'JesusChrist' in the opening of the Gospel, by explaining the term 'Christ,'whichformsapartofit,asasurnameofJesusduetotherecognitionofHim as the Messiah (1:16), on which account He forms the natural

terminationof thegenealogybegun inAbraham(1:17);andby implyingthat His works marked Him out as the Messiah (11:2), so that theimprisoned John, hearing of them, was impelled to inquire into theirmeaning.HowwidespreadtheknowledgeofHisMessianicclaimswasiswitnessedbytheadjurationofthehighpriestatHistrial,"Iadjuretheebythe livingGod,thatthoutelluswhetherthoubetheChrist"(26:63),andthebittersportHisjudgesmadeofHim(26:68)astheysmoteHimanddemanded,"Tellus,Christ,whosmotethee."

OurLord'sOwnMessianicClaims

Evidently our Lord's claim to the Messianic dignity is intended to berepresented as having been clear, constant and emphatic: so a part ofHimself in the popular understanding that His heathen judge alreadyconceivedthetitle 'Christ'asonlyHissurname(27:17,22,cf.11:2).AndindeedMatthew's narrative leaves us in no uncertainty that Jesus hadclaimed this title for Himself from His earliest ministry. When theBaptist, having heard of theworksHe did, sent fromhis prison to askHim whether He was 'the Coming One' (11:3), He replied with nodoubtfulindicationthatHewasindeed'theChrist.'WhenPeter(16:16)inhisgreatconfessiondeclaredHim"theChrist,theSonofthelivingGod,"Jesuspronounced thedeclarationarevelation fromheaven(16:17),andonlychargedHisdisciplesnotasyet toreveal the fact thatHewas"theChrist" (16:20). Itwas evidently to elevate the conception current as tothe Christ whomHe represented Himself as being that He put to Hisopponents the searching question, how could the Christ be merelyDavid'sson,whenDavidhimself,intheSpirit,spokeofHimashisLord—aLordseatedontherighthandofGod(22:41–46).BecauseHewas,as'theChrist,'thesole'Guide'toHisfollowers,Hewouldnothavethembecalledguides, evenas they shouldputnoearthlyperson in theplaceoftheironeFather inheaven(23:10).Thename 'theChrist,'Heexplained(24:5),wasexclusivelyHisown,anditwouldbeausurpation,therefore,whichcouldonlyleadastray,ifothersshouldcome"inthestrengthofHisname,saying"—thereforefalsely,—"IamtheChrist."WhenthehighpriestadjuredHimtotellwhetherHewere"theChrist,theSonofGod"(26:63)He, accordingly, solemnly accepted the title and explained that inaccepting itHe took it in its highest connotation (26:64)—in so high a

connotation indeed thatHis judgespromptly pronouncedwhatHehadspokenblasphemy.Itis,therefore,onlyinimitationofJesusHimselfthatMatthewtreatsthedesignationof'theChrist'asJesus'peculiarpropertyand—thoughofcoursewithoutemptyingitofitsloftyconnotation—dealswithitasHispropernamebywhichHemightbecurrentlydesignated.

TheSimpleMessianicDesignations

Theascriptionofthetitle'Christ'toJesuscarrieswithitnaturallycertainotherMessianic titleswhich are involved in it. The simplest of these is'theComingOne,'basedapparentlyonMal3:1orPs40:7or118:26,anditselfthebasisofacustomarymethodofpregnantspeechoftheMessiahas "coming."Thisdesignation is applied toJesus in thequestionof theBaptist—"Art thou theComingOne, ordowe look for another?" (11:3),whichMatthewrecordsashavingbeencalledoutbythereportbroughtthe Baptist of the "works of Christ"—using the name of 'Christ' hereinsteadof'Jesus,'contrarytohiscustom,apparentlyundertheinfluenceof this train of thought. And the evangelist records in accordancewiththis designation a series of sayings of our Lord in which He speakspregnantlyofhaving"come"(5:17,9:13,10:34,20:28,cf.10:40),aswellascertainpopularascriptionstothesameeffect(21:9,23:39).Evenmoredirectly connectedwith the title, 'Christ,'however, is thatof'King':andwefindMatthewaccordinglyrecordingtheascriptionofthattitletoHimintheheathenformof'theKingoftheJews,'alikebythewisemenoftheeastwhocametoworshipHiminHiscradle(2:2)andbytheRomangovernoratHis trial (27:11, cf.27:37)and themockingsoldiery(27:29).JesusacceptsitatPilate'shands,despitetheheathenformwhichhegives it,andwhichthepriests(27:42)correcttothemoreacceptable'King of Israel.' Of more significance is Matthew's application to Him,whenHe entered Jerusalem in triumph, of the prophecy of Zechariah,"Behold thy King cometh unto thee," etc. (21:5). But, of course, thedeepestsignificanceofallattachestoourLord'sownuseofthetitle'King'with reference toHimself in the great judgment sceneofMt25:31 seq.(verses34and40).Here, callingHimself the 'SonofMan,'Heascendsthe throne of His glory, and as King, not of Israel, but of all flesh,dispensestheirfinalawardstoall,accordingtotheirseveralrelationstoHimself.SuchaKingcertainlywassomethingmorethana'SonofDavid'

(22:43 seq.). But that designation also belongs to Him as the 'Christ,'God'sAnointed,whowastooccupytheDavidicthrone,andaccordinglyitis represented that the sight of His Messianic works led Him to berecognizednomoreas'theComingOne'(11:3)thanas'theSonofDavid'(12:23,9:27,15:22,20:30,31,21:9,45,cf.1:1)—andthatHebynomeansrefusedtheascription(esp.21:9,15).

Meaningofthe'SonofGod'

Obviously,however,nolowertitlewouldsuitthestateofthisMessianicKingthanthathighestconceivableone, 'theSonofGod.'Itislikelythatthereweresupernatural implications in themindof theevangelistevenwhenheappliedtothepersecutedinfantJesusthepropheticsummaryofIsraelitish history, "Out of Egypt did I callmy Son" (2:15), although atfirst sight we might seem to be moving here in the atmosphere of amerelyofficial sonship. In everyother instanceof the adductionof thisdesignation in Matthew these supernatural implications are thrustprominently forward. The very point of Satan's temptation of our Lordwas thatHe should exercise the supernatural powerswhichnecessarilybelonged to Him—if He were indeed really 'a Son of God' (4:3, 6, cf.8:29).SimilarlytheconfessionwrungfromthedisciplesbythespectacleofHiscontroloftheforcesofnature,emphasizesasstronglyaspossiblethesupernaturalnessoftheBeingwhoiscapableofsuchworks(14:33).InPeter'sgreatconfession(16:16)theadjunctionof'theSonoftheLivingGod' to thesimple 'Christ' isnomorewithout itshighsignificance thanthesimilaradjunctioninthehighpriest'sadjuration(26:63)of 'theSonof God' to the simple 'Christ.' In both instances the intention is to gobeyond themere designation of our Lord as theMessiah, and to bringintoreliefthesupernaturalnessofHisperson.EvenwhentheJewsrailedatHimasHehungonthecrossthatHehadproclaimedHimself'theSonofGod'(27:40,43),thepointoftheirscoffwasthatHehadlaidclaimtoasupernatural relationship which implied supernatural powers.Nevertheless, thedeepest connotationsof theSonship toGodcomeoutmost plainly in connection with the less technical forms of thisdesignation.Attheapexofthesestands,ofcourse,thedoubleattestationwhich,itisrecorded,wasgiventoJesusfromheavenitselfasGod's'Son,'whobecauseHis 'Son'was alsoHis 'Beloved,'His chosen, inwhomHe

waswellpleased (3:17, 17:5).Butquiteworthyof aplaceby the sideofthese supreme attestations is the allusion which our Lord makes toHimselfinoneortwoofHisparables,asthe'Son,'indifferentiationfromall "servants" of God whatsoever; as God's Son and uniqueHeir, who,despitewhat those towhomHewas sent shoulddountoHim, shallbeconstitutedbyGod'smarvelousworking the stonewhich is theheadofthe corner (21:37–38); and as the King's Son, all those unworthy of aplaceatwhosemarriagefeastshouldhavetheirpartintheouterdarknesswhere is the weeping and the gnashing of teeth (22:2). This 'Son'obviouslyisnolessinoriginandnaturedivinethaninHisworkingintheearththeLordofthedestiniesofmen.

CulminatingAssertions

Butperhapsthemostilluminatingpassagesinthisreferenceremainyettobeadduced.ThesearethosethreeremarkableutterancesofourLordwhichare recordedat24:36, 11:27and28:18–20.The first of thesewehavealreadyreadymetwith inMark.It is thatdifficultsaying inwhichourLorddeclaresthat"concerningthedayandhour"ofHiscoming"nooneknows,noteventheangelsofheaven,noryettheSon,buttheFatheronly"—which differs from the parallel inMark significantly only in theadded emphasis placed on the exclusion of all others whatsoever fromthis knowledge by the adjunction to the exception of the Father of theemphatic word "only." The elevation of the Son here to superangelicdignity, as the climax of the enumeration of those excluded from theknowledgeinquestionisreachedinHisname—nooneatall,noteventheangelsofheaven,noryeteventheSon—iswhatitparticularlyconcernsustonote,implyingasitdoestheexaltationoftheSonabovethehighestofcreatures, "the angels of heaven." The second of the utterances inquestion (11:27) is in some respects themost remarkable in the wholecompassof the fourGospels.EventheGospelofJohncontainsnothingwhichpenetratesmoredeeplyintotheessentialrelationoftheSontotheFather.Indeed,asDr.Sandaysuggests,"wemightdescribetheteachingoftheFourthGospel"asonly"aseriesofvariationsupontheonetheme,which has its classical expression in" this "verse of the Synoptics": "AllthingsweredelivereduntomebymyFather;andnooneknoweththeSonsavetheFather;neitherdothanyknowtheFathersavetheSon,andheto

whomsoevertheSonwillethtorevealHim."Thepointoftheutterance,itwill be seen, is that in it our Lord asserts for Himself a relation ofpracticalequalitywiththeFather,heredescribedinmostelevatedtermsasthe"Lordofheavenandearth"(v.25).AstheFatheronlycanknowtheSon, so the Son only can know the Father: and others may know theFatheronlyasHe isrevealedbytheSon.That is,notmerely is theSonthe exclusive revealer ofGod, but themutual knowledge of Father andSonisputonwhatseemsverymuchapar.TheSoncanbeknownonlybythe Father in all that He is, as if His being were infinite and as suchinscrutabletothefiniteintelligence;andHisknowledgealone—againasifHewereinfiniteinHisattributes—iscompetenttocompassthedepthsof the Father's infinite being.Hewho holds this relation to the Fathercannot conceivably be a creature, and we ought not to be surprised,therefore, to find in the third of these great utterances (28:18–20) theSonmadeopenlyasharerwiththeFather(andwiththeHolySpirit) inthe singleName ofGod: "All authoritywas givenme in heaven and inearth. Go ye therefore andmake disciples of all the nations, baptizingthemintotheNameoftheFatherandoftheSonandoftheHolySpirit;teachingthemtoobserveallthingswhatsoeverIcommandedyou;andlo,I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Having in theformer passage (11:27) declared His intercommunion with the Father,whoistheLordofheavenandearth,JesushereassertsthatallauthorityinheavenandearthhasbeengivenHim,andassertsaplaceforHimselfin the precincts of the ineffableName.Here is a claimnotmerely to adeityinsomesenseequivalenttoandasitwerealongsideofthedeityoftheFather, but to a deity in somehigh sense onewith the deity of theFather.

LessCommonMessianicTitles

Alongside of these more usual Messianic titles, there are found inMatthew,asinMark,tracesoftheuseofothersofourLord,apparentlyless current among the people. In Matthew, too, for example, we findJesusrepresentedasdesignatedfromheaven'theBeloved,'whohasbeenchosenoutbyGodasHis representative (3:17, 17:5), andas identifyingHimself with the mysterious Shepherd of Zechariah who is Jehovah'sfellow(26:31).AndwefindHimherealsonotonlydesignatingHimself

the 'Bridegroom' (9:15), but elucidating the designation in a couple ofstrikingparables(theparableoftheTenVirgins,25:1seq.,5,6,10:andtheparableoftheMarriageoftheKing'sSon,22:1seq.),thesuggestionofwhichisthatthefateofmenhangsontheirrelationtoHim;thatmenalllivewithreferencetoHim;anditisHethatopensandshutsthedooroflife for them. The high significance of these designations as applied toJesushasalreadybeenpointedoutwhenwemetwiththeminMark.Itismoreimportant,therefore,toobserveherethattheimplicitreferenceinMarktothe'ServantofJehovah'asadesignationofJesusismadeexplicitinMatthewby the formal application toHimof theprophecy in Isaiah40:1seq.(12:18seq.)asadivinepredictionoftheunostentatiousnessofHis ministry, in its striking contrast with the expectations which hadbeen formed of the Messiah's work on the basis of the predictionscenteringaroundtheAnointedKing,theSonofDavid.

The'SonofMan'

ThisunostentatiousnessenteredalsointotheconceptionoftheMessiahexpressedinourLord'sfavoriteself-designationof'SonofMan,'—whichin Matthew's representation, too, appears as the standing MessianicdesignationwhichourLordemploysofHimself,occurringassuchaboutthirtytimes.TheMessianiccharacterofthisdesignationisplacedbeyondalldoubtby its interchangewithotherMessianic titles (16:13,cf.verses16,20,17:9,cf.verse10[theforerunnerofMessiah];24:27,cf.verse23,26:64,cf.verse63):andtheconceptionsuggestedbyitoftheMessiah,asjudged by the substance of the passages in which it occurs, differs innothing from that derived from the passages inMark except that it isilluminated bymore details. Here, too, we learn that the 'Son ofMan'came tominister,—ormore specifically for the purpose of redemption:"theSonofMancamenottobeministeredunto,buttominister,andtogive His life a ransom for many" (20:28). Suffering and death were,therefore, His appointed portion (17:12, 17:22, 20:18, 26:2, 24, 45), asindeedScripturehadforetold(12:40).Butafterdeathistheresurrection(17:9,22,20:19,12:40),andaftertheresurrectionthe"coming"ingreatglory to judge the world (10:23, 24:27, 30, 39, 44, 26:64). There isnothingherewhichwehadnotalready inMark,buteverywheredetailsarefilledin.Thefortunesoftheearthlylifeofthe'SonofMan'aretraced.

WelearnthatHe lived likeothermen,withoutasceticism,—"eatinganddrinking"(11:19);butlivedahardandsufferinglife,—Hehadnotwhereto layHis head (8:20).His taskwas to sow the good seed of theword(13:37).AspartofHislowliness,itemergesthatblasphemyagainstHimisforgivable,asitisnotagainsttheHolyGhost(12:32).AndthesufferingHeiscalledontoendurerunsoutintodeath(17:12,22).ItwouldnotbeeasytogiveamoreitemizedaccountofthesufferingsHeenduredattheendthanMarkgives,buttheyareallsetdownhere,too(20:18),asalsoisthepromiseof the resurrection (12:40, 17:9,23,20:18).WhenHeshallcomeagainislefthere,too,intheindefinitefuture(24:36,cf.10:23),butthesuddennessofitseventuationisemphasized(24:27,37,39,44).

Thedetailsbecomenotablynumerousagain,however,whenthepurposeandaccompanimentof thiscomingareadverted to (13:41,16:27,19:28,24:31,25:31,26:64).The'SonofMan'is"henceforthtobeseensittingatthe right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven" (26:64,24:30).HeistocomeinthegloryofHisFatherwithHisangels(16:27),foralltheangelsaretobewithHim(25:31).TheendofHiscomingistopassjudgmentonmenandtoconsummatetheKingdom."FortheSonofManshallcomeinthegloryofHisFatherwithHisangels,andthenshallHerenderuntoeverymanaccordingtohisdeeds"(16:27)—andthisis"tocomeinHiskingdom"(16:28).There isnaturallyapunitivesideto thisjudgment and a side of reward. Of the punitive side we are told that"when the signof theSonofMan coming in the cloudsofheavenwithpower and great glory shall appear," "all the tribes of the earth shallmourn"(24:30);andthatHe"shallsendforthHisangels,andtheyshallgatheroutofHiskingdomallthingsthatcausestumblingandthemthatdoiniquity,andshallcastthemintothefurnaceoffire:thereshallbetheweepingandthegnashingofteeth"(13:41).Onthesideofrewardwearetold that "those who have followedHim, in the regeneration when the'Son of Man' shall sit on the throne of His glory" "also shall sit upontwelvethronesjudgingthetwelvetribesofIsrael"(19:28).For"Heshallsend forth His angels with a great sound of trumpets, and they shallgathertogetherHiselectfromthefourwinds;fromoneendofheaventotheother"(24:31),and"thenshalltherighteousshineforthasthesuninthe Kingdom of their Father" (13:43). It is obviously the universaljudgment that is herebroughtbeforeus; and the consummationof the

Kingdom,whenbythisjudgmentallthatisimpureisdraftedoutofitandthe chosen are made sharers in the universal regeneration. The wholescene of the judgment is pictured for us with great vividness in theremarkable passage, 25:31–46, where all the nations are depicted assummoned before the throne of the 'Son ofMan's' glory and separatedaccordingtotheirdeedsdoneinthebody—interpretedasrelatingtoHim—to theeternal inheritanceof thekingdomprepared for themfromthefoundationof theworldortotheeternal firepreparedforthedevilandhisangels.The'SonofMan'appearshereaccordinglyastheKingonHisthroneapportioningtomentheireternaldestinies.

TheHighMeaningof'SonofMan'

Clearly, according toMatthew's account of our Lord's declarations, the'SonofMan'hasHisperiodofhumiliationonearth,livingasothermen(11:19),sowingtheseed(13:37),havingnotwheretolayHishead(8:20)as He ministers to men (20:28), forgiving even blasphemy againstHimself(12:32)andallindignities(17:12,22),downtodeathitself(17:22,20:18)—andyetevenwhileonearthhavingauthoritytoforgivesins(9:6)andtoregulatereligiousordinances(12:8),anddyingonlythatHemayransomothers (20:28).AndHehasalsoHisperiodofexaltation,whenhavingrisenfromthedead(12:40,17:9,23,20:18)HeinduetimecomesinHisglory,surroundedbyHisservantstheangels(16:27,25:31,24:31),andgatherstoHimselfHischosenoneswhomHehasransomedbyHisdeath (24:31, 13:43) and, cleansingHisKingdomof all that is unclean,sets itup in itsdestinedperfection(16:28).Thepicturethat isdrawnisclearly, then,apictureofvoluntaryhumiliationforahighend,withtheaccomplishmentof theendandreturn to theoriginalglory. Inorder tobringallitsimplicationsoutintheircompletenesswehaveonlytorecallwhatMatthew tellsus,on theonehand,of the 'Son'who is superior toangels(24:36),whoisGod'sadequateandexclusiveRevelation,knowingHimevenasHeisknown(11:27),whoissharerwiththeFatherintheoneineffableName(28:18–20);and,ontheother,intheopeningchapterofhisGospel,ofthesupernaturalbirthofthisheavenlyBeing,breakingHiswaytoearththroughavirgin'swombinfulfillmentoftheprophecythatHe should be called "Immanuel," "Godwith us." For it can scarcely bedoubted that Matthew means this name 'Immanuel' (1:23) to be

interpretedmetaphysicallyofJesus,andthereforeadducestheprophecyasatestimonytotheessentialdeityofthevirgin-bornchild,—andindeedtheangelmessengerhimself isrecordedasnotobscurelyindicatingthiswhenheexplainsthatthechildwhosebirthheannouncesshallbecalledJesus"becauseit isHethatshallsaveHispeoplefromtheirsins"—thusapplyingtothepromisedinfantthewordsspokeninPs130:8ofJehovahHimself: "AndHe shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities." The veryname 'Jesus' forMatthew, as truly as that of 'Immanuel' itself, is thusfreightedwithanimplicationofthedeityofitsbearer:andthisisonlyasymbol of the saturation of his Gospel with the sense of the suprememajesty of the great personality whose life-history as the promisedMessiahhehasundertakentoportray.

MATTHEW'SCONCEPTIONOFOURLORD

ProfundityofMatthew'sSuggestiveness

In seeking to form an estimate of the significance of this list ofdesignationsascribedtoJesusinMatthew,itdoesnotseemnecessarytoattempt to draw out separately, as we attempted to do in the case ofMark,theevidencetheysupplytotheprimaryemphasislaidinMatthewupon the Messianic dignity of Jesus and that they supply to therecognitionofthedivinemajestyofHisperson.Itliesontheveryfaceofthese designations that by Matthew, as truly as by Mark, Jesus isconceived in the first instanceas thepromisedMessiah,andHiscareerandwork as fundamentally the career andwork of theMessiah, at lastcome to introduce the promised Kingdom. And it lies equally on theirvery face that this Messiah whom Jesus is represented as being isconceived byMatthew, and is represented byMatthew as having beenconceived by Jesus Himself, as a "transcendent" figure, as the currentmodeofspeechputsit,i.e.,asfartranscendinginHisnatureanddignityhumanconditions.

SoclearisthisinfactthatourinterestaswereadinstinctivelytakesholdinMatthewofmattersquiteotherthanthosewhichnaturallyoccupyitin

Mark.InMarktheattentionofthereaderisattractedparticularlytotheimplicationsofthesuperangelicdignityascribedtotheMessiah;andhefinds himself unpremeditatingly noting the evidence of thepresuppositionofHisheavenlyoriginandrelations,ofHispre-existence,of Hismore than humanmajesty, of His divine powers and functions.These things are so much a matter of course with Matthew that theattentionof thereader isdrawninsensiblyoff fromthemtoprofounderproblems.ThisGospelopenswithanaccountofthesupernaturalbirthofJesus, which is so told as to imply that the birth is supernatural onlybecause thepersonsoborn isnotof thisworld,but indescending to itfulfills the prophecies that Jehovah shall come to His people to dwellamong them and to save them from their sins. From the very outset,therefore,therecanbenoquestioninthemindofthereaderthathehasto deal not merely with a supernatural life but with a supernaturalperson,allwhoselifeonearthisaconcessiontoanecessityarisingsolelyfromHis purpose to save.Nowonder rises in him, therefore,when hereads of the supramundane powers of this person, of His superhumaninsight,ofHissupernaturaldeeds.ThatHeissuperiortotheangels,whoappearconstantlyasHisservants,andisinsomeprofoundsensedivine,clothedwithalldivinequalities,strikeshimas innosensestrange.Themattersonwhichhefindshismindkeenlyalertriseabovethesethings,and concern the precise relations in which this superangelic, andthereforeuncreated,BeingisconceivedtostandtotheDeityHimself.

RichnessofHisImplications

ItisnotpossibletoavoidnotingthatallthedesignationsappliedtoJesusinthisnarrativetendtorunupatonceonbeingappliedtoHimintotheirhighestimplications.Eventhesimplename'Jesus'isnoexceptiontothis.Forhereitisrepresentedasitselfagiftfromheaven,designedtoindicatethat in this person is fulfilled the promise that Jehovah shall visit Hispeople,—for it is He who, in accordance with the prediction of thePsalmist (130:8), shall save His people—His people, although, inaccordance with that prediction, they are Jehovah's people—from theirsins (1:21). Similarly the simple honorifics 'Master' and 'Lord' rise inMatthew's hands to their highest value; 'Master' becomes transformedinto themoreabsolute "Masterof theHouse"withHisdespoticpower,

governingallthingsinaccordancewithHiswill(20:15)anddisposingofthedestiniesofmeninsupremesovereignty(10:25,13:24seq.,36seq.);and 'Lord' becomes the proper designation of the universal King andJudge (25:37,44)whosecoming is thecomingofJehovah (3:3).As the'Christ' He is pictured as sitting less on David's throne than on God's(22:43, 44); as 'King,' less as the ruler of the nation for Israel than asJudgeofalltheworldforGod(25:31seq.);as'Bridegroom'asholdinginHis own hands the issues of life (22:1, 25:1); as 'the Son of Man' aspassingthroughhumiliationonlytoHisownproperglory(16:27,24:30,26:64);as'theSonofGod'lessasGod'srepresentativeandthevehicleofHisgracethanasGod's fellow(11:27)andthesharerwiththeFather intheone ineffableName(28:18–20).Thus thereader isbroughtsteadilyupwardstothegreatpassagesinwhichMatthewrecordsJesus'supremeself-testimony to His essential relations with His Father, and hisattentionisquiteinsistentlyfocuseduponthem.

AssimilationofJesusWithGod

"AllthingsweredelivereduntomeofmyFather,"saysJesus,asreportedin one of them (11:27): "and no one knoweth the Son save the Father;neitherdothanyknow theFather save theSon, andhe towhomsoevertheSonwilleth to revealHim.Comeuntome, all ye that labor andareheavy laden,andIwillgiveyourest."ThusourLordsolemnlypresentsHimselftomenastheexclusivesourceofallknowledgeofGod,andtheexclusive channel of divine grace. No one can know the Father savethroughHim,andthroughHimalonecanrestbefoundforwearysouls.AndthisHisexclusivemediationofsavingknowledgeHemakes torestuponHisuniquerelationtotheFather,byvirtueofwhichtheFatherandSon, and all that is in the Father and Son, lie mutually open to eachother'sgaze.Attentionhasbeencalledtothefact,andit isimportanttoobserve it, that thewhole passage is cast in the present tense, and therelation announced to exist between the Father and Son is, therefore,representednotasapastrelationbutasacontinuousandunbrokenone.WhatourLordassertsisthusnotthatHeoncewaswiththeFatherandknewHismind,andisthereforefittedtomediateitasHisrepresentativeonearth:itisthatHe,thoughonearth,stilliswiththeFatherandknowsHismind—yea, andwill know itunchangeably forever.The relationsof

timedonotenterintotherepresentation.OurLordpresentsHimselfasthesolesourceoftheknowledgeofGodandofthedivinegrace,becausethis is the relation in which He stands essentially to the Father,—arelation of complete and perfect intercommunion. The assertion of thereciprocal knowledge of the Father and Son, in other words, rises farabove themerelymediatorial functionof theSon, although itunderliesHismediatorialmission:itcarriesusbackintotheregionofmetaphysicalrelations.TheSon isa fitandperfectmediatorof thedivineknowledgeand grace because the Son and the Father are mutuallyintercommunicative.Thedepthsof theSon'sbeing,weare told, canbefathomed by none but a divine knowledge, while the knowledge of theSoncompassesallthatGodis;frombothpointsofview,theSonappearsthusas"equalwithGod."

IdentificationofJesusWithGod

But even this is far from the whole story. The perfect reciprocalknowledge of each by the other which is affirmed goes far towardssuggestingthatevenequalitywithGodfallsshortoffullyexpressingtherelation in which the Son actually stands to the Father. Equality is anexternal relation: here there is indicated an internal relation whichsuggests rather the term interpenetration. There is a relation with theFatherheresuggested,which transcendsall creaturelypossibilities,andinwhich there is noplace even for subordination.ThemanJesusdoesindeed representHimself asexercisingamediatorial function;whatHedoesistorevealtheFatherandtomediateHisgrace;andthatbecauseofa delivery over to Him by the Father. But this mediatorial function isrooted in a metaphysical relation in which is suggested no hint ofsubordination. Rather in this region what the Father is that the Sonseemstobealso.Thereismysteryhere,nodoubt,andnothingisdonetorelieve themystery. All that is done is to enunciate in plainwords theconceptionof the relationactuallyexistingbetween theFatherandSonwhichsuppliestheirsuitableaccounttoallthosepassagesinMatthewinwhich there seems to be suggested a confusion of Jesus with God,whetherinfunctionorinperson.IfthisbetherelationofSonandFather—if there is a certain mysterious interpenetration to be recognizedbetweenthem—thenitisnolongerstrangethattoJesusisattributedall

thefunctionsofGod,includingtheforgivenessofsinsandtheuniversaljudgmentofmen,northatinHimisseenthecomingofJehovahtosaveHispeople, inHispresencewithmenthe fulfillmentof theprophecyof'Immanuel,'God-with-us, in the coming of John theBaptist to prepareHiswaythefulfillmentoftheprophecyofthemessengertomakethewayof Jehovah straight, and the like. All things were delivered to Him, inshort,becauseHeisnoneelsethanGodonearth.

ParticipationofJesusintheName

Of quite similar import is the great declaration with which the Gospelcloses.InthisourLord,announcingthatallauthoritywasgiventoHiminheavenandearth—that is, thatuniversaldominionwascommittedtoHim—commandsHisdisciples to advance to the actual conquestof theworld,baptizingall thenations into theNameof theFather andof theSonandof theHolySpirit,andpromises tobeHimselfwith themuntotheendoftheworld(28:18–20).Intheabsenceoftheformerpassage,itmight conceivably be possible to look upon the dominionhere claimedandtheconjunctionhereassertedoftheSonwiththeFatherinthefuturegovernmentoftheKingdomashavingnorootinginHisessentialnaturebutasconstitutingmerelyarewardconsequentuponourLord'swork.Inthe presence of that passage we cannot void this, however, of itstestimonytoessentialrelations.AndtherelationhereassignedtotheSonwithrespecttodeityisthesameaswassuggestedthere.Thesignificantpointof thispassage is thesingular"Name." Itdoesnotread, "Into thenames"—asofmany,butofone,—"Into theName"of theFatherandofthe Son and of theHoly Spirit. The Father, the Son and the Spirit aretherefore in some ineffable sense one, sharers in the single Name. OfcourseitiswhatweknowastheChristiandoctrineoftheTrinitywhichissuggestedhere,asitwaslessclearlysuggestedintheformerpassage,andasthisdoctrineisneededinordertogiveconsistencyandsoliditytothepervasive suggestion of Matthew's entire narrative that Jesus, whosecareerheisrecounting,isinsomehighersensethanmeredelegationorrepresentation not merely a superhuman or superangelic orsupercreaturely person, but an actually Divine Person, possessed ofdivine prerogatives, active in divine power, and in multiform waysmanifesting a divine nature. It were impossible for Matthew to paint

JesusashehaspaintedHim,andtoattributetoHimwhatwehaveseenhimattributingtoHim,withoutsomesuchconceptionasisenunciatedinthese two great passages in his mind to support, sustain and give itsjustification tohis representation. So far from thesepassagesoffendingthe reader as they stand in Matthew's Gospel, therefore, and raisingdoubtsoftheirgenuineness,weshouldhavehadtopostulatesomethinglike them for Matthew, had they not stood in his Gospel. Matthew'sportrait of Jesus and the self-witness he quotes fromJesus' lips toHisestate and dignity, in otherwords, themselves necessitate a doctrine ofHisnatureandrelationswithGodverymuchsuchasissetforthinthesepassages:andwecanfeelperfectlyassured,therefore,thatthesepassagesrepresentwithgreatexactnesswhatMatthewwouldtellusofJesus'deityand what he would report as Jesus' own conception of His divinerelations.Andwhattheytellus—wemustnotbalkatit—isjustthatJesusisallthatGodis,andsharesinGod'snatureastrulyasinGod'smajestyandpower.

THEDESIGNATIONSOFOURLORDINLUKEANDTHEIRIMPLICATIONS

WemeetverymuchthesameseriesofdesignationsappliedtoourLordin Luke as in the other Synoptists. But they are applied with somecharacteristicdifferences.

TheNarrativeDesignations

InLuke,too,theordinarynarrativedesignationofourLordisthesimple'Jesus,' which occurs about seventy-seven times. This simplest of alldesignations is not so exclusively employed in the narrative of Luke,however, as in those of Matthew and Mark. There is an occasionalvariationinLuketothemoredescriptivedesignationof 'theLord'(7:13,19,10:1,39,41,11:39,12:42,13:15,17:5,6,18:6,19:8,22:61,61,fourteentimes). No other designation than these two, however, occurs as anarrative designation in Luke, although in three instances Lukemakesuseofanotherinhisnarrative.Intwooftheseinstancesheisapparentlyrepeating words from the lips of others: he tells us that it had beenrevealed toSimeon thathe shouldnotdieuntilhehadseen 'theLord'sChrist' (2:26)and thatBartimæuswas told that 'JesusofNazareth'waspassing(18:37).IntheremaininginstanceheremarksthattheevilspiritsknewthatJesuswas'theChrist'(4:41);where'theChrist'isnotstrictlyadesignationofJesus,butthegeneralterm'theMessiah.'TheseinstancesexhibitLuke'swillingness to speakof Jesus as theMessiah indeed; butare scarcely exceptions to the general fact that he himself designatesJesusinthecourseofhisnarrativeonlyas'Jesus'andas'theLord.'AsintheotherSynoptists,thesimple'Jesus'inLukeisalsopracticallyreservedfor the narrative designation. Only in the two instances of theannunciationofHisnamebytheangel(1:31),whichisnoexception,andintheaddresstoJesusonthecrossbythedyingthief(23:42)isthisrulebroken. But, as in the other Synoptists, the name 'Jesus' occurs incompound formsofaddress toHimrecordedby theevangelist,—'Jesus,Thou Son of God' (8:28), 'Jesus, Thou Son of David' (18:38), 'Jesus,Master' (17:13); and at the hands of the evil spirits (4:34), the people

(18:37) andHis disciples (24:19) alike, 'Jesus theNazarene'—whence itemergesthatitwasbythisnamethatHewaspopularlyidentified.

OrdinaryFormsofAddress

The ordinary forms of address applied to Jesus in Luke are the simplehonorifics, 'Teacher,' 'Master,' 'Lord,'employed,however,withacertaindiscrimination.TheAramaic form 'Rabbi'doesnotoccur inLukeatall.ItscommonGreekrendering,'Teacher'(διδάσκαλε),seemstobetreatedasthecurrentnoncommittalhonorific,especiallyappropriateonthelipsofthosewhowerenot,oratleastnotyet,Hisdisciples(7:40,10:25,11:45,12:13, 18:18, 19:39,20:21,28,39,8:49,9:38).Theonlyexception to itsemployment by this rule is supplied by 21:7, where we are told thatcertainofHisdisciples"askedHimsaying,'Teacher,'"etc.ThatitwasnotthoughtinappropriateasaformofaddressfromHisdisciplestoHimisalsoevinced,however,bythereportofHisownemploymentofitontwooccasions.HeinstructsHisfollowers,inpreparingthelastpassovermealforHim, to say to the goodman of the house, "The Teacher saith untothee,whereistheguest-chamber,whereIshalleatthepassoverwithmydisciples"(22:11);andHetells them,broadly indeed,butnodoubtwithsome,thoughcertainlyremote,referencetoHimselfandthem,that"thediscipleisnotabovehisteacher;buteveryonewhenheisperfectedshallbeashisteacher"(6:40).Thechoiceoftheterm'Teacher'(διδάσκαλος)in these two passages appears to be due to the correlative "disciples"occurring in each; and it remains true that 'Teacher' (διδάσκαλε) as aformofaddressischaracteristicinLuke,ofnon-followersofourLord.

'Master'

Theplaceof'Teacher'onthelipsofHisfollowersispartlytakenbyanewterm for 'Master,' peculiar to Luke (ἐπιοτάτης), which however occursonly six times (5:5,8:24,45,9:33,49, 17:13),onlyoneofwhich (17:13)formsanexceptionorquasi-exceptiontotherulethatthetermindicatesthat the user of it stands in the closest relation to Jesus, andacknowledgesHimashis SuperiorOfficer—Chief,Commander,Master,Leader.Thisquasi-exceptionoccursinthecaseofthetenleperswho,weare told, lifted up their voices and said, "Jesus, Leader, havemercy onus." Perhaps there is an intention to convey the impression that these

lepers,formallyatleast,recognizedtheauthorityofJesuscompletely.Wecannot account 5:5 another such exception, since thewhole toneof thenarrative indicates that this was not the first call of Peter to becomeJesus' disciple (cf. Jno 1:42), but his call to become Jesus' constantcompanion.ThereisnosuchdirectuseofJesusinLuke(orinMk)asinMatthew of the figurative expression 'Master of the House'(οἰκοδεσπότης), although the term occurs in parableswith reference toHim(13:25,14:21).

'Lord'asanAddress

TheprevailingformofaddresstoJesusinLukeis,however,theordinaryGreekhonorific 'Lord' (κύριε),used,however,obviouslyasanhonorificof especially high connotation. It is put upon the lips, indeed, ofoutsiders, suitors formercy (5:12, 7:6, 18:41, 19:8) and possibly others(9:59, 61, 13:23); and our Lord's own remark to the effect that somecalledHim'Lord,Lord,'whodidnotdothethingsHesaid(6:46)showsthat it might be insincerely used of Him. But this very passage alsoindicatesthattoaddressHimas'Lord'wastoacknowledgeHisauthorityandinvolvedsubjectiontoHiscommandments,andaccordinglythetermisrepresentedasemployedchieflybyHisprofessedfollowers(5:8,10:17,40, 11:1, 12:41, 17:37,22:33,38,49).Somethingof itshigh implication,whensoused,maybecaughtfrom5:8incomparisonwith5:5.WhenourLord,havingusedSimon'sboatforapulpit,commandedhimtoletdownhis nets for a draught, Simon responded with the respectful addresswhich implied that he recognized Jesus as his 'Superior Officer'(ἐπιοτάτης), "Master, we toiled all night, and took nothing: but at ThywordIwillletdownthenets."Butwhenhesawtheresultantmiraculousdraught, he fell at Jesus' knees and said: "Depart fromme; for I am asinful man, O Lord"—using now the higher honorific, 'Lord' (κύριε).Obviously theaddress 'Lord'on the lipsofJesus' followerswaschargedwithveryhighsignificance,andthisisborneoutinitsentireuse.

'Lord'asanAppellative

Such a constant mode of address as 'Lord' by His followers, naturallywould beget the habit of speaking of Jesus among themselves as 'theLord'; andwe can feel no surprise therefore that Jesus, in giving them

instructionshowtoreplytopossibleobjectionstotheirtakingtheassHesentthemforasHewasabouttoenterJerusalem,placedthisdesignationon their lips. "Say,"He said, "the Lord hath need of him" (19:31); andaccordinglytheysaid(v.34),"TheLordhathneedofhim"(cf.12:36,42,43seq.).ThisinstructionisrecordedbyalltheSynoptists,andtheusagewhichitinvolvesoftheterm'Lord'ofJesusasanappellativedesignationmightverywell,therefore,havebeenillustratedinthenarrativesofthemall. The copious designatory employment of the title 'Lord' of Christ,however,ischaracteristicofLuke.Itisplacedonthelipsofthedisciplesthemselves in this designatory form at 24:34, and it occurs in twopassagesintheopeningchaptersoftheGospel—intheelevatedlanguageoftheangelicannouncementinthecombination,'ChristtheLord'or'theanointedLord'(2:11),andintheresponseofElisabeth(1:45)inwhichsheexpressesherwonderingawethat"themotherofherLord"shouldcometoher.Obviously in suchusages the termconnotesaveryhighdignity,certainlyMessianic at the least. It is also employed of Himself by ourLordinthequestionHeisrecordedbyalltheSynoptistsasputtingtothescribesas to thesignificanceofDavid'spredictionof theMessiahashis'Lord' (20:41 seq.)—again, obviously with a high connotation. But theparticularlysignificant fact inthisconnectionis itscurrentemploymentby Luke himself as an alternative narrative designation to the simple'Jesus'(7:13,19,10:1,39,41,11:39,12:42,13:15,17:5,6,18:6,19:8,22:61,61). It does not seem easy to detect any special significance in theinterchangeofthesedesignations;thereasonforthepassagefromonetotheotherseemseitherpurelyliteraryoratleastobscure.ThemeaningoftheappearanceofthisnarrativeemploymentoftheterminLukeseems,therefore,tobemerelythatintheusageofLukeinhisownpersonthereemergesareflectionofausageevidentlycommonamongthedisciplesofJesusfromthebeginning,butnotchancingtobecopiouslyillustratedinthepersonalliterarymannerofMarkandMatthew:theusage,namely,ofcurrentlyspeakingofJesusas'theLord.'

Significanceof'Lord'

Thisimplies,naturally,thatJesusstoodtoHisdisciplesforwhateverthetitle'Lord'meanttothem.ThereisinvolvedinitcertainlytherecognitionofHisMessianicdignity,andthereisincluded,therefore,therecognition

inHimofallthattheysawinHisMessianicdignity.Sofar,wesuppose,wemaybesurethat,ashasbeensuggested,Hewasthoughtofas'Lord'incontrasttotheearthlypotentateswhowereclaiminglordshipofmen,andespeciallyincontrastwiththeemperorinRome,the'Lord'bywayofeminenceinallmen'sminds.ToJesus,ratherthantotheemperor,wasallegiance due.Butwemust not forget that the allegiance expressed toJesus rested on a spiritual basis, while, perhaps, it is going too far tosupposethatthedivineclaimsoftheimperialmonarchwereheldclearlyinmind.11Thesimplestthingtosayisthattheterm'Lord'wasappliedtoJesusbyLukeobviouslywiththedeepestreverenceandobviouslyastheexpressionofthatreverence.

The full height of this reverence may be suggested to us by certainpassages in which the term 'Lord' occurs in citations from the OldTestament,where its reference is to Jehovah, though in the citations itseems to be applied to Jesus. Like the other Synoptists, Luke cites, forinstance, from Isaiah the promise of a voice crying in the wilderness,"MakeyereadythewayoftheLord,makeHispathsstraight"(3:4),andapplies it to the coming of John the Baptist whom he represents aspreparing theway for Jesus'manifestation. As in the case of the otherevangelists, the inference lies close that by 'the Lord' here LukemeansJesus,whose cominghe thus identifieswith theadventof Jehovahandwhosepersonheseemsto identifywithJehovah.Ontheotherhand, inpassages like 1:17, 76, although the language is similar, it seemsmorenaturaltounderstandtheterm'Lord'asreferringtoGodHimself,andtoconceive the speaker to be thinking of the coming of Jehovah toredemption in Jesus without necessary identification of the person ofJesuswithJehovah.Themerecircumstance,however,thatthereaderisled to pause over such passages and to considerwhether theymaynotintend by their 'Lord'—who is Jehovah—to identify the person of Jesuswith Jehovah, is significant. We should never lose from sight theoutstanding fact that to men familiar with the LXX and the usage of'Lord'asthepersonalnameoftheDeitythereillustrated,theterm'Lord'was charged with associations of deity, so that a habit of speaking ofJesusas'theLord,'bywayofeminence,suchasisillustratedbyLukeandcertainlywas current from thebeginning of theChristianproclamation(19:31),wasapttocarrywithitimplicationsofdeitywhich,ifnotrebuked

or in some way guarded against, must be considered as receiving thesanctionofJesusHimself.

The'Prophet'

The leading designations of Jesus in Luke, as in the other Synoptists,however, are, broadly speaking, Messianic. In other words, it isdistinctively as the Messiah that Luke sets forth Jesus and representsHimashavingconceivedofHimselfandashavingbeenreveredbyHisfollowers.WefindinLuke,asintheotherSynoptists,tobesure,tracesofa widespread recognition of Him as a prophet (7:16, 39, 9:8, 19). HisfollowerssettheirhopesuponHiminthatoffice(24:19);andindeedwithno uncertaintyHeHimself assumed the rôle of a prophet (4:24, 13:33,34).ButnomoreinLukethanintheotherSynoptistsisthisparticularlyemphasized, and in Luke, too, the prophetic character is, no doubt,conceivedaspartoftheMessianicfunction,—asindeedthecollocationofHispropheticcallingandHisredemptionofIsrael inthethoughtofthedisciples going to Emmaus not obscurely suggests (24:19, 21, cf. also7:16).

'Saviour'

Lukealso records from themouthof theangel announcing thebirthofJesusthenewdesignationof 'Saviour'—ifwecancalladesignationnewwhich is so plainly adumbrated in a passage like Mt 1:21 (cf. also Lk19:10).Butthisissolittleun-MessianicthatitisnotonlyconnectedwiththeMessianicpropheciesbyadjacentreferences(1:47,cf.2:30,3:6),butis expressly defined asMessianic in the annunciation itself: "a Saviour,which is Christ the Lord" (2:11). Like Mt 1:21, this passage clearlyindicates that to the circle in which Jesus moved His coming as theMessiah was connected with the great series of prophecies whichpromised the advent of Jehovah for the redemption of His people, astrulyaswiththosewhichpredictedthecomingoftheDavidicKing.Theterms, "a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord," are, indeed, an expresscombinationofthetwolinesofprophecy,andimportthattheChildwhowasborninthecityofDavidwasboththepromisedRedeemerofIsraelandtheAnointedKingthatwastocome.Questionmayarise,indeed,asto how we are to construe these collocated designations. Some would

wishustotakeeachseparately,withanindefinitearticletoeach:"Thereis born to you a Saviour, who is an Anointed One, a Lord." Others17suggestthatatleast'Messiah'and'Lord'bekeptseparate:"ThereisborntoyouaDeliverer,whoisMessiah,Lord."Ineitheroftheseconstructionswe have three separate designations which so far explain one another:thisChildisatonceaSaviour,thepromisedMessiah,andSovereignLordof men and angels—for it is an angel who speaks these words. Theessentialmeaningcannotbefarfromthisinanycase.Evenifweshouldread"whoisMessiah,theLord,"oreven"whoisananointedLord,"19wehavegotbutlittleawayfromthisgeneralsense:ineithercasewhatissaidisthattheSaviouristhepromisedMessiahandthereforeentitledtoourobedienceasourLord.Norismuchmoresaidifwegivethephrasetheutmostdefinitenesspossible,andtranslate,"ThereisborntoyouthisdayinthecityofDavidthatDelivererwhoistheMessiah,theLord,"—as,onthe whole, we think we ought to read it, in the light of the distinctionmade between the two designations 'Messiah' and 'Lord' in such apassageasActs2:36,wherePeterdeclarestothehouseofIsraelthatGodhasmadeJesusboth'Lord'and'Christ.'Theprecisedistinctionintendedtobesignalizedbetween'Christ'and'Lord'is,nodoubt,difficulttotrace:perhaps there lies in it a testimony to thewider content of the idea ofMessiahshipthanthatofmeresovereignpower;perhapsatestimonytoahigherconnotationoftheterm'Lord'thanthatofmereMessianicdignity.InanyeventthereishereadeclarationthatinthisChildborninthecityof David, the functions of Redemption, Messiahship and SupremeLordshipareunited.

'TheLord'sChrist'

Almost immediately afterwardwe are told that it had been revealed toSimeon that "he should not see death before he had seen the Lord'sChrist" (2:26)—anOld Testament expression (Ps 2:2, cf. Lk 9:20, Acts4:26) here applied to the infant Jesus, who is by it identified as thepromised Messiah. Accordingly in announcing the birth of this Child,who is thus so emphatically presented as the Messiah, the angel isrepresented as describing Him as 'the Son of the Most High God,' towhomshouldbegiventhethroneofHisfatherDavid,foraneverlastingdominion(1:32);andasexplainingtheDivineSonshipofthisHolyChild

asdue to, or rather as evidencedby,His supernaturalbirth (1:35).Thelatterof these twodeclarations is clearly the explanationof the former.The angel had promised Mary that she should bring forth a son whoshouldrightlybearthegreatnameofthe'SonoftheMostHighGod,'andhe now explains that this Holy Son of hers shall be a supernaturalproduct,andshouldbyHissupernaturaladventbewitnessedas rightlybearingthenameof'SonofGod.'Thatthetitle'SonofGod'bearsinitaMessianicimplicationisclearfromthefunctionsascribedinverses33,34to the child so designated, but that this Messiah was conceived assomethingmorethanhumanappearstobeimpliedintheconnectionofHisclaimuponthetitleof'SonofGod'withthesupernaturalnessofHisbirth.PerhapsitisnotreadingtoomuchintothepassagetosaythatHispreëxistenceandheavenlydescentareasserted,—certainlyHisheavenly,orsupernatural,originisasserted.This'Son'isnotmerelytobeattendedwithsupernaturalassistanceandsotoexhibitsupernaturalgifts:Heisofsupernaturalorigin,andthereforesofarofsupernaturalnature.AlreadyintheopeningchaptersofhisGospel,devotedtoanaccountofthebirthandinfancyofJesus,therefore,LukemakesitplainthattheJesuswhosehistoryhe is torecountwas firstofall theMessiahofGod,andassuchwasofsupernaturaloriginandthereforeholy,wastoestablishthethroneof David in perpetuity, and was to be recognized as Lord of men andangels.

In accordance with these declarations, recorded in the opening of theGospel,LuketellsusthattheevilspiritsknewJesustobe'theChrist'andgreeted Him by the title 'Son of God' (4:41), and records Peter's greatconfessionintheformof"ThouarttheChristofGod"(9:20),andJesus'readyacceptanceof it, as alsoHisacquiescence in theascriptionof thetitleofMessiah, 'Christ,' toHimbyHis enemies ('theChrist,' 22:67, cf.23:39;'ChristaKing,'23:2).Suchanascriptionofthetitle'Christ'toHimbyHisenemies(22:67,23:2,35,39) is thebestofallproofs that itwascommonlyemployedofHimbyHisfollowers.ButthesignificantfactforusisthatinacceptingitattheirhandsJesusclaimsitforHimself(22:67,23:2).We are not surprised, therefore, to findHimusing it ofHimselfwhen, after His resurrection, He expounded from Scripture to HisfollowersthedoctrineoftheSufferingMessiahandappliedittoHimself(24:26,46),evenasHehadatanearlierpointexpoundedtothescribes

(20:41) the doctrine of the Reigning Messiah with an equally clearapplication of it to Himself. He who was David's 'Lord' as truly as his'Son'wastoenteruponHisLordshiponlythroughsuffering,asufferingwhich should lay the basis of a preachment inHis nameof repentanceand remission of sins (24:46). Here again is the Saviour, who is theMessiah,theLord:andtheGospelendsmuchonthesamenoteonwhichitbegan.

'TheKing'

Theroyaldignityofthis'AnointedKing'(23:2)isofcoursedweltuponinLuke as in the other Synoptics. But the precise term 'King' is not offrequentoccurrence.HisdisciplesasHeenteredJerusalemontheass'scolt acclaimedHimas "theKing that cometh in thenameof theLord"(19:38),andwhenthePhariseesappealedtoHimtorebukethemtherefor—employingthesimpleformulaofrespect, 'Teacher,'inaddressingHimand thereby repudiating His Messianic claim by the contrast of thisaddresswith the title of 'King'—Jesuswas so far from yielding to theirrequest thatHe declared that ifHis disciples held their peace the verystoneswouldcryoutandrecognizeHimas theMessianicsovereign(cf.Lk 3:8, Mt 3:9). Similarly, when the Jews accused Him to Pilate asrepresenting Himself to be "Christ, a King" (23:2), and that governoraccordinglydemandedofHimwhetherHewas'theKingoftheJews,'ourLordwasso far fromdenying theascription thatHeexpresslyacceptedthedesignation(23:3),andthusbroughtitaboutthatHewasmockedonthe cross by this title, and had it set over His head (23:37, 38). Theequivalenttitle'SonofDavid'alsoisrecordedashavingbeengivenHimby an applicant forHismercy as a recognition ofHis authority to heal(18:38,39,cf.1:32,69),andbynomeansrepudiatedwhen(20:41seq.)JesusexplainedthatHewassomethingmuchmorethanDavid'sson.

'God'sElect','God'sHolyOne'

In the midst of the designations we have somewhat rapidly adduced,clusteringaroundthecentral title 'Christ,' there isonewhichweshouldnot pass over unnoticed because it has not met us heretofore. ThemockingJews,scoffingatJesusasHehungonthecross,arerepresentedas flinging inHis faceHis claim to be 'the Christ of God,His Chosen'

(23:35). The same designation occurs in the account of thetransfiguration,where the voice fromheaven is representedbyLukeasdeclaring of Jesus, "This is my Son, my Chosen" (9:35). No doubt theGreek is not quite the same in each instance: ὁ ἐκλεκτός of the one isreplaced by ὁ ἐκλελεγμένος in the other. But doubtless the underlyingMessianic title is thesame inboth instances. It is rooted inIsaiah42:1,"Behold my servant whom I uphold; my chosen in whom my souldelighteth,"etc.(wheretheparalleltermsareὁπαῖςandὁἐκλεκτός),andemergesintovieweveninpre-ChristianJewishusage(Enoch40:5,45:3,53:6, 39:9, etc.). The conception seems to be not essentially differentfromadesignationwhichhasalreadymetus inMark (1:24)andwhichoccurs also in the parallel passage of Luke (4:34), but elsewhere in theNewTestamentonlyatJno6:69—'theHolyOneofGod.'Foritdoesnotseem likely that this epithet, in the first instance at least, refers to themoralpurityoftheMessiah,butratherprobablethatitdesignatesHimasOne whom God has "separated out, equipped and dedicated to Hisservice,"inawordas'theConsecratedOne.'Inthisunderstandingofit,itstandsincloserelationtotheepithet,'theElectOne,'anduniteswithitinemphasizing the unique loftiness of the Messianic office. At the sametime it seems difficult to believe that there is no implication of moralpurity,orperhapswewouldbettersaymoralexaltation,intheepithet,asused whether by Peter (Jno 6:69) or by the demoniacs (Mk 1:24, Lk4:34), although this reference may be secondary. It is scarcelyconceivablethatthedemonscouldrecognizeamereofficial-standingonsight (Mk 3:11), while the contrast between the moral perfection orexaltednatureofJesusandtheiruncleannessmaybepresumedtohaveobtruded itself upon their consciousness, whenever they were broughtintoHis presence.Alongwith these titleswemustnote also thatLuke,too,makesuseofthetitle'theBeloved,'thoughonlyatthebaptismofourLord(3:22),replacingitatthetransfigurationby'theChosenOne'(9:35),andthusexhibitingtheessentialsynonymyofthetwo.

Meaningof'Holy'

Itmaybeprofitabletorecallatthispointthattheepithet'holy'isappliedtoourLordalsoattheannunciationofHisbirthbytheangel,whenitwasexplainedthatitwasthecircumstancethatHisbirthwasnotaccordingto

nature,butduetothecomingdownuponMaryoftheHolyGhostandtheovershadowingofherbythepoweroftheMostHigh,whichjustifiedtheHoly Thing which was being begotten in being called 'the Son of God'(1:35).TheepithetisnotelsewhereappliedtoJesusinthisGospel,exceptin2:23,wherethepreceptofthelawisquotedinreferencetoHim,that"everymale that openeth thewomb shall be called holy to the Lord"—whereitisobviouslytheconceptionofconsecrationwhichisprominent.Inthepresentpassage,however,itseemsequallyplainthatit isnotthenotion of being set apart for God somuch as that of being inHimselfworthy of reverence and calling out venerationwhich is prominent.Hewhoisthussupernaturallybornis"holy"inthesensethatHebringswithHimsomethingofthesuperhumancharacterbelongingtoHisorigin,andisthusnotsetapartamongmen,butisbynaturedistinguishedfrommen—shallwenotsay,"separatefromsinners"?

Nevertheless, the title 'Son of God' as applied to our Lord in Luke isclosely connectedwithHisMessianic office: though, of course, it isnotlimitedtothatofficeinitsimplications.Itoccursinthispreciseformbutseldom.BesidesthedeclarationoftheannouncingangelthatHeshallbecalled the 'Son of the Most High' (1:32)—evidently with a Messianicconnotation,as thesubsequentcontextshows,butbynomeansequallyevidently with none but a human connotation, as also the subsequentcontext assures us (1:35),—it occurs only in the narrative of theTemptation,onthelipsofSatan(4:3,9),andelsewhereonthelipsofevilspirits (4:41, 8:28 'Son of theMost High God') who knewHe was theChrist, and in themouth of His judges when they adjuredHim to tellwhetherHewere'theChrist,'andonHisansweringthattheyshouldfromthenceforthseeHim, 'theSonofMan,' seatedat therighthandofGod,demanded afresh, "Art thou, then, the Son of God?" (22:70). It seemsclear, indeed, from these passages that the title 'Son of God' wasconceivedasaMessianic title, and so far as the synonymof the simple'Christ'; but it is difficult not to gather from them also that it gaveexpression to a higherMessianic conception thanwas conveyed by thesimple 'Christ.'ThebriefconversationrecordedastakingplacebetweenourLordandHisjudgesseemstohave,infact,theprecisepurportthatinacceptingthedesignationof 'theChrist'HedoessoinsuchamannerastopourintoitahighercontentthanHisjudgeswerewillingtoaccordto

it—ahighercontentwhichtheyfeltwasmoreappropriatelyexpressedbyanother title,—the 'Son ofGod.'Whence it seems to follow that 'Son ofGod,'whileacurrentMessianicdesignation,wasaMessianicdesignationchargedwithahigherconnotationthanmerelythatoftheMessianicKing—aconclusionwehavealreadydrawnfrom1:32,35.

'TheSon'

ThehigherconnotationofSonshiptoGodis,however,inLuke,asintheother Synoptists, most clearly expressed by the undefined term 'Son.'Luke, as well as the others, records the divine proclamation of theSonshipofJesusfromheaven,ontheoccasionaswellofHisbaptismasofHistransfiguration:"ThouartmySon,theBeloved;intheeIamwellpleased" (3:22), "This ismy Son, the Chosen" (9:35): and gives us theparable in which Jesus, with evident reference to Himself (20:13, 14),talksofthewickedhusbandmen,towhom,aftertheyhadevil-entreatedhisservants,thelordofthevineyardsentintheendhis'belovedson'whowas the heir. Luke also records a number of those pregnant sayings inwhich Jesus appeals to God as in a unique sense His 'Father': and hebegins this seriesofpregnant sayingsat soearlyaperiodas tomake itcleartousthatitrepresentsauniquefilialconsciousnesscoevalwiththedawnof ourLord's intelligence.Already inHis earliest youthHe couldspeak of being "in His Father's house" as His natural place of abode(2:49), even as in later life He lived in constant communion with theFather(10:21,21,22,27,23:34,46),andequallynaturallyspokeof"thekingdomHisFatherhadappointedHim"(22:29),andattheendspokeofHisreadinesstosendforth"thepromiseofHisFather"(24:49).ThegloryHeexpectedtoenter,itistobeobserved,wasnolessHisownthanHisFather'sglory(22:29).Butaboveall,Lukerecordsforusthatremarkablepassage (10:21, 22) in which our Lord declares the perfect mutualknowledgewhichexistsbetweenthe'Father'and'Son,'byvirtueofwhichthe 'Son' is constituted the sole adequate revealer of the 'Father'—that'Son' towhom all thingswere declared byHis 'Father': on the basis ofwhichHeannouncesthatthethingsseenandheardinHimarethethingswhichprophetsandkingshavedesiredtoseeandhearandhavenot.ThephraseologyinwhichLukerepeatsthisgreatsayingdiffersslightlyfromthat found in Matthew. But the two evangelists agree in all that is

essential.Inbothitisunlimitedly"allthings"thataresaidtohavebeendeliveredbythe'Father'tothe'Son,'sothatGodisaffirmedtoholdbacknothing,buttoshareallthatHehaswiththe'Son.'Inboththeintimateknowledgeof the 'Father'and 'Son'ofeachother isaffirmedtobealikecomplete, exhaustive and unbrokenly continuous. In both the 'Son' isrepresentedtobethesolesourceofknowledgeofGod.ButinLukeit issaid,notthatthe'Father'and'Son'knoweachother,butthateachknows"whattheotheris,"thatistosay,allthateachis.Itwouldbedifficulttoframeastatementwhichcouldmoresharplyasserttheessentialdeityofthe'Son.'36

The'SonofMan'

OurLord'sownfavoritedesignationofHimselfis,however,inLukeasintheotherSynoptists,'theSonofMan';andasintheotherSynoptists,thisdesignation is in Luke exclusively a self-designation of Jesus' own. Forobviously when the angel at the empty tomb is represented as saying,"RememberhowHespakeuntoyouwhenHewasyet inGalilee,sayingthattheSonofManmustbedeliveredupintothehandsofsinfulmen,and be crucified and the third day rise again" (24:7),—this is not aninstanceof theemploymentof thistitlebyanotherthanJesus,butonlyanotherattributionofittoJesus.ThetitleoccursinLukeabouttwenty-fivetimes,and inthesamecollocationsandwiththesameimportas inthe other Synoptists. If we attempt, therefore, to derive from thesubstance of the passages in which it is employed a notion of theconceptionwhichwasattachedtoit,wearriveatthesameconclusionasinthecaseoftheotherSynoptists.InLuke,thepurposeofthecomingofthe 'SonofMan' isdeclaredintheform,"TheSonofMancametoseekandtosavethatwhichwaslost"(19:10).

Accordinglyhumandestinyisconnectedabsolutelywiththerelationsofmen to Him. Those are blessed whom men hate and ostracise andreproach,castingouttheirnameasevil,ifitbeforthe'SonofMan's'sake(6:22). For everyonewho shall confessHim beforemen, him shall the'Son ofMan' confess before the angels ofGod (12:8); and on the otherhandeveryonewhodeniesthe'SonofMan'inthepresenceofmenshallbedeniedinthepresenceoftheangelsofGod(12:9),andwhosoevershallbeashamedofthe'SonofMan'andofHiswords,ofhimshallthe'Sonof

Man'beashamedwhenHecomesinHisowngloryandthatoftheFatherand of the holy angels (9:26). That nevertheless blasphemy against the'Son ofMan'may be forgiven as blasphemy against the Spiritmay not(12:10),doubtlessbelongstothehumilityofHisearthlylifebeforeHehascome inHisglory.For in this lifeHecomportsHimself likeothermen,eatinganddrinking(7:34),passingahardandsufferingexistence(9:58),and so fulfilling the Scriptures (18:31 seq.). Meanwhile, however, Heexercises even on earth the authority to regulate religious observances(6:5)andtoforgivesins(5:24).Inotherwords,thesufferingsHeendures(9:44,22:48)arenot the resultof fateor chance, anddonotbelong toHim by right, but are voluntarily undertaken as part of His mission(18:31,32, 17:25,24:7).They issue indeath indeed (9:22, 18:33,22:22,24:7),butafterdeathcomesresurrection(9:22,11:30,18:33,24:7);andafterresurrection,initsowngoodtime,areturninHisappropriateglory(22:69,9:26,12:40,17:22,24,18:8,21:27,22:69).Thehumiliationover,atoncethe 'SonofMan'isseatedattherighthandofthepowerofGod(22:69),andwhenHecomesagainHewill come"inacloudwithgreatpowerandglory" (21:27),—aglorydescribedas"Hisownglory,andthegloryofHisFatherandoftheholyangels"(9:26).Thesuddennessofthiscoming is adverted to (12:40, 17:22–24, 26, 30), and the main factemphasized,thatitisinpointofsignificancethedayofjudgment,whenthedestiniesofmen shall be finally assigned themby the 'SonofMan'(21:36,12:8,9:26):destinieswhichshallbedeterminedaccordingtotheattitudewhicheachhasoccupiedtowardsthe'SonofMan'onearth(12:8,9:26).ToallHis enemies it is therefore adayof vengeance (18:8), andonly as one prevails to stand before the 'Son of Man' can he hope toescape the dread which His coming brings to the earth (12:36). Thepicture, itwill be seen, is the picture of aRedeemer andAdjusterwhocomesinhumiliationtosave,andreturnsinglorytogatheruptheresultsofHisworkandfinallytoadjusttheissuesofthehistoricaldevelopmentof the world. Whence does He come to save? There is no plaindeclaration.Wearelefttoinferitfromtheobviousconnectionofthetitlewith the oracle ofDaniel 7:13, from themore narrative portions of theGospel, as e. g., the opening chapters where the supernatural birth ofJesusissetforthindetailandwithallitsimplications,andfromtheveryclearsuggestionthat thewholecareerof the 'SonofMan,' in itsearthlymanifestation and its subsequent glory alike, is of a piece and is the

outworkingofadefiniteplanofactionheldclearlyinHisownmindfromthefirstandcarriedfirmlyoutineverydetailofHisliving.

Jesus'Mission

ThesenseofHismissionwhichisthusinherentinthefavoriteMessianicdesignationHeappliedtoHimselffindsexpressionalsoinotherformsoflocutionwhichLuke reportsourLordasemploying.Thus, forexample,He is reported as speaking of Himself repeatedly as "coming" withobvious pregnancy of meaning, possibly with some reference to theexpectation of the Messianic coming which found embodiment in thedesignationoftheMessiahas'theOnetoCome,'—adesignationinLukealsoreportedasappliedtoJesushypotheticallybyJohntheBaptist(7:19,20),—butcertainlywith itschief implication inaprofoundsenseofHismission ([3:16]; 4:34, 5:32, 7:19; [cf. 7:33 of John the Baptist], 19:10),andpossiblywithsomecontrast inmindwithHissecondcoming(9:26[12:36 seq.] 18:8, 21:27). Without essential difference of meaning this"coming"is interchangedwith"beingsent"—theauthorofthe"mission"being thus more clearly indicated as God. Thus Luke varies Mark'slanguage (1:38) in recording our Lord's declaration that "He had comeforth" specifically to preach, by giving it rather: "for therefore was Hesent"(4:43)—plainlyindicatingthat"came"and"wassent"alikerefertoHisdivinemission.Possibly in this variation there is anallusion to thepassage fromIsaiahwhichJesusread in thesynagogueatNazareth (cf.Lk 4:18), but in any event the term is unambiguous, and is elsewhererepeated(9:48,10:16),andfromitwemayatleastlearnthataccordingtothe representation in Luke also Jesus prosecuted His work on earthunder a sense of performing step by step a taskwhich had been givenHimtodoandwhichHehadcomeintotheworldtoperform.

The'Bridegroom'

Weneedcallattentiononly inpassingtotherecordbyLukealso(5:34,35)ofJesus'employmentofthefigureofthe'Bridegroom'withreferenceto Himself and His relations to God's people, thus declared to be HisBride,astheywerecurrentlyrepresentedastheBrideofJehovahintheOld Testament. In this remarkable saying, preserved in all three of theSynoptics and assigned by all of them to the earlier portion of His

ministry,wehaveevidencenotonlythatJesusregardedHisministryasamissionHehadcometoperform,andalreadyknewthatit involvedHisdeath, but that He conceived this mission as Messianic and theMessiahshipasadivinefunction,sothatHiscomingwasthecomingofJehovah,thefaithfulhusbandofHispeople(Hos2:19).

ThegeneralimpressionleftonthemindbythisseriesofdesignationsisthatLukewaslessinterestedinthepreëxistenceofourLordthaninHisdivinequalityandthedivinenatureofHismission.TohimJesuswastheauthoritative Teacher, the God-appointed Messiah, the heaven-sentRedeemerfromsinanddivineFounderoftheKingdomofrighteousness,theJudgeofall theearth,Lordofmenandangels,andGod'sownSon,between whom and the Father there persists unbroken and perfectcommunion. If there is scarcely as full a witness to these things in hisgeneralnarrativeasmeetsusinMatthew,thereisanairthrownoverthewholeofsettledconvictionwhichisverystriking;andthereadercarriesawaywithhimtheimpressionthattheengrossmentoftheevangelistwithhisnarrativerepressesmuchmoretestimonytothedivinedignityoftheMessiahthanactuallyfindsexpressioninhispages.

THEJESUSOFTHESYNOPTISTS

VarietyofTitlesUsed

There has now passed under our observation the whole series ofdesignations applied to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. They aresomewhatnumerous,butall tomuchthesameeffect:andtheyunite tosuggestaunitaryconceptionofHispersonofthehighestexaltation.OurLord is called in these Gospels, 'Jesus,' 'Jesus of Nazareth,'1 'theNazarene,' 'Jesus the Galilean,'3 'Jesus the prophet from Nazareth ofGalilee,' 'Jesus surnamed Christ.'3 'Jesus Christ,' 'Jesus the Son ofDavid,'1 'JesusKingof theJews,' 'Jesus,Master,'4 'Jesus theSonof theMostHighGod.'Heisaddressedrespectfully,passingupintoreverently,by the titles of 'Rabbi,'2 'Rabboni,' 'Teacher'1 (διδάσκαλε), 'Master'(ἐπιστάτα), 'Lord' (κύριε): andHe is spokenofbyHimselforothersby

thecorrespondingappellatives, 'Teacher,'1 'Guide' (καθηγήτης), 'House-Master' (οἰκοδεσπότης), 'Lord.'1 obviouslywith thehighest implicationsthese appellatives are capable of bearing. More specifically He isdescribed as to His office and person by a long series of recognizedMessianictitles:'theComingOne,''theProphet,1'theChrist,''theKingoftheJews,'1'theKingofIsrael,''theKing,'7'theSonofDavid,''theSonofAbraham,''God'sChosenOne,'4'theHolyOneofGod,''theServant(παῖς)ofGod,' 'theSonofGod,'1 'theSonof theBlessed,' 'theSonof theMostHigh,'4 'the Son of theMost High God,' 'the Son of the Living God,'3'God's Son,' 'the Son,'1 'the Son ofMan,' 'the Saviourwho isChrist theLord,'4 'Immanuel,' 'the Shepherd who is God's Fellow,'2 'theBridegroom,''theBeloved.'1

ExtentofJewishUse

We have spoken of these designations as recognized Messianic titles.They emerge as such on the pages of the Gospel narrative. But it isnaturalthattheiractualuseassuchbytheJewscontemporarywithourLord admits of illustration from the very scanty remains of theirliteraturewhichhascomedowntousinveryvaryingmeasures.SufficeittosaythatthoseofthemwhicharemostfrequentlyfoundintheGospelnarrative and which seemmost significant for it, already occur in thenarrowcompassoftheBookofEnoch,theApocalypseofBaruch,4Esra,andthePsalmsofSolomon: 'theChrist,' 'theSonofDavid,' 'theChosenOneofGod,''theSonofGod,''theSonofMan.'Thematterisofnogreatimportance and requires to be noted chiefly that the richness of theMessianicvocabularycapableofbeingintelligiblyemployedinJesus'daymaybeappreciated,andthatthereforethevaryingdesignationsassignedtoJesusintheGospelsmayoccasionnosurprise.

OldTestamentFoundation

This rich body of designations is rooted, in all its items, not in currentMessianicspeculation,but inOldTestamentprophecy;and isawitnessnotsomuchtotheMessianicthoughtofJesus'dayastothegreatvarietyof themodes of representation adopted inOld Testament revelation toprepare the people of God for His future intervention for theirredemption. The focusing of all these lines of prediction in Jesus, and

their satisfaction inHismanifestation, is one of the phenomenawhichmarkedHisappearance,anddifferentiatesthemovementinauguratedbyHim from all other Messianic movements in Judaism—whethermovements of thought merely or of action. He came forward and wasrecognized as the embodiment of the wholeMessianic preformation ofthe Old Testament, moderating the current one-sided exaggeration ofsomeelementsofitandemphasizingotherelementsofitwhichhadbeenneglected, transfiguring elements of it which had been crasslyapprehended and compacting the whole into a unitary fulfillmentunimaginedbeforeHis appearance.What itparticularlybehoovesus totake note of at the moment is the emphasis with which Jesus ispresented,bymeansof this longseriesofdesignations,as theMessiah,and theexaltedconceptionof theMessianicdignitywhichaccompaniesthisemphaticattributionofittoHim.Nothingisleftunsaidwhichcouldbe said in simpleand straightforwardnarratives tomake it clear to thereaderthatJesusistheMessiah:andnothingislackinginwhatissaidtomake it clear that this Messiah is more than a human, even a divine,person.

Jesus'MessianicClaims

It belongs to the emphasiswhich is placed onHisMessianic characterthat no room is left for that development of Jesus' Messianicconsciousness which it has been the chief desire of many modernstudents ofHis career to trace.Nor, indeed, is room left for justifiablelaggingofrecognitionofHisMessiahshiponthepartofHisfollowersorofHiscontemporaries.HeisexhibitedasalreadyconsciousofHisuniquerelation toGod asHis Son, in the sole incident that is recorded ofHisearlyyouth(Lk2:49).HeisrepresentedasbeginningHisministryunderthe profound impression necessarily made upon Him by His solemndesignationas theMessiahbyJohntheBaptist (Mt3:14),confirmedasthiswasbyavoicefromtheopenedheavensproclaimingHimGod'sSon,HisBeloved,inwhomGodwaswellpleased(Mt3:17,Mk1:11,Lk3:22),andbyHisterribleexperienceoftestingbySatanastheSonofGod(Mt4:3,6,Lk4:3,9),andHissuccoringbytheangels(Mk1:13).AccordinglyHe is represented as opening His ministry by publicly applying toHimselftheprophecyofIsaiah61:1withitsenumerationoftheworksof

the Messiah (Lk 4:17, 18 seq.), and as entering at once upon theperformance of those works, not merely accepting the ascriptions ofMessianicdignitytoHimwhichtheyelicited(Lk5:8,4:34,41,Mk1:24,34,Mt 8:17, etc.), butHimself appealing to them as the criteria ofHisMessiahship(Mt11:3,Lk7:19).Heisrepresentedas,undertheimpulseofHissenseofHismission(Mk1:38,Lk4:43),preachingthroughoutthelandinaccentsofauthority(Mk1:22,Lk4:32),assertingHispoweroverthe religious ordinances of the people (Mk 2:28,Mt 12:8, Lk 6:5), andexercisingHisauthoritynotonlyoveruncleanspirits(e.g.,Mk1:27)andthelawsofnature(4:41),includingevendeath(5:43),butoverthemoralworld itself, in thedivineprerogativeof forgiving sins (2:10).Notonly,however,isHerepresentedasthusopenlytakingthepositionofMessiahandassumingtheauthorityandfunctionsoftheMessiah(cf.Mt7:21,29)beforethepeople:HeisrepresentedasfromthefirstspeakingofHimselfas the Messiah in the use of His favorite Messianic designation, asfrequentlyasHecouldbeexpectedtodosointhecircumstancesinwhichHewasplacedandwiththepurposewhichgovernedHisentirecourseoflife(Mt8:20||Lk9:58,Mt9:6||Mk2:10,Lk5:24,Mt10:23,Mt11:19||Lk7:34,Mt12:8||Mk2:28,Lk6:5,Mt12:32,12:40,Lk6:22,Mt13:41;before the confession of Peter atMt 16:16 ||).When these instances ofself-expression are taken in connection with those of reception of theMessianicascriptionfromothers(e.g.,Mk1:24,3:11,5:7,Mt4:3,6,8:29,14:33,Lk4:41,8:28,4:3,9,Mt9:27,15:22),itwillbeseenthattheearlyministry of Jesus, as represented by the Synoptists, was marked bypracticallycontinuousassertionorconfessionofHisMessiahship.

DivergenceFromCurrentExpectations

If,then,JohntheBaptistdoubtedinprisonwhetherHewas'theComingOne'(Mt11:3),oritwasonlythrougharevelationfromheaventhatPeterattainedtoconfessHimwithfirmfaith'theChrist,theSonoftheLivingGod' (Mt 16:16, 17), thiswas not because of any lack of opportunity tolearnofHisMessiahship,butbecausetheywerefoolishandslowofhearttobelieveinallthattheprophetshadspokenandtheireyeswereholdenthat theyshouldnotknowHimasHewalkedwiththemintheway(Lk24:16,25).SolittleweretheyleftinignoranceofwhoitwastowhomtheylistenedastheirTeacher,andobeyedastheirMasterandreverencedas

theirLord,thatitisrepresentedthatangelicmessengersdescendedfromheaven toannounceHimas thepromisedMessiahbeforeHisbirth (Lk1:32,35,2:11,26),thatthepredictedmessengerwhoshouldgobeforetheLord, coming to redeemHis people, pointedHim out as the One whoshould come afterHim (Mt 3:11 ||), thatGodHimself proclaimedHimfromheaven asHis Son (Mt 3:17 ||), that Satan andhis subject spiritsrecognizedHimonsightastheOnewhohadbeenappointedtodestroythem(Mk1:34,5:7||etc.),andthatHiswholecareerandteachingalikewere ordered to convey to every seeing eye the great intelligence. Thedifficulty,accordingtotherepresentationoftheevangelists,wasnotthatthere was not evidence enough that here was theMessiah of God, theKingcometoHisKingdom;butthattheevidencewasnotofthenaturethat hadbeen expected and therefore puzzledmen'sminds rather thanconvincedthem.ThegistofourLord'smessageto theBaptist (Mt11:3)was not that Johnmight see inHis works such things as he had beenlookingforintheMessiah,butthathemightseeinthemsuchthingsasheoughttobelookingfor."GoandtellJohnthatthesearethekindsofthings you see inme—the blind receive their sight, the lamewalk, thelepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, and the dead are raisedup; and thepoorhavethegoodtidingspreachedtothem:andblessedishewhoshallfindnoneoccasionofstumblinginMe!"Itisasmuchastosay,"GoandtellJohntorevisehisconceptionoftheMessiah,andtolookandseeifitis not these things which, according to the Scriptures (Is 61:1), shouldmarkHiswork:goandtellJohn,IamindeedHewhois tocome,butIamnotthemannerofMessiahwhoisexpectedtocome."

TransfiguredConceptionofMessiah

AccordinglytheSynopticnarrativeismarkednomorebythestressitlaysontheMessiahshipofJesusthanbythetransfiguredconceptionof thisMessiahshipwhichitineverylineinsistsupon.ThisconstantlyvibratingnoteisalreadystruckinthesupernaturalannouncementsofthebirthofJesus.ItistheSonofDavidwhoistobeborn(Mt1:20,Lk1:27,32),thepromisedKing (Mt2:2,Lk1:33);but,aboveall elseandbeforeallelse,thatSaviourwho isChrist theLord(Lk2:11),andwhosenameshallbecalledJesus,becauseit isHewhoinfulfillmentoftheancientprophecypromising the coming of Jehovah to His people, shall save His people

from their sins (Mt 1:21). It is notmerely a spiritual functionwhich ishereannounced for thisMessiah: it isalsoadivinepersonality.Who isthat Saviourwho is Christ "the Lord," andwhose name shall be calledJesusbecauseHeshallsavefromtheirsinsHispeople—"His"people,letustakegoodnote,Jesus'people,althoughitisclearitisJehovah'speoplewhoaremeant?Nowonderthatitisimmediatelyaddedthatinthisbirththereis,therefore,fulfilledtheprophecyoftheissuefromavirginofonewhosenameistobecalledImmanuel,whichis,beinginterpreted,"Godwithus"(Mt1:23).

Thenote thusstruck issustainedthroughout theGospelnarrative.ThisMessiahwhoJesusis,iscertainlytheSonofDavid,theKingofIsrael.ButtheKingdomHehascometofoundisthekingdomofrighteousness,notmerelyarighteouskingdom:itistheKingdomofHeaven,notakingdomoftheearth:theKingdomofGod,notofmen.WemayseeitsnatureinDaniel'ssplendiddreamoftheheaven-foundedkingdomofthesaintsofthe Most High (Dan 7:13, 22–27); the method of its establishment inIsaiah'svisionoftheRighteousServantofJehovah,whobearsthesinsofHispeopleandpreachesthegoodtidingstothemeek(esp.Is53and61);thepersonofitsfounderinthatmostgloriousofallpropheciesoftheOldCovenant: "Lo, your God will come; He will come and save you!" (Is35:4);"thevoiceofonethatcrieth,Prepareyeinthewildernessthewayof the Lord,make straight in the desert a highway for ourGod;… thegloryof theLord shall be revealed andall flesh shall see it together,…Behold yourGod! Behold the LordGodwill come…He shall feedHisflock likea shepherd,Heshall gather the lambs inHisarms,andcarrytheminHisbosom,andgently leadthosethatgivesuck"(Is40:1seq.).Toput it inonesentence, theMessianic idealwhich ispresented in theSynopticsasfulfilledinJesusfindsitsOldTestamentbasisnotmerelyinthe prediction of a Davidic Kingwho reigns forever over the people ofGod,but, interpretingthatkingdominthetermsofDaniel'sdreamofaheaven-foundedkingdomofsaints,interweaveswithittheportraituresofthe Servant of Jehovah of Isaiah and the fundamental promise thatJehovahshallvisitHispeopleforredemption.

HighestDesignations

The special vehicles of the exalted view of the person of the Messiah

embodied in this ideal are, so far as the Messianic designations areconcerned, first of all that of the 'Son ofMan,' then that of 'the Son ofGod,' or rather, in the more pregnant simple form, of 'the Son'; andoutsideoftheMessianictitlesproper,thehightitleof'Lord.'Thehistoryof these designations is somewhat obscure, and, although they all havetheirrootssetintheOldTestament,isillustratedbyonlyscantyusageofthem in Jewish literature prior to our Lord's time. 'The Son of Man'occursonlyintheSimilitudesofEnochandin4Ezra:theexacttitle'Sonof God' does not seem to occur at all,13 though in an interpolatedfragment of the Book of Enoch (105:2) and in 4 Ezra the Messiah isrepresentedasspokenofbyGodas'MySon.'ItisnoteworthythatinthisrareJewishusagebothtitlesappearinconnectionwithatranscendentaldoctrineoftheMessiah,15anditmaybethatitistheunwontednessofatranscendentaldoctrineoftheMessiahinJudaismwhichaccountsforthelittleusemade inJewish speculationof them,because these titleswerefelttobeimplicativeofmorethanhumanqualities.Theiremergenceintomore frequentuse in theGospelswould in that casebe connectedwiththe emphasis laid, according to their representation,upon the essentialdivinityoftheMessiahbyJesusandHisfollowers.

Meaningof'SonofMan'

Certainly the Messianic conception represented as expressed by JesusthroughHisconstantemploymentofthetitle'SonofMan'ofHimself,isthatofasupermundaneBeingenteringthesphereofearthlylifeuponahigh and beneficent mission, upon the accomplishment of which Hereturnstotheheavenlysphere,whenceHeshalloncemorecomebacktoearth,now,however,notinhumiliation,butinHisappropriatemajesty,to gather up the fruits of His work and consummate all things. Thecharacteristicnoteof 'theSonofMan'onearth is therefore a lowlinesswhich is not so much a humility as a humiliation, a voluntary self-abnegation for a purpose.He cameunder the conditions of human life(Mt 11:19 ||) onamissionofmercy (Lk 19:10)which involvedHis self-sacrifice(Mk10:45||),andthereforelivesalifeunbefittingHisessentialnature(Mt8:20).For,whenHetellsthequestioningscribethatthe'SonofMan'isworseoffthantheveryfoxes,whohaveholes,andthebirdsoftheair,whohavenests,sinceHehasnotwheretolayHishead(Mt8:20),

the very point of the remark is the incongruity of the situation.Accordingly even on earth He exercises an authority which does notbelongtoHiscondition:thoughdestinedtobesetatnaughtbymen,tobe evil-entreated and slain, yet He has power to regulate the religiousobservances of the people of God (Mk 2:28) and even to forgive sins(2:10). And when His lowly mission is accomplished He ascends thethroneoftheuniverse(Mk14:62,Mt19:28);andinduetimewillreturninHisgloryand render to everymanaccording tohisworks, seatedasKingontheuniversaljudgmentseat(Mk8:38,Mt25:31).Theconnectionof the title with the dream of Daniel 7:13, 14 is obvious: the point ofconnection lying in theconceptionof theKingdomofGod,whichJesuscame to introduce, andwhichHe finds particularly promised inDaniel7:13, 14, apparently because it is there depicted, specifically in contrastwiththeearthlykingdomswhichitsupercedes,asaKingdomofheaven.But there ismuchmoreexpressedby the title than isdiscernible in thedreamofDaniel, and that not leastwith reference to thepersonof thefounder,whoisconceived,inJesus'idea,asrepresentedbytheSynopticrecord, not merely as a supermundane, perhaps angelic, figure, butdistinctly as superangelic, transcending all creaturely relations,17 andfinding His appropriate place only by the side of God Himself, whosefunctionsHeperformsandwhosethroneHeoccupiesasKing.19

Meaningof'SonofGod'

TheconceptionattachedintheseGospelstothedesignation'SonofGod'isinnorespectlessexalted.Thetitledoesoccasionallyoccur,tobesure‚incircumstancesinwhichthisexaltedsignificanceseemsmoreorlessindanger of being missed. For example, it is employed by the Jewishofficersat the trialofChristas insomesenseasynonymof thegeneralMessianictitle'Christ'(Mk14:62,Mt26:63,Lk22:70,cf.Mt27:40,43);itisalsoemployed,accordingtoMatthew'saccount,byPeterinhisgreatconfession alongside of the term 'Christ' (16:16); and on one occasionJesus'disciples,havingwitnessedanotablemiracle,criedoutastheydidHimreverence,"OfatruthThouarethe[or,a]SonofGod"(Mt14:33).Such passages, no doubt, illustrate the use of the term as aMessianictitle.ButitseemsclearenoughthattheyillustrateitsuseasaMessianictitle of inherently higher connotation than, say, the simple term 'the

Christ'asageneral synonymofwhich it isemployed.TheverypointoftheJews'approachingJesuswiththisparticularMessianic titleappearstohavebeen—astheformofthenarrativeinLukemaysuggest—toobtainaconfessionwhichwouldenablethemfromtheirpointofviewtochargeHimwith blasphemy. That is to say, the implications of thisMessianictitleintheirmindsseemtohavebeensuchthatitsusebyamereman,orbyone seemingly amereman,would involvehim in claims forhimselfwhichweretantamounttoblasphemy.ItseemsequallyclearthatPeterinacknowledgingJesustobetheMessiah(Mt16:16)intendedbyadjoiningto thesimple, "Thouart theChrist" thedefiningphrase"theSonof theLivingGod"toattachanexaltedconceptionof theMessiahshiptoHim.And it is fairly obvious that the frightened disciples in the boat (Mt14:33),—though certainly they understood not and their heart washardened(Mk6:51),—yetexpressedoutoftheirdistractedmindsatleastthe sense of a supernatural presencewhen they cried out, "Truly Thouart"—possibly"a,"not"the"—"SonofGod."Theirexclamationthusmayin itsowndegreebeparalleledat leastwith thatof thecenturionat thecross (Mk 15:39,Mt27:54), "Truly thismanwasaSonofGod"—whichsurelyisthenaturalexpression,fromhisownpointofview,ofhisaweinthepresenceofthesupernatural.

Thisseriesofexceptionalinstancesoftheemploymentoftheterm'SonofGod'willscarcely,therefore,availtolessenthegeneralimpressionwegetfrom the current use of the title, that it designates theMessiah from apoint of view which differentiates Him as 'the Son of God' from thechildrenofmen,and throws intoemphasisadistinct implicationof thesupernaturalnessofHisperson.Itseemstobeonthisaccountthat it ischaracteristically employedbyvoices from theunseenuniverse. It isbythis term, for instance, that Satan addresses Jesus in the temptation,seekingtoinduceHimbythisexploitationofHissupernaturalcharactertoperformsupernaturaldeeds(Mt4:3,6,Lk4:3,9).Itisbythisterm(Lk4:41) that thedemonsgreetHimwhentheyrecognize inHimthe judgeanddestroyerofallthatisevil(Mk3:11,5:7,Mt8:29,Lk8:28,4:41).Itisby this term that the angel of the annunciation is represented asdescribing the nature of her miraculous child to Mary: "He shall begreat,"heannounced,"andshallbecalledtheSonoftheMostHighGod."Andindoingthis,itmustbenoted,theangelconnectsthetitlenomore

with His appointment to a supernatural service than with thesupernaturalness of His origin: because Mary's conception should besupernatural,therefore,thatholythingwhichwasbeingbegottenshouldbearthenameofthe'SonofGod'(Lk1:32,35).Itisbytheterm'MySon'above all that God Himself bore witness to Him on the two occasionswhenHespokefromheaventogiveHimHistestimony(Mk1:11,9:7,Mt3:17, 17:5, Lk 3:22, 9:35)—adding to it moreover epithets whichemphasizedtheuniquenessof theSonshipthussolemnlyannounced.Itwouldseemquiteclear,therefore,thatthetitle'SonofGod'standsinthepagesoftheSynopticsasthesupernaturalMessianicdesignationbywayof eminence, and represents the Messiah in contradistinction fromchildrenofmenasofasupernaturaloriginandnature.

It is,however, fromourLord'sownapplicationof the term 'theSon' toHimself that we derive our plainest insight into the loftiness of itsimplications. Already in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Mk12:6,Mt21:37,Lk20:13,cf.Mt22:1),HesetsHimselfasGod'sSonandHeiroveragainstallHisservants,ofwhateverquality;whichwouldseemto withdraw Him out of the category of creatures altogether. And thistremendous inference is fully supportedby the remarkableutterance inwhich, indeclaringHis ignoranceof the timeofHis future coming,HeplacesHimselfoutsideofthecategoryevenofangels,thatisofcreaturesof the highest rank, and assimilatesHimself as Son to the Father (Mk13:32,Mt24:36).It iscarriedoutof theregionof inference intothatofassertion in the two remarkable passages in which He gives didacticexpression toHis relationasSon to theFather (Mt 11:27,Lk 10:22,Mt28:19). In these,He tells usHe is co-sharer in the oneNamewith theFather,andco-existswiththeFatherinacomplete,perfectandunbrokeninterpenetration ofmutual knowledge and being. The essential deity oftheSoncouldnotreceivemoreabsoluteexpression.

Meaningof'Lord'

The difficulty of forming a precise estimate of the implications of theapplicationoftheterm'Lord'toJesusintheSynopticGospelsarisesfromtheconfluenceoftwodiversestreamsofsignificanceinthatterm.OntheonehandJesusmaybeandiscalled'Lord'bytheapplicationtoHimofatitle expressive of authority and sovereignty commonly in use among

men:aboveallotherswhohavearighttoruleHehasarighttorule.Onthe other hand, Jesusmay be and is called 'Lord' by the application toHimofacurrentBiblicaltitleexpressiveofthedivinemajesty:muchthatwassaidofthe'Lord'intheOldTestamentScriptureswascarriedovertoHimandwithitthetermitself.When,then,wemeetwithaninstanceinwhichJesusiscalled'Lord'wearepuzzledtodeterminewhetherthereismerelyattributedtoHimsupremeauthorityandjurisdiction,orthereisgiventoHimtheNamethatisaboveeveryname.

That the designation 'the Lord' had attached itself to Jesus duringHislifetimesothatHewasthusfamiliarlyspokenofamongHisfollowersisperfectlyclearfromtheGospelnarrative.ItisindeedalreadyimpliedintheinstructiongivenHisdisciplesbyJesustobringHimtheass'scoltonwhich He might make His entry into Jerusalem. He could not haveinstructedthemtosaytopossibleobjectors,"TheLordhathneedofhim"(Mk 11:3, Mt 21:3, Lk 19:31), unless He had been accustomed to bespokenofas 'theLord.'ThatHewasaccustomedtothinkingofHimselfas their 'Lord' follows also from such a passage as Mt 24:42 (cf. Mk13:35): "Watch, therefore, for ye know not on what day your Lordcometh"; and indeed from the didactic use of the term of Himself inencouraging or warning His followers (Mt 10:24), and its freeemployment in parabolic pictures, whereHe representsHimself as the'Lord'overagainstHisservants(Lk12:36,43).Inwhatsensethetermisused in such allusions is not, however, immediately obvious. Theoppositionof it to "slaves" in suchpassagesasMt. 10:24,Lk. 12:36,43leads to its instinctive interpretation in the sense of ownership andsovereignty, and does not appear to call for direct divine implicationssave as the absoluteness of the sovereignty which is suggested maysurpassthatenjoyedbymen.Perhapssomethingtothesameeffectmaybe said of Luke 1:43 where Elisabeth, under the influence of the HolySpirit,expressesherwonderingjoythat"themotherofherLord"shouldcometoher.ClearlysheintendstoexpressbythedesignationtheheightofatleastMessianicglory:butitdoesnotseemobviousthatherthoughtwentbeyondthedelegatedgloryofthedivinerepresentative.Inapassagelike Luke 5:8, however, there seems to be an ascription to Jesus of amajesty which is distinctly recognized as supernatural: not only is thecontrast of 'Lord' with 'Master' here express (cf. v. 5), but the phrase

"Departfromme;forIamasinfulman"(v.8)isthenaturalutteranceofthatsenseofunworthinesswhichoverwhelmsmeninthepresenceofthedivine,andwhichissignalizedinScriptureasthemarkofrecognitionofthe divine presence. The 'Lord, Lord' of Mt. 7:21, 22 also obviouslyinvolvesa recognitionofJesusas theLordof life, and inMt.25:37,44'Lord' is theappropriateaddress to theKingonthe judgment throneofthewhole earth. In these instances the sense of themere supernaturalgives way to the apprehension of that absolute sovereignty over thedestiniesofmenwhichcanbelongtodeityalone;itisthis'Lord'inwhosenamealltheworksoflifearedone,bywhosedeterminationalltheissuesoflifearefixed.

If in such instanceswe appear to be employing theword in its highestconnotationofsovereignty,insuchinstancesasthediscussionofDavid'swords in the110thPsalmweseemto rise intoa regionofactualdivineascription.Here,withobviousreferencetoHimself,ourLordarguesthatwhenDavid in theSpirit represents theLordassaying tohisLord, "SitthouonMyrighthand,"heascribesadignitytotheMessiahverymuchgreaterthancouldbelongtoHimsimplyasDavid'sson(Mk.12:36,37).Thatseemsasmuchastosaythatsovereigntyoftheroyalorder,howeverabsolute, is too low a category under which to subsume this Lordship:and therefore appears to point to a connotation of 'Lord' beyondillustrationfromhumananalogies.ThequestioninevitablyobtrudesitselfwhetherourLorddoesnotintendtosuggestthatDavidappliesthedivinenameitselftotheMessiah.ThattheevangelistsmayveryreadilyhavesounderstoodHimseemsevidentfromtheirownapplicationtoJesusoftheterm 'Lord' in Isaiah 40:3,—representing the incommunicable name ofJehovahasitdoes,—intheiraccountofthemissionoftheBaptist,whomthey consentiently speak of as the forerunner of Jesus, fulfilling theprophecy of the coming of the voice of one crying, "Prepare ye in thewilderness thewayof theLord,makeHis paths straight" (Mk. 1:3,Mt.3:3, Lk. 3:4). And there remains the remarkable passage in the angelicannunciation to the shepherds of the birth in the city of David of that"Saviour" who is "Christ the Lord" (Lk. 2:11). It seems impossible tosuppose that the term 'the Lord' here adds nothing to the term 'theChrist'—else why is it added? But what can the term 'Lord' add as aclimax to 'Christ'? In 'Christ' itself, the AnointedKing, there is already

expressed the height of sovereignty and authority as the delegate ofJehovah. The appearance is very strong that the adjunction of 'Lord' isintendedtoconveytheintelligencethatthe'Christ'nowbornisadivineChrist.

This appearance is greatly strengthened by the consideration that theappealtoprophecyincallingtheMessiah'theSaviour'isanappealtothegreatseriesofpredictionsoftheadventofJehovahfortheredemptionofHis people (cf.Mt. 1:21): and also by the general context inwhich thisannunciation isplaced,whichcontainsasustainedattempttomakethesupernaturalism of this birth impressive, and includes the declarationthatthechildheredesignated"theSaviourwhoisChristtheLord"is inHispersonthe'SonoftheMostHighGod'(Lk.1:32)andismarkedoutassuchbyasupernaturalbirth (1:35).Norshouldwepermit to falloutofoursightthecircumstancethatthispassageoccursinacontextinwhichthe term 'Lord' appears unusually frequently, and always, with thisexceptionandthatof1:45,ofJehovah.Itwouldbeverydifficult forthesimple reader to readof the angel of 'theLord' andof the glory of 'theLord'inLk.2:9,andof'theLord'makingknowninverse15,and,inthemiddle of these statements, of 'Christ the Lord' in verse 11, and notinstitute some connection between it and its ever-repeated fellows:especially when he would soon read in verse 26, of "the Christ of theLord." That at least a superhuman majesty is here ascribed to Jesusseemsscarcelydisputable:andthereappearsastronglikelihoodthatthissupernaturalness ismeant to rise to the divine. In any event it is clearthat the term 'Lord' is sometimesapplied toJesus in theSynoptics inaheightofconnotationwhichimportsHisdeity.

SynopticalChristDivine

It isnotnecessary toadd furtherevidence,derived fromless frequentlyemployed designations of our Lord, that a true deity is ascribed toHisperson in the Synoptic Gospels. On the basis of the considerationsalready presented it is abundantly clear that the Synoptists conceivedJesus, whom they identify with the Messiah, as a divine person; andrepresentHimasexercisingdivineprerogativesandassertingforHimselfadivinepersonalityandparticipationinthedivineName.

THEJESUSOFTHESYNOPTISTSTHEPRIMITIVEJESUS

SignificanceofSynopticalTestimony

That we may estimate the significance of the testimony to the DivineChristwhichwehaveseentobebornebytheSynoptists,wemustbearinmind that it cannot be taken asmerely the individual opinion of threewriters.Itmustberecognizedasreflectingtheconsentientconvictionofthe communitywhich these threewriters represent and forwhich theywrote.AndthisisequivalenttosayingthatwehaveheretheconceptionofJesuswhichprevailedintheprimitiveageoftheChristianpropaganda.

DateoftheSynoptics

Thismightnotbesoobvious ifwecould followcertainextremistswho,largelyinordertoescapethisveryconclusion,havewished—formerlyinmuchgreaternumbersthanmorerecently—toassignthecompositionoftheSynopticGospelstoaperiodsomewhatlateinthesecondcentury.Itwillbeallowedbymost reasonablemen to-day that theseGospelswereallwrittenbeforeA.D.80,andbelongatlatesttotheseventhandeighthdecades of the first century.Our own conviction is very clear that theywere all written before A. D. 70, and therefore belong to the seventhdecadeatthelatest.Intheseventhdecadeofthefirstcentury,therefore,itwasoffaithintheChristiancommunitythatJesusChristwasadivineperson.Andthisevidenceisretrospective.WhatwaswithsuchfirmnessuniversallybelievedofthenatureofthefounderoftheChristianreligionin the seventh decade of the first century, had not first in that decadebecome the faith of the Church. But only a short generation, as weconventionallycountgenerations—somethinglikefiveandthirtyyears—intervened between the death of Jesus and the composition of the

SynopticGospels.ItisimpossibletosupposethattheconceptionofJesushad radically altered in this brief interval; that a primitivehumanitarianism for example had in the course of thirty or forty yearsbeentransformedintoauniversalconvictionofthedeityofJesus,suchasisexpressedwithsimplicityandunstudiedemphasisinourGospels.ThewitnessoftheSynopticGospelsisaccordinglyawitnesstotheaboriginalfaithofChristians.

EarlierDocumentaryBasis

NoristheforceofthisconclusionweakenedbyattemptingtogetbehindourGospelsandappealingtotheyetearlierdocumentsoutofwhichtheymaybe thought tohavebeen framed.Grant thatourGospelsbelong tothesecondgenerationofdocuments;andthatbehindthemliestillearlierdocumentsuponwhichtheydepend.Theseearlierdocumentscannotbepresumed tohavepresented aportrait of Jesus radicallydifferent fromthatwhichallthreeoftheirrepresentativeshavederivedfromthem.Wehave simply pushed back ten, fifteen, or twenty years our literarytestimony to the deity of Jesus: and how can we suppose that thedeterminative expression of the Church's faith in A. D. 50 or A. D. 40differedradicallyfromtheChurch'sfaithinA.D.30—theyear inwhichJesusdied?TheassurancethatourGospelsrestonearlierdocumentarysourcesbecomesthusanadditionalassurancethattheconceptionoftheperson of Jesus which they present in concert is the conception whichheldthemindandheartoftheChurchfromtheverybeginning.

TheSourcesoftheSynoptics

Howfullyjustifiedthisconclusionismaybeillustratedbyexaminingtheconception of Jesus imbedded in the hypothetical sources which theseveralschoolsofcriticismreconstructforourSynoptics.Ineachandallof them is found the sameportraitof the supernaturalChrist.ProbablythetheoryoftheoriginoftheSynopticsmostinvoguejustnowisstilltheso-called "two-source" theory, in some one or other of its forms.Accordingtothistheory,ourthreeSynopticsintheirmainsubstancearecompounded out of two important primitive documents,whichmay beconveniently called 'the originalMark' and 'theMatthean sayings.' Theformeroftheseissupposedtobesubstantiallyand,intheviewofmany

critics,verycloselyindeed,representedbyourpresentMark;whilefromthe latter a goodportionof thematerial inMatthewandLukenot alsocontainedinMarkisthoughttobederived,—certainlywhatiscommontothese two Gospels apart fromMark, and doubtless also something notreproduced inbothof them.According to thepresentmost fashionableform of this theory, then, we are reading substantially a primitiveevangelicaldocumentwhenwereadourpresentMark.SomesupposetheprimitiveMarktohavebeena longerdocumentthanourpresentMark,some suppose it to have been a shorter document, some suppose it tohavedifferedfromitnotmorethanonetextualrecensionmaydifferfromanother,—say a "Western"MS. of Luke from a "Neutral" one. But fewwould care to contend that the general portrait of Jesus drawn in itdifferedmarkedlyfromthatwhichliesonthepagesofourpresentMark.TheJesusbroughtbeforeusinourpresentMark,however,is,aswehaveseen,distinctlyanddistinctivelyasupernaturalperson:anditmusthavebeenthissamedistinctlyanddistinctivelysupernaturalJesus,therefore,whichwassetforthintheprimitiveMark.

ChristologyofthePrimitiveMark

Indeed,wecandemonstratethiswithoutdifficulty.ForitiseasytoshowthatitisimpossibletoconstructaprimitiveMarkwhichwillnotcontainthis portrait of a supernatural Jesus. Take what is probably the mostirrationalhypothesisofthenatureoftheprimitiveMarkwhichhaseverbeen suggested,—that which would confine its contents strictly to thematter common to all three Synoptics, as if each Gospel must besupposedtohavetransferred into itssubstanceeverywordwhichstoodinthiscommonsourceof themall.Even inthebrokensentencesof theabsurd "telegraphese" Gospel, which on this hypothesis is supposed torepresent theprimitive evangelical document, theportrait of thedivineChristisineffaceablyimbedded.Init,asinthelargerMark,thestressofthepresentation is laidon theMessiahshipofJesus,which iscopiouslyandvariouslywitnessed.Peter inhisgreat confessiondeclaresHim the'Christ'(8:29)andthedeclarationisacceptedbyJesusHimself;asalso,when adjured by the High Priest at His trial to say whether He is the'Christ,'HeacknowledgesthatHeis,inthehighestsense(14:61,62).TheimpliedclaimtokinglyestateHealsoexpresslymakes(15:2,32);asalso

the involved claim of being the promised 'Son of David' (10:47, 48),—althoughHis conception of theMessiahship was so little exhausted bythis claim that He takes pains to point out that the Messiah wasacknowledgedbyDavidhimselftobehis'Lord,'usingthetermobviouslyinahighsense(12:35).ThatHewasfamiliarlyspokenofbyHisdisciplesas 'Lord' is also made evident (11:3); and He Himself asserts that HisLordship is high enough to give Him authority over the religiousordinancesofIsrael(2:28).Thetraditionapplies,indeed,theterm'Lord'toHimincitationsfromtheOldTestament,whereitstandsforJehovahHimself(1:3).TheevilspiritsgreetHimbythehightitleof 'SonofGod'(5:7),andthesametitleissuggestedtoHimasasynonymoftheMessiahinHisaccusation (14:61), and inneither case is it repelled.HeHimselfindeedinaparablerepresentsHimselfasinauniquesensethe'Son'and'Heir'ofGod,differentiatedassuchfromall"servants"whatsoever(12:6,7);andreceivesthetestimonyofheavenitselfthatHeisGod's'Son'andHis 'belovedSon' (1:11,9:7).HespeaksofHimself,however,withmorepredilection as the 'Son of Man'; and under this self-designation Heasserts forHimselfpowerover thereligiousordinancesofIsrael (2:28),and even the divine prerogative of forgiving sins (2:10), although HeanticipatesforHimselfonlyacareerofsuffering,predictingthatHewillbe betrayed (14:20) into the hands ofmen (9:31) who shall mock andscourge and killHim (10:33). Afterwards, however,He shall rise again(10:34)andascendtotherighthandofpower(14:62),whenceHeshallreturn in clouds with great power and glory (13:26), the glory of theFatherandtheangels(8:38).Itisclearthatthedesignation'SonofMan'is derived from Daniel 7:13, 14; (13:20, 8:28, 14:62) and the portraitpresented under it is that of a being ofmore than human powers andattributes. In completeharmonywith thisportraitHe is representedascallingHimselfalso'theBridegroom'(2:19,20),chargedasthattermwaswithOldTestamentassociationswithJehovah(cf. 'Lord'of1:3);and inimmediateconnectionwith thishighdesignation, too,HespeaksofHisdeath,thusinstitutingacloseparallelbetweenthisdesignationandthatof the 'Son ofMan.' In both alike, indeed,He evidently is regarded aspresenting Himself as a personage of superhuman, or rather of divinequality,whohascometoearth(12:17)onlyonamissionandwhosuffersanddieshereonlytofulfillthatmission.

OtherPossibleElementsinthePrimitiveMark

NodoubttherearesomestrikingphrasesoccurringinourpresentMarkwhicharelackingfromthisseriesofbrokenextractsfromit.Butthesamefigure is here outlined. And most of even these striking phrases arerestored ifwewill attendalso topassages common toMarkandoneofthe other evangelists, ofwhich itwould be hard to deny that theymaythereforehavehadaplaceintheprimitivedocumentunderlyingallthree.Thus,forexample,inthefragmentspeculiartoMatthewandMark,whileJesus is not addressed as 'Lord' except by the Syro-Phœnician woman(Mk7:28,Mt15:27),andisnotspokenofatallbythegeneralMessianicdesignation,'theChrist,'HeyetdoescallHimselfboththe'SonofMan,'and undefinedly, 'the Son.' As 'Son of Man,' he asserts, He "came" toexecuteagreatmission,nottobeministereduntobuttominister,andtogiveHislifearansomformany(Mk10:45,Mt20:28),andthereforehasa prospect of suffering before Him (Mk 9:12, Mt 17:12, Mk 14:41, Mt26:45), but dies only to rise again (Mk 9:9, Mt 17:9). As 'Son' Herepresents Himself as of superangelic dignity, and therefore above allcreatures, standing next to God Himself (Mk 13:32, Mt 24:36). In thepassages peculiar to Mark and Luke, we find Him testified to as theMessiah by the demons, who, although they know His earthly origin('Jesus ofNazareth'), profess to knowHim also to be the 'HolyOne ofGod'(Mk1:24,Lk4:34)andthe'SonoftheMostHighGod'(Mk5:7,Lk8:28). Not only does He not repel these ascriptions, but He speaks ofHimselfasthe'SonofMan,'teachingthatHeistosuffermanythingsandbekilled,butafterthreedaystoriseagain(Mk8:31,Lk9:22).AprimitivegospelcontainingallthisfallsshortinnothingofthetestimonybornebyourpresentMarktoourLord'shighernature.

Christologyofthe'PrimitiveSayings'

It is not neccessary for our purpose to expend effort in endeavoring toascertain the compass most commonly attributed to the secondhypotheticaldocumentsupposedtounderlieourSynoptics,theso-called,and let us add, verymuchmiscalled, "Logia."Wemay as well at oncedirect our eyes to its minimum contents,—the passages peculiar toMatthewandLuke,—eveninthemeagercompassofwhichweshallfindevidenceenoughthatthisdocument,whateveritsextent,presentedJesus

asaDivineBeing.ThatHewastheMessiahHeisrepresentedasHimselfindicating by pointing to His works (Mt 11:3, Lk 7:19), which, Heintimates,evidentlyonthebasisofIsaiah61:1,accreditHimasthe'Onewhowas toCome.' It is apparently asMessiah thatHe is addressed as'Lord' (Mt 8:8, Lk 7:6), and He is represented as adverting to thiscustomary mode of addressing Him in order to declare that it is notmerely verbal recognition of His authority but actual obedience to Hiswordsalonewhichwill constitute a claimuponHismercy (Mt7:21,Lk6:46)—where, it is to be noted, He presents Himself as 'Lord' of thedestinies of men, by their relations to whommen stand or fall. He isaccordinglyappropriatelyspokentobySatanas 'SonofGod'(Mt4:3,6,Lk4:3,9);andcurrentlycallsHimselfbythegreatDanielictitleof'SonofMan.'Heexplainsthatthis'SonofMan'hascomeinthefashionofmen,"eatinganddrinking"(Mt11:19,Lk7:34),andlivingahardlife(Mt8:20,Lk9:58)—ending inbetrayal anddeath (Mt26:48,Lk22:47);but afterdeath is to riseagain (Mt 12:40,Lk 11:30).ButevenwhileonearthHeasserts for Himself an unbroken communion with God, or rather acontinuous intercommunion of Himself as 'Son' with the 'Father' (Mt11:27,Lk10:22);knowingtheFatherasperfectlyasHeisknownbytheFather,andthereforeabletomakeknowntheFatherasHissoleadequaterevelationtomen.InthisgreatpassagewehavewhatmustbeconsideredtheculminatingassertiononourLord'spartofHisessentialdeity.

Resortto'HistoricalCriticism'

Itisclear,then,thatthedocumentswhich,evenintheviewofthemostunreasonable criticism, are supposed to underlie the structure of ourpresent Synoptics are freighted with the same teaching which theseGospels themselves embody as to the person of our Lord. Literarycriticism cannotpenetrate to any stratumof beliefmoreprimitive thanthis.Wemay sink our trial shafts down through the soil of theGospeltradition at any point we please; it is only conformable strata that wepierce.So faras the traditiongoes, it gives consentient testimony toanaboriginalfaithinthedeityofthefounderofthereligionofChristianity.Inthesecircumstancesit isnotstrangethatanothermodeofanalysisisattempted.Literarycriticismisabandonedforhistoricalcriticism:andweare invited to distinguish in our Gospels not between later and older

documentarystrata,butbetweennarrativeandreportorialelements.Wedonotwishtoknow,itissaid,whatMatthew,MarkorLukethought,orwhatwasthoughtbythoserepresentedbythemorbyanypredecessoroftheirs—the Christian community to wit, even the primitive Christiancommunity.Whatwewish to know iswhat JesusHimself thought.WeappealfromtherepresentationofJesusgivenbyHisfollowerstotheself-testimonyofJesus.LetushaveJesus'ownconceptionofHimself.

TheReportorialElementintheGospels

Itisnotnecessarytospendmuchtimeuponthisdemandinitssimplestform, that,namely,whichwouldmerelyseparateout fromtheSynopticGospelsastheystandthewordsattributedtoJesus,andseektoascertainfromthemJesus'witnesstothenatureofHispersonandthequalityofHisdignity.Itmusthavebeenobservedasweranoverthedesignationsapplied to our Lord in the Gospels and sought to estimate theirsignificance,thatthemostremarkableofthemaredrawnfromthewordsof Jesus. The fact is too patent and striking to have failed to attractattention: thehigher teachingof theGospels as to ourLord'sperson isembodiedveryespeciallyinHisownwords.ItisonHislips,forexample,thattheterm'Lord'appearswhenemployedinitsloftiestconnections.ItisHealonewhoapplies toHimself the significant titleof 'SonofMan,'thevehicleofthemostconstantclaimforHimofasuperhumannature.Itis He alone who, speaking out of His own consciousness, proclaimsHimself superior to those highest of God's creatures, the angels (Mk13:32,Mt24:35):representsHimselfaslivingincontinuousandperfectintercommunionwiththeFather,knowingHimevenasHeisknownbyHimandactingasthesoleadequatemediatoralikeoftheknowledgeofGodandofthegraceofGodtomen(Mt11:27,Lk10:22):andinHisgreatclosingutteranceplacesHimself, alongwith theFather andHolySpiritand equallywith them, even in the awfulprecincts of theDivineNameitself (Mt 28:19). To separate between the narrative and reportorialelementsoftheGospels,therefore,onlybringshometouswithpeculiarpoignancy the testimony theybear to thedeityofourLord, resting thistestimony,astheydo,onthefirmbasisofourLord'sownself-testimony—a self-testimony in which He at times lays bare to us the innermostdepthsofHisdivineself-consciousness.

TrustworthinessoftheEvangelicalReport

There can be no question of the deity of our Lord, therefore, ifwe cantrustthereportwhichtheevangelistsgiveofHiswords.Itisatthispoint,however,thattheassaultonthevalidityoftheirrepresentationismade.Wearenotaskedtodistinguishbetweenwhattheevangelistssayintheirownperson andwhat they say in thepersonof Jesus.Weare asked todistinguishbetweenwhat isreally theirs in theiraccountof the lifeandteaching of Jesus and what is really Jesus' own transcribed into theirnarratives. It is suggested that theymayhave, or rather that theymusthave,andactuallyhave,attributedmuch toJesuswhichHenever said;that they have read back their own ideas into His teaching, andunconsciously—ormoreorlessconsciously—placedonHislipswhatwasin point of fact the dogmatic elaborations of the later Christiancommunity. And it is demanded that we, therefore, subject the wholebody of the evangelic representation of Jesus' teaching to the mostsearchingly critical scrutinywithaview to siftingout from itwhatmayreallybedependeduponasJesus'own.Thusonly,wearetold,willitbepossible to find firm footing. Faith is the foe of fact: and in theenthusiasmoftheirdevotiontoJesusitwasinevitablethatHisfollowersshouldclotheHimintheirthoughtofHimwithattributeswhichHedidnotpossessandneverdreamedofclaiming:anditwasequallyinevitablethat they should imagine that He must have claimed them and haveendedby representingHimas claiming them.Weshallneverknow thetruthaboutJesus, therefore,weare told,untilwepenetratebehind theJesusoftheevangeliststotheJesusthatreallywas.

FaiththeFoeofFact

Thesituationmightnothavebeensobad,wearetold,iftheevangelistshad been merely transmitters of a tradition, like, say, the rabbinicalschools. But there is an essential difference between the two cases, adifferencewhichcastsuswithrespecttotheevangelictraditionintogravedoubt.ThisdifferenceisduetotheunfortunatefactthattheevangeliststhemselvesbelievedinJesusandlovedHim."Inourcase,"therefore,weare told, "we have notmerely pupils transmitting the teaching of theirmaster, but a believing community speaking of one they honor as theexalted Lord. Even the oldest Gospel is written from the standpoint of

faith; already for Mark Jesus is not only the Messiah of the Jewishpeople,butthemiraculouseternalSonofGodwhosegloryshoneintheworld."6"AndithasbeenrightlyemphasizedthatinthisregardourthreefirstGospelsaredistinguishedfromthefourthonlyindegree.Musttherenot, then, have taken place here a complete repainting from thestandpointoffaith?Forthereisacertainproprietyinsayingthatfaithisthe enemy of history. Where we believe and honor, we no longer seeobjectively." Accordingly we are told that the deepest longing ofmen'shearts to-day is to rediscover the real Jesus. "There is a greatdesire toknowHimatfirsthand,"itissaid,"notmerelythroughthelovingvisionofHisearliestinterpreters,butasHelookedandspokeandworkedandthought."Whichisasmuchastosaythatthevisiontheevangelistsgiveusof Jesus isnot conformable to the reality, buthasbeendistortedbytheirlove.IfwewishthebaldtruthaboutHimandHisclaimswemustgobehindthem.

PrimaryCannonofCriticism

Thispointofview,itwillbeobserved,isdefiniteenough.TheevangelistsarenottobetrustedinthereporttheygiveoftheteachingofJesusaboutHimself. But embarrassing questions remain. Above all, theseembarrassingquestions:Whyshouldwenottrusttheevangelists'reportofJesus'teachingastoHisownnature?And,distrustingthem,howarewetogetbehindtheirreport?ThattheevangelistsbelievedinJesusandlovedHimdoesnot seem in itself anabsolutely compelling reasonwhywe should distrust their report of His teaching concerning His ownnature. Suppose we assume for the moment that Jesus did assert forHimself superhuman dignity. How does it throw doubt upon that factthat those who report it to us were led—possibly by overwhelmingevidenceofitstruth—tobelievethatinsoassertingHespoketruly?Areweto lay itdownastheprimarycanonofcriticismthatnosympatheticreportofamaster'steachingistrustworthy;thatonlyinimicalreportersarecrediblereporters?

Absurdasitseems,thisistheactualcanonofcriticalreconstructionuponwhich ourwould-be guides, in recovering from the obscuring hands ofthe evangelists the real Jesus, would have us proceed. It has foundsomewhat notorious enunciation in Professor Schmiedel's article

"Gospels"intheEncyclopædiaBiblica.Butitissofarfrombeingpeculiarto Professor Schmiedel that it is the common foundation stone uponwhich the whole school of criticism with which we are now concernedbuilds its attempt topenetratebehind the evangelicalnarratives and torecover from theseanearlierand thereforepresumably truerpictureofJesus and His claims.9 Under its guidance we are set to searchingdiligently through theevangelicalnarratives (as if forhid treasures) forsentences or fragments of sentences in the reported words of Jesus,whichappear,ormaybemadetoappear,outofharmonywiththehighclaimsHeisconsentientlyandconstantlyreportedbyalltheevangeliststohavemadeforHimself:andonthesefewbrokenpassages,tornfromtheir context and shredded in their own contents, is erected, as on itsfoundationstone,atotallynewportraitofJesus,expressingatotallynewself-consciousness,—whichstandsrelatedtotheJesusof theevangelistsandtheself-consciousnesswhichisascribedtoHimintheiraccount,ofcourse, as its precise contradictory,—seeing that it is precisely on theprincipleofcontradictionthatithasbeenconcocted.

Surelywedonot need to pause to point out that theprocedurewe arehere invited toadopt is aprescription forhistorical investigationwhichmustalwaysissueinreversingtheportraitureofthehistoricalcharactersto the records of whose lives it is applied. The result of its universalapplication would be, so to speak, the writing of all history backwardsand the adornment of its annalswith a series of portraitswhichwouldhave this only to recommend them, that they represent everyhistoricalcharacterastheexactcontrasttowhateachwasthoughttobebyallwhoknew and esteemed him. The absurdity and wrong of invoking such acanon in the case of our Synoptic Gospels are peculiarly flagrant,inasmuchastheseGospels,aswehaveseen,andastheseverycriticsarefrank to allow, are themselves of very early date and rest on adocumentarybasis, quite at onewith them in theportrait theydrawofJesus, which is naturally earlier than themselves; and therefore reflecttheuniversal convictionof the firstgenerationofChristians. It is reallyimpossibletodoubtthattheybringtoustheaboriginaltestimonyoftheprimitive Church—a Church which included in its membership aconsiderablenumberofactualeye-witnessesofJesusandear-witnessesofHisteaching,—astoHisclaimsandpersonality.

FutilityofThisCanon

The absolute unanimity of that Church in its view of Jesus is verystrikinglyillustratedbythedifficultyofdiscoveringpassagesimbeddedinour Gospels which can be used as a foundation for the opposingportraiture of Jesus which the critics would fain draw. ProfessorSchmiedel can by the utmost sharpness of inquisition find only five,whichbyapplyingmoreexegeticalpressurehecanincreaseonlytonine.Thegroundlessnessofthisassaultonthetrustworthinessoftheportraitof Jesus presented in our Synopticsmay fairly be said, therefore, to bematched by its resultlessness. Material cannot be gathered from ourGospelsoutofwhichanaturalisticChristcanbecreated.Themethodofcriticismadoptedbeingpurelysubjective,moreover,theassumedresultsnaturallyvaryendlessly.Wefeelacertainsympathy,therefore,withthepositionassumedbythosewriterswhofranklyadmitthat,theevangelicalportraitureofJesusbeingdistrusted, therealJesus ishopelessly lost tooursight.Striveaswemay,wearetold,wecannotpenetratebehindtheJesus of our first informants—thewriters of theNew Testament, uponwhose palette had already been mingled, nevertheless, colors derivedfromJewishprophecy,Rabbinicteaching,OrientalgnosisandChristianphilosophy. "All that can be determined with certainty from thesewritings,"itisdeclared,"isthatconceptionofChristwhichwastheobjectof faithof theearlyChristiancommunitiesand their teachers": the realJesus ishopelesslyhiddenunder the incrustationswithwhich faithhasenvelopedit.Nordoesthereseemtobelackingacertainlogicalforceinthereasoningofboldersoulswhodrivetheinferenceonestepfurtherandaskwhatneed there is of assuminga real Jesusat all.The "real Jesus"whomthecritics invent certainlywasnot theauthorof theChristianitythat exists. If the Christianity that actually exists in the world can getalong without the Jesus which alone would account for it, why, theyargue,musttherebeassumedbehinditaJesuswhichwillnotaccountforit; of whom this only may be said,—that He is a useless figure, theassumption of whom is so far from accounting for that great religiousmovementwhichwecallChristianity,thatitiscertainthatthemovementdidnotariseinHimanddidnotderiveitsfundamentalconvictionsfromHim? Let us, then, assume, they say, that there never was any suchpersonasJesusatall,andthepicturedrawnofHimintheevangelistsis

puremyth.

CanWeSaveAnyJesusatAll?

It is interesting—almost amusing—to observe our disintegrating criticsover against this more radical employment of their own methods,suddenlytakinguptherôleof"apologists"andwritingsointhespiritandwiththeadoptionofsomanyoftheexactargumentsofthe"apologists,"whomtheyhavebeenwont todespise,as to leadthereader toexclaim,"Arethese,too,amongtheprophets?"Itisall,however,invain.Thefatalsubjectivitywhichunderliestheirownviewreassertsitselfintheendandleavesthemwithoutadequatedefenseagainstextremists,simplybecausewhetheronestopswiththemorgoesonwiththeothersisnotamatterofprinciple, but only of temperament. It is just as impossible thatChristianitycanhavesprungfromtheJesuswhichthesecriticsgiveus,asthat it shouldhave sprungupwithoutanyJesusbehind it atall, as theradicalsassert.Thereisjustaslittlereasoninasoundhistoricalcriticismtodiscover the JesusofBousset behind the Jesusof the evangelists, asthere is fordiscoveringwithKalthoff that therewasnorealJesusatallbehindtheJesusoftheevangelists.Theplainfactisthattheevangelistsgive us the primitive Jesus, behindwhich there is none other; and theattempttosettheJesustheygiveusasideinfavorofanassumedmoreprimitive Jesus canmean nothing but the confounding of all historicalsequences. The real impulse for the whole assault upon thetrustworthinessof theportraitofJesusdrawnintheGospels liesnot intheregionofhistoricalinvestigationbutinthatofdogmaticprejudice,—ortobemorespecific,ofnaturalisticpreconception.Themovingspringof thecriticalreconstruction is thedeterminationtohavea"natural"asoveragainstthe"supernatural"Jesusoftheevangelists.TheremustbeamoreprimitiveJesus than theevangelists'—this is theactualmovementof thought—because their Jesus is already a supernatural Jesus,—"amiraculous Son of God, inwhommen believe, whommen elevate to aplace by the side of God." The plain fact, however, is that thissupernaturalJesusistheonlyJesushistoricallywitnessedtous;theonlyJesushistoricallydiscoverablebyus;theonlyJesushistoricallytolerable.We can rid ourselves of Him only by doing violence to the wholehistoricaltestimonyandtothewholehistoricaldevelopmentaswell.Not

only is there no other Jesuswitnessed in the documents, but no otherJesuscanhave formed thestartingpointof thegreatmovementwhich,springingfromHim,hasconqueredtoitselfthecivilizedworld.

Whatmust absorb our attention immediately, however, is thedifficultythat is found even on these naturalistic presuppositions in eliminatingfromtheportraitofJesusdrawnintheGospelsallsupernaturaltraitsandallclaimsonHisownparttoasupernaturalpersonality.Tobesuccessfulhere, there is required such a policy of thoroughgoing rejection asKalthoff'sandW.B.Smith's,whosweepawaythewholefigureofJesusitself as amyth, or at least asWrede's,whowouldhaveusbelieve thatJesusmadenoclaimtoevenMessianicdignity,sothattheentirepicturedrawn of His career in our Gospels is false; or else such a policy of"ignoramus"asPfleiderer'swhodeclines to formanypictureof therealJesusatall.Themajorityofnaturalisticcriticsrecoil,however,fromtheseextremes with an energy which seems to betray at least a semi-consciousness that there may haply be found in them the reductio adabsurdumof theirwholemethod.Theirposition is certainlyahardonebetween these extremes fromwhich they recoil and the portrait of theevangeliststowardwhichtheirrecoilbringsthemback.Inendeavoringtoavoidconclusions recognizedby themas intolerable theyarecompelledto give recognition to facts as to the claims of the real Jesuswhich arefataltotheirwholeelaboratelyarguedposition.

JesusCertainlyClaimedtobeMessiahand'SonofMan'

Theyareforced,forexample,toallowthatJesusdidannounceHimselfasthe Messiah. And they are forced to admit that, in developing HisMessianic conception,Hewaswont to callHimself 'theSonofMan.' Itmakes very entertaining reading to observe Bousset, for example,grudgingly conceding the fact, and then nervously endeavoring to savehimself from the consequences of the damaging acknowledgment. Hecannotdeny that this title "representsaperfectlydefinite conceptionofthe Messiah," a conception which sees in the Messiah a supernaturalfigurewho comesdown fromheaven for amission, andwho is clothedwithnolessafunctionthanthatoftheJudgeoftheworld:andhecannotdenythatJesusrepresentsHimselfas'theSonofMan.'ButhewishesustobelievethatJesusdidthisonlyundergreatpressure,asthecloseofHis

lifedrewnearandevilfateclosedaboutHim,—seizingandclingingtotheDanielic prophecy to comfort Himself in the face of the fast-comingdisaster.AndHeassuresusthatJesusdidnotadoptthetitleeventheninitsfullcontent"includingtheideaofpreëxistenceandHisownjudgeshipof theworld." "ToHim,"he tellsus, "the ideaof theSonofManmeantonlyonething,—Hisreturninglory.""HedidnottherebyplaceHimselfonalevelwithGod.Aboveall,Hedidnotlayclaimtothejudgeshipoftheworld,althoughthatconceptionwas,strictlyspeaking,includedinthatoftheSonofMan.""Itistrue,"headds,"inthenarrativeofourGospels,theopposite seems to be the case. But it is inconceivable … that Jesus …shouldhavearrogatedtoHimself the judgeshipof theworld inplaceofGod.Thisisaninstanceofthefaithofthecommunityworkinguponthetradition.…Asthetraditionwashandeddownbythecommunity,Jesuswas gradually removed from the position of a simple witness for Hisfollowers before God's tribunal to that of the actual judgeship of theworld."17Thatistosay,inbrief,Boussetdoesnotliketheconsequencesofallowing thatJesusapplied toHimself the titleof 'SonofMan,' and,findingHimselfunableneverthelesstodenythatHedidapplythistitletoHimself,contentshimselfsimplywithdenyingtheconsequences,—Jesuscouldnothavemeantit.Thosewhoprefertodeterminehistoricalfactsbythe testimony of credible witnesses, rather than by the witness ofBousset's consciousness as to what were fitting, will probably thinkotherwise.

JesusCertainlyClaimedtobeSuperangelic

Similarly it cannot be even plausibly denied that Jesus spoke theremarkable words attributed to Him in which He acknowledges Hisignorance of the time of His promised second coming. The critics areindeed in a great quandary as to this passage. It is not the kind of apassage they can assume the evangelists to have invented. On theirfundamentalcanonthatstatementswhichare,orseemtobe, inconflictwiththeevangelists'hero-worshipofJesus,beartheineradicablestampofgenuineness,theyareboundtoattributethesewordsofJesus.ForwasnotJesusto theevangelists theomniscientSonofGod?AndhowcouldtheyputonHislipsaconfessionofignoranceofsosimpleamatterasthetime of His return? In point of fact, accordingly, this passage is found

amongthenine"absolutelycredible"passageswhichSchmiedeldeclares"the foundation pillars for a truly scientific life of Jesus," and ispronouncedbyhimtohavebeen"mostcertainly"spokenbyJesus.Yetinthis passage Jesus proclaims Himself a being superior to angels,separated, that is, fromtheentirecategoryofcreaturelyexistences,andassimilatedtothedivine:"Noone,noteventheangelsinheaven,noryettheSon,butGodonly."

AndGod

And if itmustbeallowed that the "real Jesus" currently calledHimself'theSonofMan,'nodoubtwithfullconsciousnessofitsimplications,andasserted for Himself super-angelic dignity, it would seem merehypercriticism which would deny to Him the great assertion ofintercommunion with the Father made in Mt 11:27, Lk 10:22. On thegeneral critical canon that sayings reportedby bothMatthewandLuke"aretobeusedwithconfidenceasrepresentingthethoughtofJesus,"thispassagemustbeacceptedasanauthoritativeutteranceofHis.21But,inthatcase,the"realJesus"mustbecreditedwithconceivingHisrelationtotheFatherlessasthatofaservantthanasthatofafellow:asthe'Son'Hemoves in the sphereof thedivine life.And, thisonceallowed,whatreason remains for denying to Him the culminating expression of Hisdivine self-consciousness, the sublime utterance in whichHe gives theSonashareintheDivineNameitself(Mt28:19)?OfcourseitisdeniedtoHimbythecriticsoftheschoolwehavebeenconsidering.Butthedenialis in the circumstances purely arbitrary and creates a situation whichleaves an important historical sequence unaccounted for. It isundeniable, for example, that the trinitarian mode of speech hereillustratedwas current in theChurch from its earliest origin: it alreadyappears in Paul's Epistles, for example,—especially, as a familiar andwell-understood form of speech, in 2 Cor 13:14,whichwaswritten notmorethantwenty-fiveyearsafterourLord'sdeathandantedatesallourGospels. This current form of speech among Christians of the first agefinds its completeaccount if theusagewere rooted inutterancesofourLord,butithangsinexplicablyintheairwithoutsomesuchsupposition.Theoccurrenceof thepassage inMt28:19 in the recordsof ourLord'steaching is thus too closely linked to ahistorical situation topermit its

displacement on the purely subjective grounds on which alone itsgenuinenesscanbeassailed.

TheSynopticJesustheRealJesus

It would seem to be reasonably clear, therefore, that the attempt topenetratebehindtheSynoptictraditionwithaviewtodiscoveringa"realJesus,"differingfromtheSynopticJesusasthenaturaldiffers fromthesupernatural,hasfailed.Thepurelysubjectivegroundsonwhichsuchanattempt must proceed in order to reach its goal, lays it open to theexaggeration which would eliminate the figure of Jesus from historyaltogether. From this exaggeration, it can save itself only by imposingarbitrary limitations upon the application of its subjective principle,whichrenderitnugatoryfortheendforwhichitisinvoked.Inanyeventno reasonable grounds can be assigned for discarding the portrait ofJesusdrawnbytheSynoptists,orfordeprivingHimofthegreatsayingsbywhichHeisrepresentedbythemastestifyingtoHisessentialdeity.Itis impossible to deny on any reasonable grounds that Jesus calledHimself the 'Son of Man' by predilection, and it is purely arbitrary tosuppose that in doing soHe did notmeanwhat the term implies. It isequally impossible to deny that He represented Himself under thedenomination of 'Son' as of super-angelic dignity, and as standing in arelation of intimate continuous intercourse with God the Father. Thisprepares the way for allowing farther that He represented Himself assharerwiththeFatherinthedivineNameitself,andmakesnugatoryallsubjectiveobjectiontoit.ThestrictestscrutinyoftheSynopticrecordofJesus' teaching, in other words, renders an appeal from theirrepresentation to Jesus' own teaching meaningless. It is not only theSynoptistswho testify that Jesus is a divine person, but the Jesus theyreport:itisnotonlytheJesusasreportedbythemwhobearsthiswitnesstoHimself, but the only Jesus of history. On the basis of the Synopticrecord, inotherwords,wecanbe fullyassured thatJesusnotonlywasbelievedtohavetaughtthatHewasadivineperson,butactuallydidsoteach.

THEDESIGNATIONSOFOURLORDINJOHNANDTHEIRSIGNIFICANCE

SameChristologyinSynopticsandJohn

It may certainly be said that, on this showing, little is left by theSynoptiststoJohn,inthewayofascribingessentialdeitytoJesus.Thisistrue enough. Those who are familiar with the recent literature of thesubjectwillnotneed tobe told that the contradictionwhichused tobeinstitutedbetweentheSynoptistsandJohninthismattertendsoflatetobe abandoned. Not only does Dr. Sanday, for example, speak of theteachingofJohnasonly"aseriesofvariationsupontheonethemewhichhas its classical expression" in theculminatingchristologicalpassageoftheSynoptists,andremarkthatitisinMatthewratherthaninJohnthatthe"onlyapproachtoaformulationofthedoctrineoftheTrinity"occursin theGospels;2but,aswehavealreadyseen,purelynaturalisticcriticslikeBousset are emphatic in asserting that between the Synoptists andJohn,inthematteroftheascriptionofdeitytoourLord,thereexistsonlyadifferenceofdegree,notofkind.WhateverelsewemustsayofWilhelmWrede's work on the Gospel of Mark, he has certainly rendered itimpossiblehereaftertoappealfromthechristologyofJohntothatoftheSynoptists.ThosewhowillnothaveadivineChristmusthenceforthseektheir human Jesus outside the entire evangelical literature. It is notmerely his own individual opinion, then, which Professor ShailerMathewsisgivingwhenhedeclaresthat"generallyspeaking,outsidethereferences to the early Messianic career of Jesus, the Fourth Gospelcontains nothing from Jesus that is new": and that, after all, thedifferences between the Synoptists and John are "a question of degreerather than of sort of treatment."5Hemight have omitted, indeed, thequalificationwithrespecttothereferencestotheearlyMessianiccareerof Jesus. We have already seen that to the Synoptists also Jesus wasconsciouslytheMessiahfromtheveryinceptionofHiswork;orrather,intheircase,letussay,fromtheverybeginningofHislife.Afterall,itistheSynoptists, not John, who tell us of the proclamation of theMessianiccharacterofthisChildbeforeHisbirth:anditisLuke,notJohn,whotellsus that He was conscious of His unique relation to God as in a very

specialsenseHisFatherfromHisearliestchildhood.

DifferencesinMethod

The Synoptists and John certainly stand on the same level in theirestimateofthepersonofJesus,anddifferintheirpresentationofitonlyintherelativeemphasistheythrowonthisortheotheraspectofit.IntheSynoptists it is the Messiahship of Jesus which receives the primaryemphasis,whileHisproperdeityisintroducedincidentallyinthecourseofmaking clear thegreatnessofHisMessianicdignity. InJohn,on thecontrary, it is thedeityofourLordwhich takes the firstplace,andHisMessiahship is treated subsidiarily as the appropriate instrumentalitythroughwhichthisdivineBeingworksinbringinglifetothedeadworld.Thedifferencesinpointofviewbetweenthemreceiveafairillustrationinthe introductionswhich the evangelists have severally prefixed to theirnarratives. Luke begins his Gospel with a short paragraph designed toestablishconfidenceinthetrustworthinessofhisaccountofthelifeandworkof theworld'sRedeemer.Markopenshiswitha fewwordswhichconnect Jesus' careerwith the subsequent expansionof the religionHefounded. Matthew's commences with a reference to the previousdevelopmentofthepeopleofGod,andpresentstheapparitionofJesusastheculminatingactof theGodof Israel inestablishingHisKingdom intheworld.Allthesetaketheirstarting-pointinthephenomenal,andbusythemselveswithexhibitingthesuperhumanmajestyofthismanofGod'sappointment, the Christ of God. John, on the other hand, takes hisreadersbackatonceintothenoumenal;andinvitesthemtoobservehowthis divine Being came into the world to save the world, and howHissavingworkwaswroughtinthecapacityoftheMessiahofIsrael.Itisinhisprologue, therefore, thatJohnsets forth theplatformofhisGospel,whichiswrittenwiththedistinctpurposethatitsreadersmaybeledtobelievethatJesusisnotmerelythe'Christ,'butthe'SonofGod'(20:31);for, that the term 'Son of God' here has ametaphysical significance isscarcelyopentoquestion.InthissenseJohn'sGospelistheGospelofthedeityofChrist;althoughitisclearthatwecancallitsuchincontrastwiththeSynoptistsonlyrelatively,notabsolutely.Inasensenotsofullytrueofthem,however,itwaswrittentomanifestthedeityofChrist.

ThePrologueofJohn

Inhisprologue,then,Johntellsuswithclearandevencrispdistinctnesswhat inHisessentialBeingheconceives theJesus tobewhose lifeandteachingintheworldheistogiveanaccountofinhisGospel.Andwhathetellsusis,inoneword,thatthisJesusisGod.Intellingthishemakesuse of a phraseology not only not found in the other evangelists, butabsolutely peculiar to himself. The person of whom he is speaking heidentifies at the close of the prologue (1:17) by the solemn compoundnameof'JesusChrist,'asMarkandMatthewalsoattheopeningoftheirGospelshadmadeuseof thesamegreatnameto identifythesubjectoftheirdiscourse;and,likethem,Johnalsomakesnofurtheruseofthisfullname in his Gospel (cf., however, 17:3). The particular designation heapplies to this person in order to describe His essential nature is 'theWord'(ὁλόγος).Ofthis'Word'hedeclaresthatHewasinthebeginning,that is, that He is of eternal subsistence; that He was eternally "withGod," that is, thatHe is in somehigh sensedistinct fromGod; andyetthatHewaseternallyHimselfGod,thatis,thatHeisinsomedeepsenseidentical with God (1:1, 1, 1); and nevertheless that in due time Hebecameflesh,thatis,thatHetookuponHimselfahumannature(1:14),andsocameundertheobservationofmenandwaspointedoutbyJohnthe Baptist as the 'Coming One,' that is, the Messiah. In furtherelucidationofHisessentialnature,Heisdescribedasthe'onlybegottenfrom the Father' (1:14) or evenmore poignantly as 'God only-begotten'(1:18).AllthisphraseologyisuniqueintheNewTestament.NowhereelseexceptRev 19:13 is Jesus Christ called the 'Word' (1:1, 1, 1, 14 only, with thepossibleexceptionsof1Jno1:1,Heb4:12).Nowhereelse,exceptJno3:16,18, 1 Jno 4:9, is He called the 'Only Begotten.' Yet the general senseintendedtobeconveyed isperfectlyclear.Johnwishes todeclareJesusChristGod;butnotGod insuchasense that there isnootherGodbutHe.ThereforehecallsHim'theWord,'—'theWord'whoisindeedGodbutalsoalongsideofGod,thatistosay,GodasRevealer:andheaddsthatHeis 'God only begotten,' the idea conveyed bywhich is not derivation ofessence,butuniquenessofrelation,sothatwhatisdeclaredisthatbesideJesusChristthereisnoother,—HeisthesolecompleterepresentationofGodonearth. Inharmonywith thesedesignationshe callsHimalso inthis prologue the 'Light' (1:[4, 5], 7, 8, 9)—a designation more fully

developedbyourLordHimselfinHisdiscourses.TheeffectofthewholeistoemphasizeinthestrongestmannerattheinceptionoftheGospelthedivinenatureofthe'JesusChrist'whoistobethesubjectofitsnarrative:andthustosetforththeaspectinwhichHislifeandworkareheretobedepicted.

Jesus'NarrativeNameinJohn

Thekey-noteoftheGospelhavingbeenthusset,however,John,sosoonastheprologueisoverandhetakesupthenarrativeproper,leavesthesehighdesignationsbehindhimandprosecuteshisnarrative,liketheotherevangelists,bymeansofthesimpledesignation'Jesus.'AstrulytoJohnas to theSynoptists, thus, thenarrativenameofourLord is the simple'Jesus,'whichoccursnearly250times.Itisvariedinthenarrativeonlybyaveryoccasionaluseof'theLord'initsstead(4:1,6:23,11:2,20:20,21:[7], 12).No other designation is employed by Johnhimself outside theprologue, except in the closing verse of the narrative proper (20:31),wherehedeclaresthathehaswrittentotheendthatitmightbebelievedthat 'Jesus'—the 'Jesus' of whom he had so currently spoken—is 'theChrist,theSonofGod.'Itispossible,nodoubt,totakethe'JesusChrist'of 17:3asaparenthetical insertion fromhishand,and toassign tohimthe paragraph 3:16–21, inwhich Jesus is spoken of as 'the Son,' God's'onlybegottenSon,''theonlybegottenSonofGod.'Buttheseexceptions,eveniftheybeallallowed,onlyslightlybreakinuponthehabitualusagebywhichJohnspeaksofourLordsimplyas'Jesus,'variedoccasionallyto'the Lord.' They would merely bear witness to the fact that the highreverencetothepersonofourLordmanifestedinthedesignationsoftheprologuecontinuestoconditionthethoughtofthewriterthroughout,andoccasionally manifests itself in the appearance of similarly loftydesignationsinthenarrative.

Jesus'PopularDesignations

Asintheotherevangelists,further,thesimple'Jesus'isreservedforthenarrativename,andisplacedonthelipsofnooneofthespeakerswhoappear in itscourse.It ismadeclear,however, that itwasbythisnamethatourLordwasknown toHiscontemporaries,andHe isaccordinglydistinguishedbythosewhospeakofHimas"themanthatiscalledJesus"

(9:11),"Jesus, theSonofJoseph"(6:42),"JesusofNazareth, theSonofJoseph"(1:45),orthesimple"JesusofNazareth"(18:5,7,19:19).InthereportsofremarksaboutHimthesimpledemonstrativepronounindeedis sometimes made to do duty as the only designation needed,occasionally,possibly,withanaccentofcontempt(6:42,42,52,7:15,35,9:16, [24]; 18:30), but ordinarilymerely designatorily (1:2, 30, 33, 34,3:26,4:29,42,6:14,46,[50,58];7:25,26,31,40,41,46,9:33,11:37,37,47).AndsometimesHeisrepresentedasspokenofmerelyas"thisman"(ἄνθρωπος,9:16,24,11:47,18:17,29),orindeedsimplyasaman(ἀνήρ,1:30only;ἄνθρωπος,4:29,5:12,7:46,[51];[8:40,9:11,16,16,24,10:33];11:47,50,18:14,17,29,19:5).

FormulasofAddress

InthenarrativeofJohnourLordisrepresentedascustomarilyaddressedby His followers, as He Himself informs us (13:13, 14), as 'Teacher'(διδάσχαλε) and 'Lord' (χύριε), the correlatives of which are 'disciples'(μαθηταίpassim)and'servants,'thatis'slaves'(δούλοι,13:16,15:15,20).Theactualformula'Teacher,'however,occursveryrarely(1:38,20:16,in11:28 it isanappellative, implying itsuse inaddress;cf.3:2, 13:13, 14),although its place is in part supplied by the comparatively frequentAramaicform'Rabbi'(1:38,49,3:2,4:31,6:25,9:2,11:8;usedofJohntheBaptist, 3:26), varied on one occasion to 'Rabboni' (20:16). The mostcommonhonorificformofaddressis'Lord'(4:11,15,19,49,5:7,6:34,68,9:36, 38, 11:3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39, 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37, 14:5, 8, 22;[20:15]; 21:15, 20, 21; of Philip, 12:21). Of course, seeing that He wascurrentlyaddressedas'Teacher,''Lord,'Hecouldnotbutbespokenofbythese titles, used appellatively: 'the Teacher' (11:28, cf. 13:13, 14, 3:2)rarely, and comparatively frequently 'the Lord' (20:2, 13, 18, 25, 21:7).The latter usage the evangelist himself adopts in his own person (4:1,6:23,11:2,20:20,21:7,12).Itisnoteworthythatthetitle 'theLord'isinthisGospelconfinedtoJesus,neveroccuringofGodtheFatherexceptinaveryfewcitationsfromtheOldTestament(12:13,38,cf.1:23).Itisanodd circumstance that the appellative use of 'Lord' of Jesus occurs,however,onlyafterHisresurrection.Wesaythisisanoddcircumstance,becauseourLordisrepresentedasHimselftellingusthatitwasappliedtoHimduringHis life (13:13,14),as indeed itcouldnot fail tobe from

the currency of the corresponding formula of address with respect toHim. This circumstance must be set down, therefore, as merely anaccidentoftherecord.

'Lord'

Fromthesubstanceofthepassagesinwhichitisemployed,wegetverylittleguidancetothesignificanceof'theLord'asthusappliedtoJesus.Itis only obvious that it is used with reverential recognition of Hisauthority.Onlyinthegreatpassage(20:28)whereThomas'doubtbreaksdownatthesightofhisrisenMasterandhecriestoHim,"MyLordandmyGod,"dowecatchanunmistakablesuggestionofitshighestmeaning.That this exclamation was addressed to Christ is expressly stated:"Thomasansweredandsaid toHim."Thestrongemotionwithwhich itwas spoken is obvious. It is not so clear, however, what preciseconnotationistobeascribedtotheterm'myLord'init.Theremaybeaclimax in the progress from 'my Lord' to 'my God.' But it seemsimpossible todoubt that in this collocation 'Lord' can fall little shortof'God' in significance; else the conjunction of the two would beincongruous.Possiblybothtermsshouldbetakenasassertingdeity,theformer with the emphasis upon the subjection, and the latter with theemphasisontheawe,duetodeity.Inanyeventincombinationthetwotermsexpress as strongly as couldbe expressed thedeityof Jesus; andtheconjointascriptionisexpresslyacceptedandcommendedbyJesus.Itmust rank, therefore,asan itemof self-testimonyonourLord'spart toHisGodhead.

Jesus,the'Christ'

The ascription to our Lord of prophetic character is, as in the otherevangelists, cursorily noted (4:19, 6:14, 7:40, [52]; 9:17), as is also ourLord's own acceptance of the rôle (4:44). But in John, too, it isparticularly the specificallyMessianic titleswhichattract attention.Thesimpledesignation'theChrist'isnot,indeed,frequentlyapplieddirectlytoourLord,althoughitismadeclearthatHeannouncedHimselfas'theChrist,'andwasacceptedassuchbyHis followers,andthereforeraisedcontinualquestioningsinthemindsofoutsiderswhetherHewereindeed'theChrist.'JohntheBaptistisrepresentedasfranklyconfessingthathe

wasnothimself'theChrist,'butHisforerunner(1:20,25,3:28),pointingnotobscurely toJesusas theMessiah.AndaccordinglyJohn'sdisciplesfollowing their master's suggestion find in Jesus 'the Messiah' (1:41),whichtheevangelistinterpretstousas'theChrist.'WhenthewomanofSamariaconfessesherknowledgethat'Messiah'(who,addstheevangelistagain,iscalled'Christ')istocome,ourLordmajesticallydeclaresHimselftobeHim(4:25,26).The speculationof thepeopleoverHisMessianiccharacter finds repeated mention (4:29, 7:26, 27, 31, 41, 41, 42, 9:22,10:24, 12:34). JesusHimself is represented as calling out fromMarthathefullconfession,inwhichthecurrentMessianictitlesareaccumulatedwith unwonted richness: "Yea, Lord: I have believed that Thou art theChrist, theSonofGod,Hethatcomethintotheworld"(11:27).Andtheevangelisthimself,withsomesimilarrepetitionoftitles,explainsthatthepurposehehadinviewinwritinghisGospelwasthatitmightbebelievedthat"JesusistheChrist,theSonofGod"(20:31),andannouncesasthefullnameof thesubjectofhisnarrative,at its inceptionandpossiblyatonepointinitscoursewhereexplicitidentificationseemedtohimuseful,'JesusChrist'(1:17,cf.17:3).Wemustnotpassoverthis listofpassageswithoutnotingthatontwooccasionstheAramaicterm'Messiah'occurs(1:41,4:25),theonlyinstancesofitsoccurrenceintheNewTestament.

Jesus'ownUseof'JesusChrist'

Norshouldweleaveunnoticedthesomewhatdifficultquestionwhether'Jesus Christ' in 17:3 is intended as a word of our Lord's or is to beunderstoodasaparentheticalexplanationoftheevangelist's.Nodoubtitis easiest to take it as an insertion of the evangelist's. The term 'JesusChrist'occurselsewhereintheGospelsonlyasaformoftheevangelists'own, employed in the rarest manner as the most ceremonious andsolemnof all direct designations of Jesus (Mt 1:18 [16:21],Mk 1:1, Jno1:17);and there seemssomething incongruous inplacing this fullnameonthelipsofJesusHimself,implyingasitdoesthat'Christ'hadalreadyfor Him acquired the quality of a proper name, and indeed that thecompound'JesusChrist'hadbecome,thoughofcoursenotwiththelossof its Messianic implications, yet very much itself a proper name.Nevertheless the structure of the sentence is not favorable to itsassignmenttotheevangelist.OurLord,speakingintheseopeningverses

ofHisgreatprayerinthethirdperson("ThySon,""ThySon,""toHim,""toHim,"verses 1 and2),declares that eternal life consists inknowingtheFatherandHimwhomtheFatherhassent(verse3).Toeachofthesepersons, thus formally mentioned, then, a fuller designation isdescriptivelyadded:thewordsrun:"ThattheymayknowThee,'theonlytrueGod,'andHimwhomThoudidstsend,'JesusChrist.'"Thebalanceof the clauses seem to imply that they stand together, and thataccordinglyif 'JesusChrist'istobetakenasanexplanatoryaddition,somust also 'the only true God.' Dr. Westcott accordingly makes thissupposition,andurgesinitssupportthat'theonlytrueGod'isinJohn'smanner (cf. 1 Jno5:20) andnot inourLord's: and that it is innowayderogatorytoJohn'struthfulnessasareporterthatheshouldthusinsertbrief explanations, nodoubt the compressed representation ofmuchofour Lord's teaching.On the other hand, itmay be urged that it is veryeasytoexaggerate thedifficultyofsupposingourLordtohaveusedthephrase in question. He is certainly speaking of Himself: He has justdesignatedHimself the 'Son' (verse 2); and now designatesHimself bythe phrase, "Whom Thou didst send." Why, continuing the use of thethirdperson, shouldHenot solemnlydesignateHimself byname, and,doingso,whyshouldHenotemploythefullceremoniousnameof'JesusChrist'? This, of course, would imply that 'Christ,' in its constantapplicationtoHim,hadalreadybecome,inourLord'slife-time,atleastaquasi-proper name.We have seen already, however, that this was verymuchthecase(Mk9:41,Mt24:5,27:17,22);andifJesuscouldspeakofHimselfas'Christ,'thereseemsnocompellingreasonwhyHeshouldnotspeakofHimselfas'JesusChrist.'Nodoubteventhisdifficultymightbeavoidedbytaking 'Christ'herepredicatively:"ThattheymayknowTheetheonlytrueGodandHimwhomThoudidstsend,Jesus,astheChrist."The structure of the sentence again, however, is not favorable to thisconstruction,whichwouldbreaktheparallelismoftheclauses.Itseemsmore natural on thewhole, therefore, to take 'JesusChrist' together asJesus'ownself-designationofHimself; though ifany feeladifficulty inassumingthatHealreadyused'Christ'inthiscombinationcompletelyasapropername,thereseemsnoreasonwhyitshouldnotbeunderstoodasappellative: "Him whom Thou didst send, even Jesus the Messiah." Itmust be recognized, indeed, that this appellative connotation is in anyeventnotentirelylost,butthroughoutthewholeuseofthename'Jesus

Christ' intheApostolicChurchretainsitsforce.Inthispassagewehaveonlytheearliestinstanceofthecombinationofthetwonames'Jesus,'asthe personal, and 'Christ,' as the official designation, into one quasi-propername:andthesolemnemploymentofitthusbyJesusgivesusthepointofdepartureforitsApostolicusefromPentecoston(Acts2:38,3:6,4:10,8:12,37,etc.)whenevergreatsolemnitydemandedtheemploymentofthisceremoniousname.ThisfixedApostolicusagefromthefirstdaysof the infant Church finds its best explanation in such a solemnemploymentofitbyourLordaswehavehererecordedforusbyJohn.

Jesus'RelationtoGod

Weoughtnot topass finally from thispassagewithout fairly facing theapparentcontrastwhichisdrawninitbetweenJesusChristastheSentofGodandtheGodwhosentHim,describedhereas"theonly trueGod,"thatistosay,HimtowhomalonebelongstherealityoftheideaofGod.Fromthiscontrast ithasoftenbeenrashly inferred thatJesusChrist isherebyimplicationaffirmednottobeGod;atleastnotinthehighestandtruestsense.This,however,itisobvious,wouldthrowthedeclarationsinthis Gospel of the relation of Christ to the Father into the greatestconfusion.HewhohasexplainedthatHeandtheFatherareOne(10:30,cf.5:18),andthattohaveseenHimistohaveseentheFather(14:9,cf.8:19, 10:15, 14:7), and who commended the confession of Him by Hisfolloweras"hisLordandhisGod"(20:28),canscarcelybesupposedheresopointedlytodenyHimselfincidentallytobetheGodHesofrequentlyaffirmsHimself to be. It is quite clear, indeed, that the relation of ourLordtotheFatherisnotrepresentedbyJohn,whetherinhisownpersonor in thewordshe reports from the lips of Jesus, as a perfectly simpleone.ItscomplexityisalreadyapparentinthepuzzlingopeningwordsoftheGospel,wheretheevangelistisnotcontenttodeclareHimmerelytohavebeenfrometernitywithGod,ormerelytohavebeenfrometernityGod, but unites the two statements as if only by their union could thewholetruthbeenunciated.WemaylegitimatelysaythatthisdoublewayofspeakingofChristconfusesus;andthatwecannotfullyunderstandit.Wearenotentitledtosaythatitistheindexofconfusioninthemindofthe evangelist—or in themind of the greater Speakerwhosewords theevangelistreports,—unlessitisperfectlyclearthatthereisnoconception

of the relation to the Father of Him whom the evangelist calls bypredilectionthe'SonofGod,'eventhe'OnlybegottenSon'orindeed'Godonly begotten,' on the supposition of which as lying in his mind thedoublemodeofspeakingofHimwhichwefindconfusingmaybereducedto a real harmony.And it is undeniable that on the suppositionof thatconceptionwhichhascomeintheChurchtobecalledthedoctrineoftheTrinity,—especially as supplemented by those other two conceptionsknownas thedoctrinesof theTwoNaturesofChristandof theEternalCovenantofRedemption,—asformingthebackgroundoftheevangelist'svariedmodesofspeakingofChrist,andofourLord'sownvariedmodeofspeakingofHimselfas reportedbyJohn,allappearanceofdisharmonybetweenthesedeclarationsdisappears.Tosaythis,however,istosaythatthesegreatdoctrinesaretaughtbyJohnandbyourLordasreportedbyHim:forsurelythereisnomoreeffectivewayofteachingdoctrinesthanalways to speak on their presupposition, and in a manner which isconfusingandapparentlyself-contradictoryexcepttheybepresupposed.Whateverwemayourselvesfindofmysteryinthesedoctrines,it isonlyfair to recognize that they express part of the fundamental basis of thereligious thoughtof theGospelofJohnandof thegreatTeacherwhosewordsthatGospelsorichlyreportstous.

'King'

ItisonlyanotherwayofcallingJesusthe'Christ'tocallHimthe'KingofIsrael.' This Nathanael does when Jesusmanifested to himHis super-humanknowledgeofhisheart,exclaiming: "Rabbi,Thouart theSonofGod, Thou art the King of Israel" (1:49)—where the order of the titlesused is perhaps due to the primary impression being that of thepossession of supernatural powers, from which the Messianic office isinferred. It is as 'King,' too, that Jesuswas acclaimed asHemadeHistriumphalentranceintoJerusalem:"Hosanna:BlessedisHethatcomethin the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel" (12:13, cf. 6:15)—inwhichacclamation theevangelistsees the fulfillmentof theprophecyofZech9:9of thecomingof theKingofZionridingon theass (12:15).AtHistrial,again,PilatedemandedofHimwhetherHewasthe'KingoftheJews,' using the natural heathen phraseology (18:33), and received areply which, while accepting the ascription, was directed to undeceive

PilatewithrespecttothecharacterofHisKingship:itisnotofthisworld(18:37). In that understanding of it (18:37) Jesus has no hesitation inclaimingthetitle (18:37).Thesubsequentascriptionof this title toHimwasmockeryandpartofHishumiliation(18:39,19:3,[12],14,15,15,19,21.)butatthesametimepartofthetestimonythatHelivedanddiedastheMessianicKing.

AccumulationofTitles,Jesus'Mission

We should not pass finally away from the passages in which Jesus iscalled'Christ'and'King'withoutnotingsomewhatmoreparticularlytheaccumulationorMessianicdesignationsinsuchpassagesas20:31,wheretheevangelistsayshehaswritteninordertocreatefaithinJesusas"theChrist, the Son of God," and 1:49, whereNathanael declaresHim "theSon of God, the King of Israel," and especially at 11:27, whereMarthadeclaresherfaithinHimas"theChrist,theSonofGod,Himthatcomethintotheworld."Theuseof theterm 'SonofGod' in thesepassagesasageneral synonym of 'Christ,' but yet not necessarily a synonym of nohigher suggestion, we reserve for later discussion. The designation 'Hethatcometh,'morefullydefinedherebytheadditionof"intotheworld,"wehavealreadymetwithinMatthew(11:3)andLuke(7:19,20).AclauseinJno6:14,"This isofatruththeprophetthatcomethintotheworld,"maysuggestthattheepithetwasassociatedinthepopularmindwiththeMessianic interpretation of Deuteronomy 18:15–18: and we have seenthatourLordassociateditwiththegreatpassageinIsa61:1seq.Initself,however,itappearstoconceivetheMessiahfundamentallysimplyasthepromisedone(cf.4:25),andtoemphasizewithreferencetoHimchieflythatHeistocomeintotheworlduponamission.AssuchitissupportedevenmorecopiouslyinJohnthanintheotherevangelistsbyapervasiveself-testimonyofJesuslayingstressonHis'coming'orHis'havingbeensent,' which keepsHiswork sharply before us as the performance of atask which had been committed to Him and constitutes John's Gospelabove all the rest theGospel of theMission. In the repeated assertionsmade by our Lord that He "came" into the world, obviously withimplications of voluntariness of action (cf. 1:[9], 11, [15], [27], [30], 3:[19],4:[25,25],5:43,6:14, 7:[27], [31],9:39, 10:10, 12:[13], [15], 15:22,18:37), some are explicit as to the point whence He came, which is

definedasheaven(3:31,31),orthePersonfromwhomHecame,whoisnamedasGod(7:28seq.8:14–16,42,16:28,17:8);whileothersdeclareplainly the object ofHis coming,which is not to judge but to save theworld (12:46, 47). The correlation of the coming from the Father andbeingsentbytheFatherisexpressinpassageslike17:8,andthesendingismost copiously testified to, sometimes in the use of the simple verbπέμπω(4:34,5:23,24,30,37,6:38,39,44,7:16,18,28,33,8:16,18,26,29, 9:4, 12:44, 45, 49, 13:20, 14:24, 15:21, 16:5, 20:21) and sometimesrather intheuseof themorespecificἀποστέλλω,whichemphasizesthespecialnessofthemission,andismostcommonlycastintheaoristtensewithareferencetotheactualfactofthemission(3:17,34,5:38,6:29,57,7:29,8:42,10:36,11:42,17:3,8,18,21,23,25),thoughsometimesintheperfecttensewithareferencetotheabidingeffectofit(5:36,20:21).Theeffect of thiswhole body of passages is to throw over thewhole of ourLord's self-testimony in this Gospel the most intense sense of Hisengagement upon a definitemission, for the performance ofwhichHe,sentbytheFatherinHislove,hascomeforthfromGod,or,morelocallyexpressed, fromheaven, into theworld.Theysupplyamost compellingmassofevidence,therefore,takeninthelarge,toHispreëxistence,andtoHis superhumandignity towhichHisearthlycareer stands relatedasahumiliation tobeaccounted foronlyby itsbeingalsoamissionof love(12:46,47).

The'LambofGod'

The factof thismission isalso,nodoubt, implicated in thedesignation'the Holy One of God' (6:69), which is elicited on one occasion as aconfessionfromHisfollowers;thatistosay,nodoubt,theOnewhomtheFatherhassetapartforagivenworkandconsecratedtoitsperformance(6:27, 10:36). It would also be the implication of the designation 'theChosenOneofGod,' if thatwere the correct reading in 1:34,where theBaptistbearshiswitnessreally,however,toHisdivineSonship.Anotherdesignation given toHim exclusively by theBaptist throws, however, amost illuminating light on thenatureofHismission. "Behold," John isreported as crying, as he saw Jesus coming towards him after Hisbaptism, "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of theworld":andagainonthenextday,ashesawHimwalkingby,"Beholdthe

LambofGod"(1:29,36).ThatthiswasinintentionandeffectaMessianictitleismadeclearfromthesequel.DisciplesofJohn,followingJesusonthissuggestion,reporttotheirfriendsthattheyhave"foundtheMessiah(whichisbeinginterpreted,Christ)"(1:41).Thesourceofthephraseis,ofcourse, the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, through which, however, afurtherreferenceismadetothewholesacrificialsystem,culminatinginthe Passover. By it the mission of Jesus is described as including anexpiatorysacrificeofHimselfforthesalvationoftheworld:it,therefore,only gives point to and explains the modus of what is more generallydeclaredbyourLordHimself in suchapassage as 12:47: "I came… tosavetheworld."TheMessianiccharacterofthissavingworkisthrownupin a clear light by the confession of the Samaritans who, having beeninvitedtocomeandseewhetherJesuswerenotthe'Christ'(4:29),whenthey heard Jesus concluded for themselves that He was "indeed theSaviouroftheworld"(4:42).

FigurativeDesignations

Quitea seriesofdesignations,mostly figurative incharacter, expressiveofthesamegeneralconception,areappliedbyourLordtoHimself.ThusHecallsHimselfthe'Lightoftheworld'(8:12,9:5,12:35,36,46,cf.3:19,20,21,11:9,10),whichisexplainedasthe"lightoflife"(8:12),evenastheevangelisthimselfhadwith the same reference to "life" calledHim 'theLightofMen'(1:4,5,7,8,9).Theultimatesourceofthisdesignationisnodoubt to be found in such passages in the Old Testament as Is 9:1, 2,which isquotedandapplied toJesusbybothMatthew(4:16)andLuke(2:32).SimilarlyHecallsHimself 'theDoor'byentering throughwhichalone can salvation be had (10:7, 9); the 'Bread of God' or 'of Life,' byeating which alone can life be obtained (6:33, 6:35, 41, 49, 7:41); 'theGoodShepherd'whogivesHis lifeforthesheep(10:11,14,cf.10:2,16);andwithoutfiguredefinitely'theResurrectionandtheLife,'believinginwhomthedeadshallliveandthelivingneverdie(11:25).Perhapstothesame general circle of ideas belongs the title 'Paraclete' (14:16) or'Advocate,'whichseemstoimplythatourLordconceivesHimselfunderthis designation as coming to the help of the needy. And we shouldprobablythinkof thedesignation 'Bridegroom'(3:29) inthesamelight:but in thisGospel ourLord's application toHimself of thisdesignation

with a reference toHis death, familiar to us from the Synoptics, is notrecorded: there is only an employment of it of our Lord by theBaptistwithnoreference to thedays tocomewhenthe 'Bridegroom'shouldbetakenaway.

'SonofMan'

InthisGospel,however,asintheSynoptists,thetitle'SonofMan'comesforwardasoneofourLord'sfavoriteself-designations;anditischargedhere,too,withtheimplicationofamission,involvingsufferinganddeathbutissuingintriumph.Ifweseektheguidancehere,aswedidinthecaseoftheSynoptistuseofthetitle,ofthesubstanceofthepassagesinwhichitoccurs,weshalllearnthatthe'SonofMan'isnoearthlybeing.HecamedownfromheavenwhitherHeshallultimatelyreturn(6:62).Hissojournonearth isdue toa taskwhichHehasundertaken,and towhichHe is"sealed" (6:27). This task is to give eternal life to men (6:27); and HeaccomplishesthisbygivingthemHisfleshtoeatandHisbloodtodrink,whence they obtain life in themselves (6:53, cf. 6:27).Of course this issymbolical language for dying for men. Accordingly our Lord declaresthat it isnecessary that the 'SonofMan'be "liftedup," thatwhosoeverbelievesinHimmayhaveeternallife(3:15),andHeannouncesitasHisprecise mission, received of the Father, to be thus "lifted up" (8:28,12:34).Nevertheless, it isonlythatHemayenterHisglorythatHedies(12:23, 13:31), and it is given toHim to exercise judgment also (5:27).HerethereisopenproclamationofHispreëxistence,ofHishumiliationforanend,andofHispassagethroughthishumiliationtoHisprimitiveglory.

'SonofGod'

TheculminatingMessianicdesignation inJohn,however, is 'theSonofGod,' which comes fully to its rights in this Gospel. This designationoccursnotonly,asintheotherevangelists,inthemoretechnicalformof'theSonofGod'(1:34,1:49,5:25,9:35,10:36,11:4,27,19:7,20:31),andthesimpleabsolute'theSon'(3:17,35,36,36,5:19,19,20,21,22,23,23,26,6:40,8:36,14:13,17:1),butalsoinaformpeculiartoJohn,'theonlybegottenSon,'orsimply(3:16,17)'theonlybegotten'(1:14,cf.1:18,'Godonlybegotten').Thatthetitle'SonofGod'isaMessianictitleisclearfrom

suchpassagesas1:49,11:27,20:31, inwhichit isusedsidebysidewith'the Christ,' 'the King of Israel,' 'the Coming One,' as their synonym,althoughnotnecessarilyasasynonymofnohigherconnotation.Thereisnoreasontodoubtthathere,too,asintheotherevangelists,'SonofGod'carrieswithittheimplicationofsupernaturaloriginandthusdesignatestheMessiah from a point of view which recognized that He wasmorethanman.WhatisnoteworthyisthatinJohn'theSonofGod'becomesverydistinctlya self-designationofJesus'own (5:25,9:35, 10:36, 11:4):and it isnoteworthy that inconnectionwith thisdesignationHeclaimsfor Himself not only miraculous powers (9:35, 11:4), but the divineprerogative of judgment (5:25, cf. 27); and thatHewas understood, inemployingitofHimself,to"makeHimselfequalwithGod,"andthereforetoblaspheme(10:33,36).

'Son'

It is,however, in theuseof the simple 'theSon' (3:17,36,36, 5:19,22,6:40, 8:36), often set in direct correlationwith 'the Father' (3:35, 5:19,20, 21, 23, 23, 26, 14:13, 17:1), that the deepest suggestion of the filialrelationinwhichourLordfeltHimselftostandtotheFathercomesout.And these passages must be considered in conjunction with the verynumerous passages in which He who never speaks of God as "ourFather," putting Himself in the same category with others who wouldthen share with Him the filial relation, speaks of God either as 'theFather,'orappropriatinglyas'MyFather.'Thereareovereightypassagesoftheformerkind,16andnearlythirtyofthelatter.Theuniquenessoftherelationindicatedisbroughtoutbytheconnectionofthesimple'theSon'with the emphatically unique 'only begotten Son of God' (3:16, 17).Although,ofcourse,thepassageinwhichthisismostpointedlydonemaybetheevangelist'sandnotourLord's,thephrase'OnlybegottenSon'oreven the term 'Only begotten' applied to Christ, occurs nowhere else,except inJohn'sownwords(1:14,18,1Jno4:9,cf.Heb11:17),andthataffords a reason for assigning the paragraph 3:16–21 to him. Such apassage as 5:18, however, makes perfectly clear the high connotationwhich was attached to the constant claim of Jesus to be in a peculiarsenseGod's'Son,'entitledtospeakofHiminanappropriatingwayasHis'Father.'TheJewssoughttokillHim,remarkstheevangelist,becauseof

this mode of speech: "He called God His own Father (πατέρα ἴδιον),making Himself equal (ἴσον) with God." And indeed He leaves noprerogativetotheFatherwhichHedoesnotclaimas'Son'toshare.Therehas been givenHimauthority over all flesh (17:2), and the destinies ofmen are determined by Him (3:17, 6:40); He quickens whom He will(5:21) and executes judgment on whom He will (5:22). Whatever theFather does He knows, and indeed all that the Father does He does(5:19).HeevenhasreceivedoftheFathertohavelifeinHimself(5:26).ThoughHe declares indeed that the Father is greater thanHe (14:28),this must be consistent with an essential oneness with the Father,becauseHeexplicitlyassertsthatHeandtheFatherareone(10:30),thatHeisintheFatherandtheFatherinHim(10:38),andthattohaveseenHimwastohaveseentheFather(14:9).Itmaybethatsomemysterioussubordination of God the Son to God the Father is suggested in thedeclarationthattheFatherisgreaterthanHe(14:28),andmanycertainlyhavesointerpretedit,constructingtheirdoctrineofGoduponthatview.ButitseemsmorelikelythatourLordisspeakingonthisoccasionofHisearthlystateinwhichHeisnotonlyactingastheDelegateoftheFatherandhenceasHis subordinate—the "sent"of theFather;butalso inHisdual nature as theGod-man, is ofHimself inHis humanity, of a lowergrade of being than God, without derogation to His equality with theFatherinHishigher,trulydivinenature.IfthisbewhatHemeans,thereis no contradiction between the strong affirmations of His not merelyequality (5:18) with God, but His oneness with Him (10:30), Hisinterpenetration with Him (10:38) as sharer in all His knowledge anddeeds(14:9),andHisequallystrongaffirmationofHisinferioritytoHim(14:28),illustratedasitisbynumerousassertionsofdependenceonHimandofanattitudeofobediencetoHim.

EternalSonship

Thus,soclearandpervasiveistheassertionofdeitythroughthemediumofHisdesignationofHimselfas'Son'andtheuseofthistermofHimbytheevangelist,thatthechiefpointofinterestinthetermrisesabovethisassertion and concerns a deeper matter. Does the Sonship assertedbelong to our Lord in His earthlymanifestationmerely; or does it setforth a relation existing betweenHim as a preëxistent person andGod

conceivedevenineternityasHisFather?Inotherwords,istheterm'Son'a termof economical or of ontological relation?Thequestion is not aneasy one to determine. But, on the whole, it seems that it should beanswered in the latter sense.The force of apassage like3:16‚ (cf. 3:35,5:20)—"God so loved theworld thatHe gaveHis only begotten Son"—seemstoturnontheintimacyoftherelationexpressedbytheterm"onlybegottenSon"havingbeenalreadyexistentbefore thegiving:otherwisehowisthegreatnessoftheloveexpressedinthegivingtobemeasured?Similarlyinapassagelike3:17thereseemsanimplicationoftheSonshipasunderlyingthemission:HewassentonthismissionbecauseHewasSon,—He did not become Son by being sent. In like manner theremarkablephrase "Godonly begotten" in Jno 1:18 appears to bemostreadilyexplainedbysupposingthatitwasasGodthatHewastheuniqueSon: and, if so, it seems easiest to understand "the glory of an OnlyBegottenoftheFather,"whichmensawintheincarnateChrist(1:14)astheglorybroughtwithHimfromheaven.Inthiscase,itisobvious,JohngoesfartowardoutliningthefoundationsofthedoctrineoftheTrinityforus:andit isamistakenottoseeinhisdoctrineoftheLogosandoftheOnlyBegottenGodandoftheDivineSon,theelementsofthatdoctrine.

'God'

With this high doctrine of the divine Sonship in connectionwith JesusthewayispreparedfortheexpressassertionthatHeisGod.This,ashasalready been incidentally pointed out, is done in express words in thisGospel. The evangelist declares that that 'Word' which, on becomingflesh,isidentifiedwith'JesusChrist,'wasinthebeginningwithGodandwas 'God' (1:1), andcallsHim indistinction from theFather, 'Godonlybegotten' (1:18). And Thomas, his doubts of the resurrection removed,greetsHimwiththegreatcry,"MyLordandmyGod"(20:28):andmoretothepoint,ourLordHimself,whohadelsewheredeclaredHimselfonewith God (10:30), and had asserted that He and the Fatherinterpenetratedoneanother (10:38), and that tohave seenHimwas tohaveseentheFather(14:9),expresslycommendedThomasforthisgreatconfession and thereby bore His own testimony to His proper deity(20:29). The deity of Jesus which in the Synoptists is in every wayimpliedis,therefore,inJohnexpresslyasserted,andthatintheuseofthe

mostdirectterminologytheGreeklanguageafforded.Tothisextent,itistobeallowedthatJohn'sGospelisinadvanceoftheSynoptists.

'God'noNewTitle

Thisadvance iscommonlyrepresentedas the indexof thedevelopmentthathadtakenplacebetweenthetimewhentheSynopticswerewrittenand themuch later timewhen Johnwaswritten. John, coming from aperiodalmostageneration later than theSynoptics, it is said,naturallyreflectsa laterpointofview.OfcourseJohn'sGospelwaswrittenthirtyorthirty-fiveyearsaftertheSynoptics.Butitisanillusiontosupposethatit thereforesets fortha laterormoredevelopedpointofviewthan thatembeddedintheSynoptics.TheSynopticspresentadivineChrist,aswehaveseen,andarewrittenoutofapointofviewwhichissimplysaturatedwithreverenceforChristasdivine.Johniswrittenfromnohigherpointof view, and records nothing from the life of Jesus which moreprofoundlyrevealsHisconsciousnessofonenesswiththeFatherthanthegreat utterance of Mt 11:27, or which more clearly announces thefundamental ideaofwhatwecalltheTrinitythanthegreatutteranceofMt28:19.ThereisnoadvanceinconceptioninJohnovertheSynoptics:there is only a difference in the phraseology employed to express thesameconception.TheSynopticspresentJesusChristasGod;onlytheydonot happen to say 'God'when speaking ofHim: they say 'Son ofMan,''Son of God,' Sharer in 'the Name.' It did not, however, require thirtyyears for men who thoroughly believed Jesus to be divine to learn toexpress it by callingHim 'God.' In aword, it is in themereaccidentofliterary expression, not in the substance of doctrine, that the Synopticsand John differ in their assertion of the deity of Christ. Accidents ofliteraryexpressionarenotproductsoftime,anddifferencesinmodesofexpressiondonotargueintervalsoftime.

THEDESIGNATIONSOFOURLORDINACTSANDTHEIRSIGNIFICANCE

ValueofActs'Testimony

HowgreatanillusionitistolookuponJohnasreflectinganewphaseofteaching,whichhadgrownuponlyinthecourseofyears,inspeakingofJesusplainlyasGod,maybeillustratedbyattendingtothedesignationsemployedofourLordintheBookofActsandinthelettersofPaul.TheBook of Acts and the Epistles of Paul both bring us testimony to howJesus was thought and spoken of in Christian circles at the time, andindeedbeforethetime,whentheSynopticswerecomposed.TheBookofActswasnotonlywrittenby theauthorofoneof theSynopticGospels,butpurportstorecordconversationsanddiscoursesbytheactorsinthegreatdramaof the foundingof theChristianChurch; and indeed couldnothaveseriouslymisrepresentedthem,—seeingthatitwaspublishedintheir lifetime,—without having been at once corrected. We may learnfrom it, therefore, how Jesus was esteemed by His first followers,including those who had enjoyed His daily companionship throughoutHisministry. The Epistles of Paul are none of them of later date, andmanyofthemareofearlierdate,thantheSynopticGospels,andbringus,therefore, testimony to the estimation in which Christ was held in theChristiancommunityataboutthetimewhentheSynopticGospels,orthesources on which they depend, were written. The conception of Jesusgivenexpressionalike intheSynoptics, inActsandinPaul'sEpistles, itcannotbedoubted,wasaboriginal intheChurch.ButthisconceptionisdistinctlythatexpressedinitsownwayintheGospelofJohn.

'Jesus'inActs

ThenarrativeofActsdoesnotconcerntheactsofJesusduringtheperiodofHisearthlylife,butthoseoftheexaltedJesusthroughHisservantstheApostles(1:1"began").Itisnatural,therefore,thatthesimpledesignation'Jesus' should occur less frequently in its pages than in the Gospelnarrative; and that even when Jesus is spoken of, which is of coursecomparatively infrequently, He should be spoken of by a designationmoreexpressiveoftherelationexistingbetweenHimandHisfollowers,

whose acts it is proximately the business of this book to describe.Accordingly in Acts the reverential 'the Lord' becomes the rulingdesignation of Jesus, and the simple 'Jesus' takes a subordinate place,bothasthenarrativedesignationandinthereportsoftheremarksofourLord's followers incorporated in the narrative. Nevertheless it isemployed by Luke himself with sufficient frequency to show that itsuggesteditselfonallnaturaloccasions.Thus,forexample,Lukeusesitin the first chapterwherehe ishimselfnarratingwhatJesusdidbeforeHis ascension (1:1, 14), and elsewhere currently in such phrases as"preaching Jesus" (5:42, 8:35, 9:27, 17:18), "proving that Jesus is theChrist"(9:20,18:5,28,28:23),andthelike(4:2,13,18,5:40,7:55,9:27,18:25).Andherecords itasemployedinanaturalwaybythetwochiefspokesmeninActs,Peterintheearlierportion(1:16,2:32,36;[3:13,20];5:30,cf.4:27,30),andPaulinthelaterportion([9:5,20];13:23,33,17:3,19:4,[13]),aswellasoccasionallybyotheractorsinthehistoricaldrama(4:18,27,30,5:40,9:17,[20];17:7,19:[13],15,25:19),includingtheangelexplaining the ascension (1:11) and JesusHimself revealingHimself toPaul(9:5,26:15).

'JesusofNazareth'

The fuller form, 'Jesus ofNazareth' (10:38), ormore frequently, 'Jesusthe Nazarene' (2:22, 6:14, 22:8, 26:9) also occurs, not as a locution ofLuke's own, indeed, but upon the lips of Peter (2:22, 10:38), and Paul(22:8,26:9),andinonecaseasadescriptionofJesusbyHimself(22:8);andalsoonthelipsoftheinimicalJewsdescribingwithsomecontemptthe great claims made by His followers for "this Jesus the Nazarene"(6:14). Twice, indeed, the full name 'Jesus Christ the Nazarene' isemployed, as a solemn designation throwing up for observation Hisentirepersonalityinallitsgrandeur(3:6,4:10).

'JesusChrist'

From these two last-named instances wemay learn, what otherwise issufficientlyillustrated,thatthefullsacredname'JesusChrist'wasineasyusebyourLord'sfirstfollowers,whenevertheywishedtospeakofHimwithspecialsolemnity.Lukehimselfsoemploysitinhisnarrative(8:12),andhequotes it fromPeter(2:38,9:34,10:36,48)andPaul(16:18)—in

eachinstanceasemployedincircumstancesofgreatceremoniousness,indemandingfaithorinworkingcuresbythisgreatName.It is insimilarconditions that the even more complete designation 'Jesus Christ theNazarene' (3:6, 4:10) occurs; and that a designationwhich occurs veryfrequently in the Epistles, 'the Lord Jesus Christ' (11:17, 28:31) or 'ourLord Jesus Christ' (15:26, 20:21), appears as in use by the Apostles,—Peter(11:17),Paul(20:21),andthewholeApostolicbody(15:26),—aswellasbyLukehimself(28:31).Inall theseinstancesitseemsclearthatthecompoundname'JesusChrist'istreatedasapropername,butofcoursenotwithanylossofthehighsignificanceoftheelement'Christ.'Perhapsitwouldnotbetoomuchtosaythatthecompoundnameisdealtwithasthe'royalname'ofourLord,thenamewhichisgivenHimwhenHeistobedesignatedwithspecialceremonyandsolemnity.

'ChristJesus'

In3:20,5:42,24:24,ontheotherhand,itisquestionablewhetherweareto read the names together so as to yield the compound 'Christ Jesus,'whichinthatcasemeetsushereforthefirsttimeintheNewTestament,or are to take 'Christ' as the predicate,—'Jesus as the Christ.' Thecommentators seem inclined to follow the latter course. But in 24:24,where the question is about Paul, who, we know from his Epistles (1Thess2:14, 5:18Rompassim),was accustomed, at an earlier date thanthis, to use the compound 'Christ Jesus' freely, it seemsdifficult not toreadthatcompound.Andthis increasesourhesitancywithreference tothe two earlierpassages.Paul's familiaruseof 'Christ Jesus'musthavehad a history back of it: and it seems, therefore, natural that itsemploymentintheprimitivecommunityshouldemergeintolightinsuchpassagesaswenowhavebeforeus.6

'TheLordJesus'

Another compound designation of Jesus, which does not occur in theGospels,meetsuswithsomefrequencyinActs—'theLordJesus.'Thisisemployed by Luke himself in the course of the narrative (4:33, 8:16,11:20, 19:5, 13, 17), and is also attributed to speakerswhosewords arereported,—or to be more specific, to both Peter (1:21, 15:11) and Paul(16:31,20:24,35,21:13).ItisevenusedasanaddressbyStephen(7:59).

Indeed the fuller designation, 'the' or 'our' 'Lord Jesus Christ,' isemployed by Luke himself (28:31) and attributed alike to Peter (11:17),the whole body of the Apostles (15:26), and Paul (20:21). In this lastformulawehavecombined the threemostusualdesignationsofChrist,and it seems charged with the deepest reverence and affection for Hisperson.

'Lord'

Of course these phrases, 'theLord Jesus,' 'the [our] Lord JesusChrist,'witness to the prevalence in the Christian community of the simplerdesignation 'Lord' of Jesus, and this prevalence is otherwise copiouslyillustratedinActs.AsthenarrativedoesnotconcernwhatJesusbegantodoandteachwhile inHisownpersononearth,butwhat"afterHewasreceivedup"HedidthroughHisservants,Hisownpersonisnotafigurein thenarrative, subsequent to the fewopeningverseswhich tell of theperiod before the ascension. Accordingly outside of these verses (1:6)thereisnooccasiontorecordwordsdirectlyaddressedtoJesus,exceptinvisions(9:5,10,13,22:8,10,19,26:15),orinprayers(1:24,7:59,60).Onall these occasions, however,He is addressedby the supremehonorific'Lord,'exceptin7:59,whereHeisaddressedmorefullyas'LordJesus.'Itis clear that this formula is employed in all caseswith the profoundestreverence, and is meant to be the vehicle of the highest possibleascription.Perhapsitwillbewelltofocusourattentionuponthetwoorthree instances inwhich it is employed in direct prayer to Jesus (1:24,7:59,60). In theseHe isnotmerely treatedasdivine—for towhombutGod is prayer to be addressed?—but also directly characterized as thepossessorofdivinepowersandtheexerciserofdivinefunctions.It isasHe"thatknoweththeheartsofallmen"thatHeisappealedtoat1:24;astheforgiverofsinat7:60;andasthereceiverofthespiritsofthedyingsaints at 7:59. All these traits are assigned to Jesus in the Gospelnarratives,where Jesus claimed authority even on earth to forgive sins(Mk2:10||)andrepresentsHimselfasthejudgebeforewhomallwereatlengthtostandandreceiveaccordingtothedeedsdoneinthebody(Mt25:32): where He is represented as knowing what was in men andneeding not that anyone should teach Him what were the thoughts oftheir hearts (Mk 2:8): andwhereHis promise to the thief was that he

shouldbe thatdaywithHiminParadise(Lk23:43). Itcanoccasionnosurprise,therefore,thatHeshouldbeappealedtoafterHisreturntoHisglory as at once the searcher of hearts, the forgiver of sins, and thereceiver of the spirits of the saints.Whatwe learn in themeanwhile isthat to the infant community the ascendedJesuswas theirGod,whomthey addressed in prayer and from whom they sought in prayer theactivitieswhichspecificallybelongtoGod.

'Lord'asNarrativeName

QuitenaturallyinthesecircumstancesthechiefnarrativenameforJesusinActsbecomesthehonorific 'theLord,'whichisemployedabouttwiceasfrequentlyasthesimpleName'Jesus,'andwhichisoccasionallygivenmoreprecisionbytakingtheformof 'theLordJesus'(4:33,8:16,11:20,19:5, 13, 17) and even 'the Lord Jesus Christ' (28:31). All of thesedesignationsareplacedalsoonthelipsofactorsinthehistoryrecounted.ThusPeter speaksof Jesusas 'theLord' in [2:34];2:36, 11:16, 12:11, as'theLordJesus'in1:21,15:11,andas'theLordJesusChrist'in11:17;Paulas 'the Lord' in 13:10, 11, 12, 20:19, 26:15, as 'the Lord Jesus' in 16:31,20:24,35,21:13,andas'theLordJesusChrist'in20:21;andothersspeakofHimas 'theLord' in8:22,24,9:17,16:15,as 'theLordJesus' in7:59,andas'theLordJesusChrist'in15:26.Itisquiteclearthat'theLord'isafavorite designation of Jesus in this book, and was such also in thecommunitywhoseusageitreflects.Anditisequallyclearthatintheuseofthistermwhatisprimarilyexpressedistheprofoundestreverenceonthe part of the community and the highest conceivable exaltation andauthorityonthepartofJesusHimself.Itbelongstothesituationthatitisoftenextremelydifficult todeterminewhetherby 'Lord'JesusorGodismeant. That is to say, so clearly is Jesus 'God' to thiswriter and thosewhosespeechhereports that thecommonterm 'Lord'vibratesbetweenthe two and leaves the reader often uncertain which is intended. Theassimilation of Jesus to God thus witnessed is illustrated also in otherways.Thus,forexample,inPeter'sPentecostalsermonJesusisconceivedassittingattherighthandofGod(2:34)andashavingbeenconstituted"bothLordandChrist,"wheretheconjunctionissignificant(2:36):andmore explicitly still He is designated in a later discourse of the samePeter, "Lordofall" (10:36), that is to say,universal sovereign,aphrase

which recalls the great declaration of Rom 9:5 to the effect that He is"Godoverall,"asindeedHewhositsonthethroneofGodmustbe.

'SonofMan'

ThatinthisrichdevelopmentoftheconceptionoftheLordshipofJesus,HisMessianic dignity is not out ofmind is already apparent from thephraseology of 2:36. The emphasis of Peter's preaching turns, indeed,precisely on the fact that God has made the Jesus whom the Jewscrucified"bothLordandChrist."ItisthuswithActsastrulyaswiththeGospelstheMessianicofficeofJesusonwhichthegreateststressislaid.Naturally as Jesus is not a speaker in the narrative of Acts, His ownfavorite self-designation of 'Son of Man' is here conspicuous by itsabsence. It occurs only a single time,when the dying Stephendeclaredthathesawtheheavensopenedandthe'SonofMan'standingattherighthandofGod(7:56).ThisistheonlyinstanceinthewholeNewTestamentwherethisdesignationisemployedbyanyoneexceptourLordHimself: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 ofpower"(Mt26:64||),andisatonceStephen'stestimonytothegreatnessofhisLordinHisdivineMajesty,andawitnesstothegenuinenessofthewhole series of declarations attributed to our Lord in which He sawHimselfintheDanielicvisionanddevelopedonthatbasisHisconceptionofHisMessiahshipinitsearthyhumiliationandsubsequentelevationtoparticipationinthedivineglory.

'SonofGod'

Thegreatcompaniondesignation'SonofGod'isalmostasrareinActsasthe'SonofMan.'Thisprecisedesignation,indeed,occursbutonce,wherewearetoldthatPaulimmediatelyafterhisconversionbegantoproclaiminthesynagoguesofDamascusJesusasthe'SonofGod'(9:20),whichisexplainedasmeaningthatheprovedJesustobe'theChrist'(9:22).InhisspeechinthesynagogueofPisidianAntioch,Paulindeeddeclaredthatbyraising up Jesus God fulfilled the announcement of the second Psalm,"ThouartmySon,thisdayhaveIbegottenThee"(13:33);andtherisenJesus is quoted as twice speaking of God as "the Father" (1:4, 7), andPeter is cited as repeating one of these declarations in his Pentecostal

sermon(2:33).Occasionhasbeentakenfromthecircumstancethatinallthese three cases of allusion to the 'Father' the term employed is 'theFather'tosuggestthatit isnotspecificallyJesus'FatherbutthegeneralFatherofspiritsthatisintended.TothisisaddedthesuggestionthatinPaul's allusion to the second Psalm it is of the incarnation or evenperhapsoftheresurrectionthatheisthinkingasthepointwhentheSonwas begotten. The conclusion is then drawn that in Acts there is noallusiontoametaphysicalSonshipofChrist.Itmustbefranklyadmittedthathadwethesepassagesalonetoconsider,wemighthesitatetoascribetoActsthedoctrineofadivineMessiah.Butthisisbynomeansthecase,andweneedonlynoteinpassingthatthetitleof'SonofGod'isverylittleinevidence inActseither in itsprecise formor in its cognatemodesofexpression.Nevertheless,thelocution'theFather'doesnotappearintheusageof itheretobewithoutsuggestionof itscorrelative 'theSon';andPaul's citation of the second Psalm does not seem to be withoutimplication of a Sonship for Jesus lying deeper than either HisresurrectionorHisincarnation.

Prevalenceof'Christ'

The prevailingMessianic designation inActs is the simple 'Christ,' andLuke tells us that the staple of theApostolic teachingwas that Jesus is'theChrist'(5:42,8:5,9:22,18:5,28),andillustratesthisfactbyinstancesrecordedbothfromPeter(2:31,36,3:18,20)andfromPaul(17:3,26:23).The general employment of the compound names, 'Jesus Christ,' 'theLord Jesus Christ' (or 'our Lord Jesus Christ') and even 'Christ Jesus,'testifiestothefixednessoftheconvictionthatJesuswas'theChrist'andthecloseattachmentofthetitletoHispersonasat leastaquasi-propername. Luke does not himself make use of any other Messianic title,except in theone instancewhenhe tellsus thatPaulonhis conversionbeganatonce"toproclaimJesusthatHeistheSonofGod"(9:20).Buthe quotes quite a rich variety of such titles as employed by others. ToPeter there is ascribed, for example, a considerable series, which,moreover,heisrepresentedasweavingtogetherinamoststrikingway,as all alikedesignations of the sameJesus,whichbring out the severalaspects of the unitary conception fulfilled in Him. Prominent amongthem are those which apply to Jesus the prophecies concerning 'the

RighteousServantofJehovah'(3:13,14,26,cf.4:27,30)and'theProphetlikeuntoMoses' (3:22,26),whichare inextricablycombinedwiththosewhichspeakofHimas'theAnointedKing.'

AccumulationofTitles

InPeter'searlydiscourses 'theServant(παῖς)ofGod' isoneofthemostnotable of the designations of Jesus (3:23, 26‚ cf. 4:27, 30); and alongwith itoccurs 'theHolyandRighteousOne' (3:14)whichbelongsto thesame series of designations; and in the same context appeal is madelikewise toMoses' prophecy of a Prophet like unto himself (3:22, 23);whiletotheseisaddedfurtherthestrikingtitleofthe'Prince'or'Author''oflife'(3:15).InotherdiscoursesPetercallsJesusa'PrinceandSaviour'(5:31) and indeed even 'Judge of the quick and the dead' (10:42). ThecompositeportraitwhichhepresentsofJesus theMessiahashepassesfreely fromone of these designations to another is a complex and verylofty one:what ismost apparent is that he conceivesHim as the focusupon which all the rays of Old Testament prophecy converge, and asexalted above all earthly limitations. A somewhat similar list ofdesignationsisplacedonthelipsofPaul.Tohimthe'LordJesus'(16:31,20:21, 24, 35, 21:13) is 'theChrist' (17:3, 26:23), 'theHolyOne' (13:35)'theRighteousOne'(22:14,cf.7:52,Stephen)whohascomeasa'Saviour'(13:23)toIsrael,andwhothougha'Man'(ἀνήρ,17:31)is'God'sownSon'(13:33), nay, in some high sense 'God' Himself (20:28),—for it was bynothingelsethan"thebloodofGod"thattheChurchwaspurchased.

ArapidenumerationofthemeretitlesappliedtoChrist,suchaswehavemade, failsutterly toreproducethe impressionwhichtheymakeonthereaderashemeetstheminthecourseofthenarrative.Thatimpressionisto the effect that although the truehumanity of ourLord is thoroughlyappreciated(ἄνθρωπος,5:28,cf.7:56:ἀνήρ,2:22,17:31,cf.Lk24:19),yetit is themajesty of thisman which really fills theminds of these firstChristians, as they perceive in Him not merely a man of God'sappointment, representing God on earth, in whom all that they canconceivetobethesourceofdignityinOldTestamentprophecymeetsandfinds its fulfillment(10:42,43),butalsosomethingfarabovehumanity,whichcanbeexpressedonlyintermsofprecisedeity(20:28).

'TheName'

A side-light is thrownupon thehigh estimatewhichwasplacedamongtheseearlyChristiansonJesus'personbytheusurpationbyitoftheOldTestamentpregnantuseoftheterm"Name."AsintheOldTestamentweread continually of "the Name of Jehovah" as the designation of Hismanifestedmajesty,andevenofsimply"theName"usedabsolutelywiththe same high connotation, so in Acts we read of the Name of JesusChrist,totheexclusionoftheoldphrase,andagainofsimply"theName"(5:41, cf.3Jno7)usedabsolutelyofJesus.ThosewhowerepersecutedforHissakewearetoldrejoiced"thattheywerecountedworthytosufferdishonor for the Name" (5:41, cf. 3 Jno 7). In the Old Testament thiswould have meant the Name of Jehovah: here it means the Name ofJesus.25 "The Name," as it has been truly remarked, "had become awatchword of the faith, and is consequently used alone to express thenameofJesus,asitstoodinformerdaysfortheNameofJehovah(Lev24:11)."Nothingcouldmoreconvincinglybearinuponusthepositiontowhich Jesus had been exalted in men's thoughts than this constanttendencytosubstituteHimintheirreligiousoutlookforJehovah.

THECORROBORATIONOFTHEEPISTLESOFPAUL

RelativeEarlyDateofPaul'sLetters

InpassingfromthebookofActstoPaul'sEpistles,wearenotadvancingtoanewperiod,inorderthatwemayobservehowJesushadcometobethought of at a somewhat later date, in the developing thought ofChristians.Inpointoffact,noneofPaul'slettersareofalaterdatethantheActs,andtheearlierof themcomefromatimewhichantedates thecompositionofthatbookbytenorfifteenyears.Whatwearepassingtoismerelyanewformofliterature,—didacticliteratureasdistinguishedfromnarrative.Andwhatweare toobserve isnota laterdevelopmentof theChristianconceptionofJesus,butonlymoredirectlyandpreciselyhowtheChristiansofthefirstagethoughtofJesus.

TheValueoftheirTestimony

The book of Acts does indeed tell us not only how Paul and hiscompanions thought and spoke of Jesus as they presentedHim to thefaith ofmen; but also how Peter and his fellow-evangelists of the firstdaysof theGospelproclamationthoughtandspokeofHim:andto thisextent the information derived from it reflects an earlier usage. ButneitherinActsnorinPaul'sEpistlesisthereanyhintthatPeterandPaulstandrelatedtooneanotherintheirthoughtofChristasrepresentativesofa lessandamoredevelopedconception.On thecontrary inActs theconception of the two, though clothed in different forms of speech, isnotably the same: and in Paul's Epistles, though differences are notedbetween the otherApostles andhimself in othermatters, there is nonesignalizedon thiscentralpoint.And it isdistinctly tobeborne inmindthattheseEpistleswerewrittennotmerelyinthelifetimeoftheoriginalapostles of Christ, but also in full view of their teaching, and with anexpress claim toharmonywith it.Their testimony is accordinglynot toPaul'sdistinctivedoctrinewithregardtothepersonofJesus,buttothecommon doctrine of the Churches of the first age, when the Churches

included in their membership the original followers of Jesus. They,therefore,donotpresentusadifferentusagefromthatreflectedinActsand theSynopticGospels, but the sameusage fromadifferentpointofsight. As didactic writings addressed by a Christian leader to Christianreaders they enable us to observe, as the historical books do not, howChristians of the sixth and seventh decades of the first century wereaccustomed to speak of the Lord to one another; and accordinglywhattheir thought of Jesus was as they sought to quicken in themselvesChristian faith and hope and to bring their lives into conformity withtheirprofessions.Notmerelyinpointofdate,therefore,butalsoinpointof intimacy of revelation, the Epistles of Paul present to us the mostdirectanddeterminingevidenceof theconceptionofJesusprevalent intheprimitiveChurch.

ConstantUseof'Lord'

Itbelongstotheircharacterasdidacticratherthannarrativewritings,forexample,thatinPaul'sEpistlesthedesignationofourLordbythesimple'Jesus'fallsstrikinglyintothebackground,whilethedesignationofHimas 'Lord' comes strikingly forward. This phenomenon we alreadyobserved in Acts: it is much more marked in Paul. The simple 'Jesus'occurs inall theseEpistlesonlysomeseventeentimes,whilethesimple'Lord' occurs some 144 or 146 times, to whichmay be added 95 to 97moreinstancesoftheuseof'Lord'inconjunctionwiththepropername.6And this constant application of the term 'Lord' to Jesus must not beimaginedmerelyaformalmarkofrespect.ItisthedefiniteascriptiontoHim of universal absolute dominion not only over men, but over thewholeuniverseofcreatedbeings(Phil2:11,Rom10:12).

GroundofJesus'Lordship

It is, of course, true that Paul has the exalted Jesus in mind in thusspeakingofHim.ItwasonlyonHisexaltationthatJesusentereduponHisdominion.ButitbynomeansfollowsthatheconceivedJesustohaveacquiredHis'Lordship,'inthesenseofHisinherentrighttoreign,byHisexaltation.On the contrary, to Paul itwas the 'Lord ofGlory'whowascrucified(1Cor2:8).That is tosay,even in thedaysofHis flesh,Jesuswas tohim intrinsically "theLord towhomglorybelongs asHisnative

right."ThatPaulusuallyhastheexaltedChristinmindwhenspeakingofHimasLordisonlythusaportionofthebroaderfactthat,writingwhenhewrote,andashewrote,henecessarilyhadtheexaltedChristinmindinthegeneralityofhisspeechofHim.Hewasnotengaged inwritingahistorical retrospect of the life of the man Jesus on earth, but inproclaimingJesusastheall-sufficientSaviourofmen.Thatherecognizedthat this Jesus had entered upon the actual exercise of His universaldominiononlyonHisresurrectionandascension,andinthissensehadreceiveditasarewardforHisworkonearth(Phil2:9,Rom14:9)merelymeansthat,nolessthantoourLordHimself,theearthlymanifestationofJesuswastoPaulanestateofhumiliationuponwhichthegloryfollowed.But the glory which thus followed the humiliation was to Paul, too, aglorywhichbelongedofrighttoJesus,towhomHis lowly lifeonearth,notHissubsequentexaltation,wasastrangeexperience.Itwasonewhowas rich, he tells us,who in Jesusbecamepoor thatwemight throughHispovertybecomerich(2Cor8:9); itwasonewhowasintheformofGodwho abjured clinging toHis essential equalitywithGod andmadeHimself of no reputationby taking the formof a servant, and stoopingeventothedeathofthecross(Phil2:6seq.).WhenPaulspeaksofJesus,therefore,as'Lord'itisnotespeciallyofHisexaltationthatheisthinking,butrather"thewholemajestyofChristliesinthispredicate"forhim,andthe recognition that Jesus is 'Lord' expresses for him accordingly theessenceofChristianity (Rom10:9,2Cor4:5, 1Cor12:3,Phil2:11).Theproclamation of the Gospel is summed up for him therefore in thisformula (2 Cor 4:5); the confession of Jesus as Lord is salvation (Rom10:9),anditisthemarkofaChristianthatheservestheLordChrist(Col3:24); fornoonecansay thatJesus isLordexcept in theHolySpirit (1Cor12:3).

'Lord'aProperNameofJesus

Obviouslythesignificanceofthetitle'Lord'asappliedtoJesusbyPaulisnot uninfluenced by its constant employment of God in the Greek OldTestament, and especially in thoseOld Testament passageswhich PaulappliestoJesus, inwhich 'Lord' isthedivinename(e.g.,2Thess1:9,1Cor 1:31, 10:9, 26, 2 Cor 3:16, 10:17, Rom 10:13, Eph 6:4, 2 Tim 2:19,4:14:Isaiah45:23iscitedwithreferencetoGodinRom14:11,andwith

referencetoJesusinPhil2:10).Undertheinfluenceofthesepassagesthetitle 'Lord' becomes in Paul's hands almost a proper name, the specificdesignation for Jesus conceived as a divine person in distinction fromGodtheFather. It is thereforeemployedofJesusnotmerelyconstantlybutalmostexclusively.ItisdoubtfulwhetheritiseveronceemployedofGodtheFather,outsideofafewcitationsfromtheOldTestament:andinany case such employment of it is very exceptional. It is accordingly inpointoffactthedeterminatetitleforJesusasdistinguishedfromGodtheFather.Assuch 'theLordJesusChrist' iscoupledwith 'GodourFather'(or 'theFather') as the co-source of that grace andpeacewhichPaul isaccustomed to invoke onhis readers in the addresses to hisEpistles (1Thess1:1,2Thess1:1,2,1Cor1:3,2Cor1:2,Gal1:3,Rom1:7,Eph1:2,Phil1:2,1Tim1:2,2Tim1:2,Titus1:4,cf.Eph6:23,1Thess3:11,2Thess1:12).AndthroughouttheEpistlesJesusas 'theLord'andtheFatheras'God'aresetoveragainsteachotherasdistinctandyetconjoinedobjectsofthereverenceofChristians,anddistinctandyetconjoinedsourcesoftheblessingsofwhichChristiansaretherecipients.

JesusEmbracedintheOneGodhead

Nodoubtby this elevationof Jesus as 'Lord' to the sideofGod certainpeculiarities of expression are produced which are on a surface viewsufficientlypuzzling.Thus,forexample,indeclaringthenonentityoftheobjectsofheathenworship,Paulassertsroundlythat"noneisGodexceptOne," and proceeds to explicate this assertion by remarking that,although theremay exist so-called godswhether in heaven or earth, asthere are—obviously among the heathen—many gods and many lords,"yettousthereisoneGod,namely,theFather,fromwhomareallthingsandweuntoHim"(1Cor8:4–6).Buthedoesnotstopthere,butaddsatonce, "AndoneLordJesusChrist, throughwhomareall thingsandwethrough Him" (1 Cor 8:6). This addition might seem to a superficialreadingtostultifyhiswholemonotheisticargument:"ThereisnoGodbutone; … for to us there is one God … and one Lord." There is but onepossible solution. Obviously the one God whom Christians worship isconceivedas, in somewaynot fully explained,withoutprejudice toHisunitysubsistentinboththe'oneGod,'viz.,theFatherandthe'oneLord,'viz.,JesusChrist.Otherwisetherewouldbeaflatcontradictionbetween

theemphaticassertionthat"none isGodbutone"andtheproofof thisassertionoffered in the explanation that toChristians there is but "oneGod, viz., theFather" and "oneLord, viz., JesusChrist."And it is clearthatPaulcancountuponhisreadersunderstandingthatthe"oneLord,JesusChrist"bearssucharelationtothe"oneGod,theFather"thatthesetwomay togetherbe subsumedunder the categoryof theoneGodwhoaloneexists.Weshallnotsaythattherearethebeginningsofthedoctrineof the Trinity here. It seems truer to say that there is the clearpresuppositionofsomesuchdoctrineasthatoftheTrinityhere.

TrinitarianBackground

There is lacking, indeed, only the conjunctionof "theSpirit"with "GodtheFather"and"JesustheLord"tocompelustoperceivethatunderlyingPaul'smode of speech concerningGod there is a clearly conceived andfirmlyheldconvictionthatthesethreetogetherconstitutetheoneGodofChristian worship. And other passages enough supply this lack. Forexample,lateroninthissameEpistletheApostle,speakingofthosegiftsoftheSpiritwithwhichtheApostolicChurchwasblessed,remarksinthemostnaturalwayintheworld:"Nowtherearediversitiesofgiftsbutthesame Spirit. And there are diversities of ministrations, and the sameLord. And there are diversities of workings, but the same God" (1 Cor12:4–6)."NowIbeseechyou,brethren,"hesaysagaintowardstheendoftheEpistletotheRomans,"byourLordJesusChrist,andbytheloveoftheSpirit,thatyestrivetogetherwithmeinyourprayerstoGodforme"(Rom 15:30). "There is one body and one Spirit, even as also ye werecalledinonehopeofyourcalling,"saysheagain,inalaterEpistle(Eph4:4seq.), "oneLord,one faith,onebaptism,oneGodandFatherofall,whoisoverall,andthroughall,andinall."Or,perhaps,mostexplicitlyofall,inthoseclosingwordsoftheSecondEpistletotheCorinthianswhichhavebecome theestablished formofbenediction in theChurches: "ThegraceoftheLordJesusChrist,andtheloveofGod,andthecommunionoftheHolySpirit,bewithyouall"(2Cor13:14).FrompassagesliketheseitisperfectlyclearthattheChristiandoctrineofGodasapprehendedbyPaul,andascurrentlyimpliedinhisnaturalmodesofspeechconcerningHim,ashewroteinsimplicityofheartandwithnomisgivingsastotheunderstanding of his language by the Christian readers whom he

addressed, embraced, in conjunction with the utmost stress upon theunity of God, the recognition at the same time of distinctions in theDivineBeingbyvirtueofwhichtheLordJesusChristandtheHolySpiritwereesteemedGodalongwiththeFather.

'Lord'theTrinitarianNameofJesus

ButwhatwerequiretonoteparticularlyatthispointisthattoPaul,thedivinename—perhapswemayevenbepermittedtosay,"theTrinitarianname"—ofJesusisapparently'theLord.'God,theLord,theSpirit,—thisishis triad,andwhenhe speaksofJesusas 'Lord' itmustbe supposedthatthistriadisinhismind.Inotherwords,'Lord'tohimisnotageneraltermofrespectwhichhenaturallyappliestoJesusbecauseherecognizedJesusassupreme,andwasgladtoacknowledgeHimashisMaster(Eph6:9,Col4:1),oreven inthegreatwordsofCol2:19as the 'Head'of thebodywhichisHisChurch(cf.Eph4:15).It istohimthespecifictitleofdivinity by which he indicates to himself the relation in which Jesusstands to Deity. Jesus is not 'Lord' to him because He has been givendominion over all creation;He has been given this universal dominionbecausehe is 'Lord,'whowith theFather and theSpirit is tobe servedandworshipped,andfromwhomallthattheChristianlongsforistobeexpected.InHisownnaturethe 'Lordofglory'(1Cor2:8),HehasdiedandlivedagainthatHemightenteruponHisdominionas'Lord'ofboththe dead and the living (Rom 14:9), and being thus 'Lord of all' (Rom10:12)mightberichuntoallthatcalluponHimandsofulfillthesayingthat whosoever "shall call upon the name of the Lord" shall be saved(Rom10:13).Hedoesnotbecome'Lord,'butonlycomestoHisrightsas'Lord,' by and through His resurrection and ascension, which are theculminatingandcompletingactsofHissavingwork.Heis'Lord'becauseHeisinHisownpersontheJehovahwhowastovisitHispeopleandsavethemfromtheirsins.

AppearanceofSubordination

Nodoubtadifferentrepresentationissometimesgiven.Weareeventoldthatthereisintheseverypassagesadistinctiondrawnbetween'God'and'theLord,'bywhichthestatusof'theLord'ismadedefinitelyinferiortothatof'God,'towhomHeissubjectandwhosewillHeexecutes.ItisGod

theFatherwhoisthesourceandendofallthings;the'LordJesusChrist'isthemediatorthroughwhomHeworks(ICor8:6‚cf.1Tim2:5andsuchpassages—διάwiththegenitive—asthefollowing,Rom2:16,3:22,5:1‚11,17, 21, Eph 1:5, 1 Th 5:9, Tit 3:6). The term 'Lord' as applied to Jesus,therefore, although ascribing a certain divinity to Him, appears to fallshort of attributing deity toHim in its full sense. It is the appropriatedesignation of a sort of secondary divinity, amiddle being standing insomesensebetweenmanandGod.Accordinglywereadthatwhile"theheadofeverymanisChrist,""theheadofChristisGod"(1Cor11:3),andthat "if we are Christ's," so "Christ is God's" (1 Cor 3:23). The wholeredemptiveworkofChristisrepresentedastheworkingofGodthroughChrist,asterminatingultimatelyonGod,andasredoundingspecificallytoHisglory(Rom3:25,5:10,8:3,2Cor5:18,Eph1:6,12,14,19,3:19,Col1:19,etc.).When,then,theredemptiveworkiscompletedthe'Lordship'which has been conferred upon Christ ceases also, so that His verysovereignty appears as aderived sovereigntydelegated for apurpose (1Cor15:27,28).Godisappropriatelyspokenofthereforedistinctlyasthe"GodofourLordJesusChrist"(Eph1:17,cf.Rom15:6,2Cor1:3,11:31,Eph1:3),a locutionwhich,while intimating that therelationsubsistingbetweenHimandJesus ispeculiarlyclose,yetequallyclearly intimatesthatitisnotarelationofequalitybutofthenatureofdivinemasterandsubjectservant.

ItsImpossibilitywithPaul

Thataproblemisraisedbythepassagesofthisclassisobviousenough.But it is equally obvious that this problem cannot be solved by theattribution of a certain secondary divinity to Christ, andmuch less bysupposing thatHe hasmerely a sort of divinity communicated toHimquoadnos,while inHis essentialnatureonlya creature.The strict andstronglyasseveratedmonotheismofPaulforbidstheformerassumption:his definite ascription to Jesus of an eternal divine form of existenceantecedenttoHisearthlycareerexcludesthelatter.Nothingcouldexceedthe clearness and emphasis of Paul'smonotheism. "None isGod," sayshe,"butone"(1Cor8:4);andhesays it,aswehaveseen, in immediateconnectionwithhisrecognitionof"oneGod,theFather"and"oneLord,JesusChrist"(cf.Rom3:30,16:27,Gal3:20,Eph4:6,1Tim2:5).How,

then,couldhemean tosetby thesideof this "oneGod theFather" the"oneLordJesusChrist" asa second,although somewhat inferior,God?Andnothing could exceed the clearness and emphasiswithwhichPaulrepresentsJesus'divinemajestynotasanattainmentbutasanaboriginalpossession.He does not say that Jesus Christ became rich that byHisricheswemightbeenriched,ashemusthavesaidifhehadconceivedofJesusasamantowhomdivinepowersanddignitywerecommunicatedthatHemight saveus.Whathe says is that ourLord JesusChristwasrich,andbecamepooronly foroursakes, that"throughHispovertywemightbecomerich"(2Cor8:9).Thatistosay,that,asheexpressesitinanotherplace,itwastomakenoaccountofHimselfforHimtotakethe"form of a servant" (Phil 2:7).Nor does he leave us in doubt as to thequalityoftherichesHeleftwhenHethusmadeHimselfofnoreputationby taking "the form of a servant."No heavenly humanity suffices here:not even angelic grandeur: itwas "in the formofGod" thatHewas bynature (ὑπάρχων): it was "equality with God" which He did notgraspingly cling to.And tobe "in the formofGod"meansnothing lessthan to have and hold in possession all those characterizing attributeswhichmakeGodGod:havingwhichHecouldnotbutbeequalwithGod,becauseHewasjustGod.NowonderthenthatPaultellsusthatthoughHewascrucifiedbymanyetwasHe'theLordofglory'(1Cor2:8),thatinHimdwelt"allthefulnessoftheGodheadbodily"(Col2:9),thatIsraeliteasHewas "according to the flesh"Hewas somethingmuchmore thanwhatHewasaccordingtotheflesh—nothinglessindeedthan"Godoverall,blessedforever"(Rom9:5).

ImplicationofTerm'Lord'

HecertainlydoesnotmeanthentocontrastJesusas'Lord'withGodtheFather as an inferiorGod or as possessing amerely delegated divinity.Nor,indeed,doestheterm'Lord'lenditselfreadilytosuchacontrast.OnthepagesofPaul'sBible—theGreekversionoftheHebrewScriptures—itstoodsidebysidewith'God'asthemostpersonalandintimatenameofDeity:andthencehetookitaswehaveseenandappliedittoJesus.Andif it thus could not have been lower in its connotation to him than'Jehovah'itself,itwaschargedlikewisetotheapprehensionofhisGentilereaderswith suggestions in noway inferior to those of 'God' itself. For

himtosay 'Lord'ofJesusasHismostappropriatetitlewasthereforetosay and to be understood as saying all that he could say by thedesignationof'God'itself.Andifneverthelesstherewastohimandtohisreaders but one God, then there is nothing for it but that we shouldrecognizethatforPaulandhisreaderstwomightbeGodandyettherebebutoneGod;andthatisasmuchastosaythattheirthinkingofGodwasalreadyruledbyaTrinitarianconsciousness.

SubordinationisHumiliation

Asfortheexpressionsinwhich,despitehisclearintimationoftheproperdeityofJesus,heyet speaksofHimas in somesense inferioror, tobemoreprecise, subordinate, toGod theFather, it is quite clear that theymust find their explanation in Paul's intimation of the humiliation towhich this divine Person subjected Himself for the purposes ofredemption.WhenHewhowasrichbecamepoor;whenHewhowasandever remains "in the form of God"madeHimself of no reputation "bytakingtheformofaservant":thenandthusHebecamesofarinferiortoandsubject to thatGodtheFatheronanequalitywithwhomHemighthaveremainedinHisricheshadHesochosen.InandforthepurposesofthisredemptiveworkHeistheMediatorofGodtheFather,whoseHeis,andwho isHisHeadandHisGod;whosewillHeperformsandwhosepurposesofgraceHeexecutes;andtowhom,whentheredemptiveworkis fully accomplished and its fruits garnered, He shall restore theKingdom, that Godmay be all in all. In a word, there underlies Paul'sstatements notmerely the conceptionswhich have found expression inthedoctrineoftheTrinityandtheIncarnation,butthosealsowhichhavefound expression in the doctrine of the Covenant of Redemption inaccordancewithwhichthePersonsoftheGodheadcarryoneachHisownpart of the work of redemption: and he who will not recognize theseconceptionsinthePaulinestatementsmusteverfindthosestatementsaconfused puzzle of contradictions, which can be reduced to apparentharmony only by doing manifest violence to one or another series ofthem. Only on the presupposition of these conceptions can it beunderstoodhowtheApostlecanspeakofourLordnowas"intheformofGod," "on an equality with God," nay, as "God over all," and now assubject to God as His Head and His God with reference to whom He

performsallHiswork: andhowHe can speakof "God theFather" and"JesusChristourLord"aseach"Godoverall,"andyetdeclarethatthereisbutoneBeingwhoisGod.

DesignationsCompoundedwith'Lord'

Withthishighmeaningof 'Lord'asattributedtoJesusinourmindit isinteresting to observe the various forms of designation into which thisepithet enters. These run through nearly all the possible combinationswiththenamesofJesus. 'The(orour)LordJesus,'which,werethetitle'Lord' a mere honorific, would be the simplest of them all, but which,since that title is an express declaration of deity, is now the mostparadoxical,occurs some twenty-four to twenty-six times, chiefly in theearlierEpistles;and itsduplicate, 'JesusourLord,' twicemore. 'The(orour)LordChrist' is less frequent, occurringonly twice (Rom16:18,Col3:24).But the full formula, 'the (orour)LordJesusChrist,' is themostcommonofall,occurringsome forty-nine times,prettyevenlyscatteredthroughalltheEpistles. 'The(orour)LordChristJesus'doesnotoccur:but in the reverse order of the titles, 'Christ Jesus, the (or our, ormy)Lord,' this combination occurs ten times and by its side, "JesusChrist,ourLord" four times. Inall thesecombinations thenames,whether thesimple 'Jesus,' the simple 'Christ,' or the combinations 'JesusChrist' or'ChristJesus,'appeartobeusedaspropernames,though,nodoubt,theappellative'Christ'doesnotinanyofthembecomeamerepropername.Certainlyinthephrase,"YeservetheLordChrist,"theterm'Christ' isatitle of dignity which is still further enhanced by the adjunction of theterm'Lord':andsomethingofthesameintentiontoenhanceanalreadyloftyascriptionappearstraceableintheinstanceswherethefullerphrase'ChristJesus,ourLord'occurs(1Cor15:31,[2Cor4:5],Rom6:23,8:39,[Col2:6],Eph3:11,[Phil3:8]).Butthisobvioususeof'Christ'asanameof dignity by nomeans implies that it is not employed practically as aproper name. Its implications of Messiahship remain present andsuggestive, but it has become the peculiar property of Jesus who isthought of as so indisputably the Messiah that the title 'Messiah' hasbecomeHispropername.

'Christ'Paul'sFavoriteDesignation

Itisworthyofremarkmoreoverthatnotonlyis'Christ'apropernameofourLordwithPaul,butitishisfavoritedesignationforHim.For,fullandrich as Paul's employment of the term 'Lord' is, it is not nearly sofrequently employed by him as 'Christ.' This designation (morecommonlywiththanwithoutthearticle)25occursinhisEpistlesnofewerthan 210 or 211 times in its simplicity, and many more times incombination with other designations. It is most dominantly Paul'sfavorite name for our Lord in the great central Epistles—Romans,Corinthians and Galatians,—in which it occurs some 138 to 140 times;but it isalsovery frequent in theEpistlesof the first imprisonment (67times in Eph., Col., Phil., Philemon), and is unusual only in theThessalonian letters (4 times only) and in the Pastorals (once only). Itsurprises us somewhat to observe that next to the simple 'Christ' (and'Lord'),Paul's favoritedesignationforourLordis thecompound 'ChristJesus.'

'ChristJesus'

Thisform,aswehaveseen,seemstooccuroccasionallyinActs,notonlyasaPauline(24:24)butalsoasaprimitiveChristian(3:20)andaLucanformula (5:42). But in Paul's Epistles it occurs not less than 82 (84)times,regularlyanarthrously(exceptEph3:1,cf.3:11,Col2:6),andprettyevenlydistributed,thoughwithatendencytoincreasedfrequencyintheprogressoftime(Thess.only2;Gal.,Cor.,Rom.29;firstimprisonment,29; Pastorals 24). It is possible that the prepositing of the 'Christ'maythrow greater emphasis upon the Messianic dignity of Jesus than wascurrentlyfeltintheoppositecompound'JesusChrist,'whichismuchlessfrequentinPaul(only23times;andnotatallinThess.,Col.,Philemon).Butinanycase,bothformulasareemployedaspracticallypropernamesofourLord,anditisdifficulttotraceanydifferenceintheimplicationsoftheir use. Along with these simple compounds Paul also employs themore elaborate formulas, 'the (or our) Lord JesusChrist,' 'JesusChristourLord,''ChristJesus,the(orour,ormy)Lord.'Thefirstofthesemeetsus most frequently, occurring indeed no fewer than 49 times, prettyevenly distributed through the Epistles. The second occurs only fourtimes (Romans3and 1Cor 1): and the last only ten times (two centralgroups of Epistles only). In these sonorous formulas the Apostle

expresseshisdeepsenseofreverencetothepersonofJesus,andhetendstofallintooneortheotherofthemwheneverheisspeakingofhisMasterwithsolemnityandexaltedfeeling.Itisnoticeablethattheyareapttobeemployed in the formal solemn opening and closing sections of hisEpistles,andwheneverJesusisnamedindirectconnectionwithGod.

Jesusthe'Saviour'

'TheGreatGod'

In thePastoralEpistles the compoundnames 'JesusChrist' and 'ChristJesus'occuralsoincompositionwiththeepithet 'Saviour': 'ChristJesusour Saviour' (Titus 1:4), 'Jesus Christ our Saviour' (Titus 3:6), 'ourSaviourChristJesus'(2Tim1:10),'ourSaviourJesusChrist'(Titus2:13).In theearlierEpistles,Jesus is indeednotonly treatedasour 'Saviour,'but the epithet is given Him as a title of honor, it being a mark ofChristiansthattheylookfora'Saviour'fromheaven,even'theLordJesusChrist' (Phil 3:20, cf. Eph 5:20). But the precise forms of expressionoccurringinthePastoralsarenotfoundinthese.Thesignificanceoftheepithet 'Saviour' thusappliedtoJesusmayperhapsbesuggestedbythecircumstance that it is in the same Epistles a standing epithet of God.Paul describes himself as an apostle of Jesus Christ "according to thecommandofGodourSaviourandChristJesusourhope"(1Tim1:1,cf.Titus1:3),andwishesTimothytolivesoastobeacceptable"inthesightof God our Saviour" (2:3, cf. Titus 2:10) whose glory it is to be 'theSaviour' of man (4:10), in accordance with His love to men as our'Saviour' (Titus3:4).Theascriptionof thisepithet thus interchangeablytoGodandtoJesusassimilatesJesustoGodandleavesusinlessdoubthow we are to take the passage in Titus 2:13 which in contrast withChrist's firstcomingingracespeaksoftheimpending"appearingofthegloryof"—shallwesay"thegreatGodandourSaviourJesusChrist"?—orshallwenotrathersay"ourgreatGodandSaviourJesusChrist"?Ifthelatterconstructionisfollowed,asitseemsitshouldbe,itprovidesuswithone of the most solemn ascriptions of proper deity to Jesus ChristdiscoverableinthewholecompassoftheNewTestament.

'TheBeloved'

Perhaps something similar is implied in thedesignationofHim inEph1:6as the 'Beloved,' theepithetappearing in its simplemajestywithoutqualification:"HisgracewhichHe"—thatisGod—"freelybestowedonusin the Beloved." We have already had occasion to point out thesignificance of this phrase on its appearing in the Gospels as adesignationofJesus(Mt3:17,12:18,17:5,Mk1:11,9:7,Lk3:22).Herethesame epithet meets us without the defining accompaniments: JesusChristisinfullsimplicitysetforthasbywayofeminence'theBeloved,'inand through whom God has communicated His grace to men. ThisdesignationofChrist "makesus feel,"weare told, "thegreatnessof thedivinegrace."ButitdoesthisonlybymakingusfeelthegreatnessoftheMediatorofthisgrace.Itisonlyatthecostofthebloodofthe'Beloved'thatGodhasredeemedus.Theepithetof'Saviour'isadesignationofourLordfromthepointofviewofmen:thisepithetof'Beloved'tellsuswhatHe is from thepointof viewofGod—He isGod'sownuniqueOne, theobjectofHissupremechoice,whostandsrelatedtoHimintheintimacyof appropriating love. In the parallel passage in the sister Epistle (Col1:13), Paul calls our Lord "the Son of God's love." This seems acombination of the two titles, the 'Son of God,' and the 'Beloved'; andbears witness to their close affinity,—which indeed is inherent in theirsignificance.Wewill recall that in theevangelicaluseof 'theBeloved' itstandsintheclosestrelationwith'Son':"ThisismySon,theBeloved,inwhomIamwellpleased."Itisonlyinconnectionwiththeideaof 'Son,'thus,that'Beloved'comestoitsrights.

Jesusthe'Man'

Ontheotherside,thecompoundnames,'JesusChrist'and'ChristJesus,'appear in Paul's Epistles also in combination with designations whichemphasizeratherthehumanaspectofourLord'sperson.Wereadof"themanJesusChrist"(Rom5:15),of"themanChristJesus"(1Tim2:5),andsomewhatmore frequentlyweare, apart fromsucha combinationwithHis personal name, directed to contemplate our Lord as a "Man"(ἄνθρωπος). In very few of these instances, it is true, is the emphasisprimarilyupon the factofhumanity.Mostcommonly it is thrownuponsome point of likeness or contrast between Jesus and that other man,Adam(Rom5:15, [19],1Cor15:21,47, [48,49],cf.15:45,"lastAdam"),

and it is the singleness or the superiority of this 'Man' which is inquestion.Butinapassagelike1Tim2:5,"ThereisoneGod,onemediatoralsobetweenGodandman,Himselfman,Christ Jesus," it is clear thatthehumanityofChristitselfisinsistedupon:andthereisanecessaryifsomewhat unemphasized suggestion of humanity underlying all thesepassages.Thelessonwemustfirstofalldrawfromthisseriesofpassagesseems, then, to be that neither 'Jesus Christ' nor 'Christ Jesus' is adesignationofsuchsupremedignitythatitcouldnotsuggestitselfasanappropriate name for Jesuswhen themind of thewriterwas intent onpreciselyHishumanity,asindeednodesignationcouldbeinthecaseofabeingwhowasnotpurelydivine,noteven'theLordofGlory'(1Cor2:8)or 'God' itself (Acts 20:28).Beyond that,we learn, therefore, that clearandstrongaswasPaul'sconceptionoftheproperdeityofChrist,itinnowise precluded him from also recognizing with equal clarity andexpoundingwithequalforceHisessentialhumanity.

ButnotMerelyMan

WhenHewhowasintheformofGodtooktheformofaservantHewasmade in the likenessofmenandwas formed in fashionasaman (Phil2:7,8);andPaulfoundnodifficultyinsounderstanding,eventhoughhealso understood that the "taking the form of a servant" was not asupercessionof"theformofGod"butanadditiontoit:andthatthereforethoughnowmadeinthelikenessofmenandformedinfashionasaman,Jesusremainedneverthelessunbrokenly"intheformofGod"(ὑπάρχων,verse 6, observe the tense) and able at will to lay hold again of Hisessential equality with God. Accordingly, therefore, the Apostle, if herepresentedJesusasof theseedofDavid,representedHimasthisonlyononesideofHisbeing,—thatsidewhichhecalls"accordingtotheflesh"(Rom1:3,4): if he saw inHim, to the gloryof the covenantpeople, anIsraelite,hesawthisalsoinHimonly"accordingtotheflesh"(Rom9:5).It cannotbedenied that thereunderlies thiswholemodeof conceptionthe ideaof "the twonatures"ofChrist, on thebasisofwhichalone canthis duplex method of speaking of Him be defended or evencomprehended.

TheTwoSidesofChrist'sBeing

IntheopeningversesofthegreatestofhisEpistlestheApostlebringsthetwosidesofourLord'sbeingsharplytoourapprehension.Reducedtoitslowest terms,whathe tellsushere is thatononesideofHisbeingourLordwasthe'SonofDavid'andontheothersidethe'SonofGod.'Thesetwo sides of being he speaks of respectively as "according to the flesh"and "according to the Spirit of holiness," which may be brieflyparaphrasedrespectivelyasthehumanandthedivinesides.ButhedoesnotleaveustoinferthatthesetwosidesofourLord'sbeingwereequallyoriginal toHim.On thecontrary,he tellsus that thehumansidehadahistorical beginning, while the divine side knew only an historicalestablishment:ourLordwasmade—cametobe(γενόμενος)—oftheseedof David according to the flesh; He was 'designated'—marked out as(ὁρισθέντος)—the'SonofGod'bytheresurrectionofthedead.Becomingman,Hebroughtlifeandimmortalitytolight,andthusshowedHimselfmorethanman,—nothinglessthan'theSonofGod.'ThehighesthumanexaltationistheMessiahship:butHisMessiahshipwasthelowersideofHismajesty.ThatHemightbe theMessiahHe stooped fromHispriorestate of divine glory. Thus clearly the Apostle presents our Lord asessentially the 'Son of God,' and this Sonship to God as essentiallyconsubstantialitywithGod.34Afterpreciselythesamefashion,atalaterpoint of the sameEpistle, havingoccasion tomentionChrist as sprungfromtheseedofIsrael,heatoncepausesasiftoguardhimselffromtheimputationofinsufficientreverence,toaddthelimitation,"accordingtothe flesh." He was not wishing to speak of Christ even incidentally asmerelyman.AndsogreatlydidhisreverenceforHispersonswellinhisheart,that,inadjoiningadesignationofHishighernature,heiscontentwithnothinglowerthanthehighestconceivable."FromwhomisChrist,asaccording to the flesh,"—thatChrist "who is inHisessentialbeing(ὁὢν)noneotherthanGodoverallblessedforever"(9:5).Ontheside inwhich He was not "according to the flesh," He was the Supreme Godrulingoverallthings.

'SonofGod'

It is, however, significant rather than copious use which the Apostlemakes of the category of the 'Son of God' in his presentation of thepersonalityofJesustohisreaders.It isdoubtlessat least inpartdueto

hispredilectionfortheterm'Lord'astheTrinitariannameofJesusthatPaul speaks of Him only some seventeen times as 'the Son.'36 In anumber of these instances there is naturally little indication of theparticularimplicationofdeitywhichitneverthelessalwayscarrieswithitinPaul'susage.38Inothers,however,thewholepointoftheemploymentof the term hangs on the uniqueness of the relation to God which itintimates.Thisisthecase,forinstance,whenthisuniquenessofrelationis emphasized by the added term "own":God,we are told for example(Rom8:3),sent"HisownSon"(τὸνἑαυτοῦυἱόν)"inthelikenessofsinfulflesh""tocondemnsinintheflesh":andagainGodsparednot"HisownSon" (τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ) but "delivered Him up for us all" (Rom 8:32).Obviously we are expected to estimate the greatness of the gift by theclosenessoftherelationindicated:itisbecauseitwasHisownSonwhomHegavethattheloveofGodtouswassosplendidlymanifestedinthegiftof Jesus, who, we are further told, was for this gift "sent forth from"Himself (Gal 4:4, ἐξαπέστειλεν). This closeness of relation, amountingreallytoidentity, issomewhatoddlysuggestedbytheargumentinRom5:8–10.Herewearetoldthatscarcelyforarighteousmanwouldonedie:butGod commendsHis love to us—or as it is strengtheningly put,Hisown love to us—by dying for us while we were yet sinners? No,—byChrist'sdyingforuswhileweweresinners!ButhowdoesGodcommendHis own love for us—by someone else's dying for us? Obviously therelationbetweenChristandGodisthoughtofassointimatethatChrist'sdying is equivalent toGodHimself dying.And so,we read further thatthisChristisGod'sSon(v.10)andHisdyingforusistosuchanextentthepledgeofGod'slovethatitcarrieswithitthepromiseandpotencyofallgoodthings(vv.10,11).

God'theFather'

WiththisemphasisontheSonshipofChristanditshighsignificanceitisalittlestrangethatthecorrelativeFatherhoodofGodisbroughtsolittleinto immediate connection with it. The explanation is doubtless againthat Paul prefers the title 'Lord' to express our Lord's Trinitarianrelations. The Fatherhood of God is in any event not very frequentlyadvertedtobyPaul,andisveryseldombroughtintoimmediaterelationwithJesus.IndeedGodisexpresslycalledtheFatherofJesusChristonly

inthosefewpassagesinwhichHeisspokenofas"theGodandFatherofourLordJesusChrist"(Rom15:6,2Cor1:3,11:31,Eph1:3[Col1:3]).Inanumber of other passages in which God is called 'the Father' theTrinitarian relation seems inmind (Rom6:4, 1Cor8:6, 15:24,Gal 1:3,Eph2:18,6:23,1Thess1:1,2Thess1:2,1Tim1:2,2Tim1:2,Titus1:4).Intheother instancesof theapplicationof thenameofFather toGod thereferenceisrathertoHisrelationtous(Rom1:7;[8:15],1Cor1:3,Gal1:4[4:6],Eph1:2,Eph4:6,Phil1:2,2:11,4:20,Col1:2,1Thess1:3,3:11,13,2Thess1:1;[2var. lec.]2:16,Philem3,cf.2Cor1:3,Eph1:17,3:14,5:20,Col 1:12, 3:17). In only three passages are the correlatives 'Son' and'Father'broughttogether(1Cor15:28,Gal4:4–6,Col1:13),andinnooneof these instances is it clear that the term 'Father' is employed in solereferencetoJesus,theunique 'Son.'InoneofthemwearetoldthattheFatherhasdeliveredusout of thepowerofdarkness and translatedusinto theKingdomof 'theSonofHis love' (Col 1:13),where there seemscertainlyareferencetoGod'sFatherlyrelationnotonlytoJesus'theSonofHislove'butalsotouswhoarebyHisgraceintroducedintoasimilarrelationtoGodwithChrist'sown.So,inanother,wearetoldthatbecausewe are sons God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts,crying, Abba, Father (Gal 4:6)—where it is quite clear that 'Father' hasrelation to us, too, as the brethren of Christ. Even in the remaininginstance, where we are told that at the end Christ shall deliver up theKingdom to God even the Father, and even 'the Son' Himself shall besubjected toHim, that Godmay be all in all (1 Cor 15:28), it is by nomeansobviousthatthetermFathermaynotagainembracewithChristallthosewhohavebeenbroughtbyChristintotheKingdom.Wemayseein all three instances that thepeculiar relationof the 'Father' and 'Son'liesatthebasisofthethought:butthispeculiarrelationdoesnotinanyof them absorb thewhole thought. It seems to be treated by Paul as amatter too well understood to require particular insistence upon. Hecouldcountonhisreaders,whenhespokeofJesusas 'theSonofGod,'understanding without further elucidation that he was therebyattributing toHimaunique relation, includingproper deity alongwiththeFather,whileourco-sonshipwastoberealizedonly inandthroughHim.

ChristAllthatGodIs

Anothermethod employed by Paul to indicate the relation of Jesus toGodisthepresentationofHimasthe'imageofGod'(2Cor4:4,Col1:15).HeistheimageofGod,wearetold,andthelightoftheknowledgeofthegloryofGodshinesinHisface(2Cor4:4).And,again,HeistheimageoftheinvisibleGod,thefirst-bornofallcreation(Col1:15).ThemeaningisthatwemayseeinChristwhatGodis:allGod'sgloryisreflectedinHim;andwhenweseeHimweseetheFatheralso.Perhapsthemeretermfallsshortofexpresslyassertingproperdeity, though itwouldcertainlygainforceandsignificanceifproperdeitywereunderstoodtobeasserted.InthatcaseitwouldsuggestthatJesusChristisjusttheinvisibleGodmadevisible.And that this is its actual significancewithPaul can scarcelybedoubtedwhenwerecallthathedoesnothesitatetoascribeproperdeitytoJesus,notonlybymeansofthedesignations 'Lord'and 'SonofGod,'butbythedirectapplicationtoHimofthename'God'itselfandthatinitsmost enhanced form—'God over all' (Rom 9:5), the 'Great God' (Titus2:13). That Jesus Christ is intended in both instances by these greatdesignations, seems, despite sustained efforts to deny them to Him,beyond legitimate question. The natural interpretation of the passagesthemselves compels it: and no surprise can be felt that Paul, whoeverywherethinksandspeaksofChristasveryGod,shouldoccasionallycallHimbytheappropriatedesignation.Thesepassagesineffectsupplyonly the to-be-expected expression in plain language of Paul's mostintimate thought of Jesus.He is always and everywhere to his thoughtjust'ourGreatGodandSaviour,''Godoverall,blessedforever.'

Paul'sJesusthePrimitiveJesus

Itwasthus,then,thatJesuswasthoughtof,andfamiliarlyspokenof,intheChristian communities throughout the epoch inwhich theSynopticGospelswerecomposedor,ifwechoosetousesuchmisleadinglanguage,werecompounded.ThetestimonyofPaul's letterscomes fromthesixthandseventhdecadesofthecentury;andassuresusthatatthattimeJesuswastoHisfollowersamanindeedandthechosenMessiahwhohadcometo redeem God's people, but in His essential Being just the great GodHimself.InthelightofthistestimonyitisimpossibletobelievethereeverwasadifferentconceptionofJesusprevalentintheChurch:themarkofChristiansfromthebeginningwasobviouslythattheylookedtoJesusas

their'Lord'and'calledonHisname'intheirworship.The general significance of the testimony of Paul, we may say, isuniversallyrecognized.Bousset, forexample,whenengaged inrepellingthecruditiesofKalthoffpointsitoutwithgreatdistinctness.InPaul,hetellsus,wehave "awitnessof indubitable value from thebosomof theChristiancommunityfortheexistenceandthesignificanceofthePersonof Jesus." "His conversion, according to the tradition, goes back verynearly to the death of Jesus. His chief activity falls in any case in thefortiesandfifties.FromhislettersthehistoricalexistenceofJesusstandsoutbeforeusinallclearness.AndnotmerelydoesPaulpresupposethis,as we perceive from these letters: he had intercourse with the firstgeneration of Christians, who had themselves seen the Lord Jesus.""Whoever would question the existence of Jesus must erase also theexistenceofPaul,ashemeetsusinhisletters.""WiththepersonofPaulthe person of Jesus, too, stands established." Nor is it merely theexistenceofaJesuswhichPaulthussubstantiatesforus:heratifiesalsothe fact that the person of Jesus had for the faith of the first Christiancommunity "no indeterminatebutaperfectlydeterminatesignificance."In thepresenceofPaul's letters, therefore, it is impossible todeny thatthere underlies the whole Christianmovement the great personality ofJesus, or that the primitive Christian community looked to Him as itsfounderandLord.Isitnotequallyimpossibletodenyinthepresenceofthese letters that the primitive Christian community looked upon thisJesusastheirdivinefounderanddivineLord?Strangetosay,Boussetdrawsbackatthispoint.Paul'stestimonytotheexistenceof thehistoricalJesusand toHissignificance to theprimitiveChurchisdecisive.ButPaul'stestimonytotheestimateplaceduponthepersonality of this historical Jesus is not trustworthy. It is, indeed,impossibletodoubtinthelightofhistestimony,that"theearthlyJesusworked in the souls ofHis disciples with inexpressible power" (p. 26):andthattheyhadcometobelievethatHehadrisenfromthedead.ButitdoesnotfollowthattheywhohadcompaniedwithHiminHislifesharedPaul's idea that He was "essentially a heavenly being" (p. 26). Theinconsequence here is flagrant. Paul is notwriting a generation or twolater,whenthe faithof the firstdiscipleswasamatteronlyofmemory,perhapsoffadingmemory;andwhenitwaspossibleforhimtorepresentit as other than it was. He is writing out of the very bosom of this

primitive communityandunder its veryeye.Hiswitness to thekindofJesusthiscommunitybelievedinisjustasvalidandjustascompelling,therefore,ashistestimonythatitbelievedinJesusatall.Inandthroughhim the voice of the primitive community itself speaks, proclaiming itsassuredfaithinitsdivineLord.Thiswouldbetruequiteapartfromtheconsentientwitnessof theActsand theGospels. In thepresenceof thisconsentient witness it is impossible to contend that Paul hasmisrepresentedormisconceivedthefaithofChristians.ThesamedivineJesus which Paul presents as the universal and aboriginal object ofChristian faith, Luke sets before us in Acts from the mouth of theprimitivedisciples—PeterandJohnandJamesandtherest—asfromthebeginning believed on in the Church; and the same Luke with hiscompanionevangelistsrepresentsasHimselfassertingHisdivinedignity.ThetestimonyofPaulmerelyaddstothiswitnessanewandthoroughlytrustworthyvoice;andrendersitsomuchthemoreimpossibletodoubtthatfromtheverybeginningtheentireChristiancommunitywasfirmlyconvincedofthedeityofitsLord.

InaccessibilitytoCriticalDoubts

Nor can the force of this testimony be broken or even weakened bysuggestingdoubtsastothegenuinenessofmoreorfewerofPaul'sletters,orraisingquestionofadevelopmentofthedoctrineofthepersonofourLordthroughtheircourse.WehavetreatedthemallasgenuineproductsofPaul'smindandpenandasall of apiece:because, shortly, the factswarrantsuchatreatmentofthem.Buttheconclusiontobedrawnfromthem in the matter in hand does not depend on so taking them. TheconceptionofJesusembeddedintheselettersisthesameinthemall:iftheyarenotallPaul'stheyareallPauline.Youmaydiscardanynumberof them you choose, therefore, as not Paul's personal product: theconceptionofJesusinthosethatremainisnotalteredthereby.Taketheextremest hypothesiswhich has ever even temporarily commanded theassentofanyconsiderablenumberofscholars,—theoldTübingentheorywhich allowed to Paul only the four great Epistles, Romans, 1 and 2CorinthiansandGalatians. In theseEpistlesmaybe foundPaul's entirewitness to the deity of Christ. It is from them thatwe learn that JesusChrist,whileon the sideofHis fleshof the seedofDavid,hadanother

sidetoHisbeing,onwhichHewastheSonofGod(Rom1:3,4);thatasGod'sownSonHewasrichbeforeHebecamepoorbybecomingof theseedofDavid (2Cor8:9);and that inHis realnatureHe isnotmerelyGod'sSonbutHimselfGodoverall,blessedforever(Rom9:5).WhenweaddtothesefourgreatEpistlesoneafteranotheroftheothers—suchasPhilippians,and1ThessaloniansandColossians,aspracticallyall livingcriticsdo—andevenEphesiansandSecondTimothy,asmanyarewillingtodo—wemerelyaddtothemassofthetestimony,andinnorespectalterits character or effect. These letters one and all only repeat, and inrepeatingmoreorlessclarify,theteachingofthefourchiefEpistlesastothedignityofourLord'sperson.

NoSubstantialDevelopment

For this same reason nothing is gained for our present purpose bytreating the Epistles not all together, but in small chronologicallyarranged groups. Slight differences may be observed, it is true, fromgroup to group inmodes of expression and relatively favorite forms ofstatement.Butnodifferencescanbetracedintheconceptionswhicharebroughttoexpressioninthesevaryingformsofstatements.Forexample,the ruling designation of Christ in the Thessalonians is 'the Lord' (22),with'theLordJesusChrist'(14)asomewhatclosesecond,and'theLordJesus' (10) third, while the simple 'Christ' occurs only four times. InRomans, Corinthians, Galatians, on the other hand, it is the simple'Christ' which becomes the favorite designation, with 'Lord' a goodsecond:andthesameistrueoftheEpistlesofthefirstimprisonment.InthePastorals,ontheotherhand,while'Lord'isstillcommon,'Christ,'asinThessalonians, falls into the background, and 'Christ Jesus' becomesthe favorite designation. Variations like these, it is obvious, are ratherinterestingtothosewhoareengagedinstudyingtheliteraryformoftheEpistles than important in estimating their witness to the deity of ourLord. Through all such variations, the product of circumstance, theessentialteachingofalltheseEpistlesuponthepersonofChristremainsthesame.InthemallalikeHeisthedivine'Lord,'whoserightitistorule:the 'Son of God,' consubstantial with the Father: the 'great God andSaviour' of sinners: 'God over all, blessed forever.' And in theirconsentienttestimonytothedeityofChristtheymakeitcleartousthat

upon this point, at least, the whole primitive Church was of oneunvaryingmind.

THEWITNESSOFTHECATHOLICEPISTLES

CatholicEpistlesCorroborative

There yet remains a certain amount of corroborative evidence for theconclusions which we have reached, borne by a series of letters whichhavebeenpreservedtous,purportingtobethecompositionsofprimitivefollowersofourLord.Weusetheterm"purporting"notbecausewehaveany doubt that they are all that they profess to be, but because theirdescriptionsofthemselveshavenotbeenacceptedasvalidinallcriticalcircles,andbecausewedonotconsideritnecessarytopausetovindicatetheir authenticity here. If their testimony were substantially differentfromthatofthemoreextendeddocumentswhichwehavealreadypassedin review, it might be required of us to validate their claim to givetestimony to the primitive conception of Christ, before admitting theirwitness.As,however,theyyieldonlycorroborativetestimony,wemaybecontenttopresentitforwhatitseemstoeachindividualtobeworth.Inany event it helps to make clear to us the absolute harmony of earlyChristianity taken in a wide sense in its lofty conception of its Lord'sperson, and thus addsweight towhatwe have learned, from themoreimportantdocuments,oftheconceptioncurrentinthefirstage.Andjustinproportionaswerecognizetheseletters,too,asalegacyofthefirstage,reflecting the belief of the first generation of Christians, theircorroborativeevidencewillbecomemoreandmoresignificanttous.If,asin our own judgment they ought to be, they are accepted at their face

value,theirtestimonybecomesofprimaryimportance,andwouldsufficeofitselftoassureusoftheattitudeofmindourLord'sfollowerscherishedtowardsHimfromthebeginning.Weshallpresenttheirtestimonythenfrankly from this ourownpoint of view,without stopping to argueourrighttodoso.Itwillthusatleastbemadeapparentthatthewholebodyof writings gathered into what we call the New Testament unite incommending to us one lofty view of Christ's person. For in all theseletters, too,as in thosewhichhavealreadyclaimedourattention,Jesusappears fundamentally as the divine object of the reverential service ofChristians.

James'andJude'sChristologyHigh

Among these letters a special interest attaches to theEpistles of JamesandJude,becauseoftheirauthorshipbykinsmenofourLordaccordingto the flesh, who moreover did not believe in Him during His earthlymanifestation (Jno 7:5): towhich is added in the case of theEpistle ofJames,itsexceedinglyearlydate(A.D.45),—adateantecedenttothatofany other of the canonical books. Not only does not the simple 'Jesus'occurineitheroftheseEpistlesoreventhesimple'Christ,'butourLordisuniformly spokenofbydesignations expressiveofmarked reverence.Both writers describe themselves simply as "servants"—that is, "bond-servants," "slaves,"—James "ofGod andof theLord JesusChrist" (1:1),and Jude with striking directness simply "of Jesus Christ" (1). TheacknowledgmentofJesusas their 'Lord' implied in thisself-designationisemphasizedinbothEpistlesbytheconstantemploymentofthistitleinspeakingofJesus.

Christ'theGlory'

JamesspeaksofourLordbynameonlytwice,andonbothoccasionshegivesHimthefulltitleofreverence:'the(orour)LordJesusChrist'(1:1,2:1)—couplingHimintheonecaseonequaltermswithGod,andintheother adding further epithets of divine dignity. Elsewhere he speaks ofHim simply as 'the Lord' (5:7, 8 [14], 15) in contexts which greatlyenhance the significance of the term. The pregnant use of 'the Name,'absolutely, which we found current among the early Christians asreported in theActs, recurshere; andJamesadvises in the caseof sick

peoplethattheybeprayedover,whiletheyareanointedwithoil"intheName"(5:14).The"Name"intendedisclearlythatofJesus,whichisthusin Christian usage substituted for that of Jehovah. A unique epithet,equally implying the deity of the Lord, is applied to Him in theexhortation,"Mybrethren,holdnotthefaithofourLordJesusChrist,theGlory,withrespectofpersons"(2:1). 'TheGlory'seemstostandhere inappositiontothename,"ourLordJesusChrist,"furtherdefiningHiminHismajesty.Thereisheresomethingmorethanmerelytheassociationofour Lord with glory, as when we are told that He had glory with Godbefore the world was (Jno 17:5), and after His humiliation on earth(thoughevenonearthHemanifestedHisglorytoseeingeyes,Jno1:14,2:11,17:22)enteredagainintoHisglory(Lk24:26,Jno17:24,1Tim3:16,Heb2:9, cf.Mt 19:28, 25:31, [Mk 10:37]), and is to come again in thisglory(Mt16:27,24:30,25:31,Mk8:38,13:26,Lk9:26,21:27,Titus2:13,1P4:13).WecomenearertowhatisimpliedwhenwereadofJesusbeing'theLordofGlory' (1Cor2:8), that isHetowhomglorybelongsasHischaracterizingquality;orwhenHeisdescribedtousas"theeffulgenceofthegloryofGod"(Heb1:3).Thethoughtofthewriterseemstobefixedon thoseOldTestament passages inwhich Jehovah is described as the"Glory":e.g.,"ForI,saithJehovah,willbeuntoherawalloffireroundabout,andIwillbetheGloryinthemidstofher"(Zech2:5).IntheLordJesusChrist,Jamesseesthefulfillmentofthesepromises:HeisJehovahcome to be withHis people; and, as He has tabernacled among them,they have seen His glory. He is, in a word, the Glory of God, theShekinah:Godmanifesttomen.ItisthusthatJamesthoughtandspokeofhisownbrotherwhodiedaviolentandshamefuldeathwhile still inHisfirstyouth!Surelythereisaphenomenonherewhichmaywellwakeninquiry.

Christ'theDespot'

TheattitudeofJudeispreciselythesame.HedoesindeedspeakofChristintheaddressofhisEpistlebythesimplerformaltitleof 'JesusChrist,'but in accordance with his description of himself at that point as the"slave" of this 'Jesus Christ,' he tends to multiply reverential titles inspeakingofHimelsewhere.ToHimourLord isalways 'ourLordJesusChrist'(17,21),'JesusChristourLord'(25),'ouronlyMaster(δεσπότης)

andLord,JesusChrist'(4)—aphrase,thislastone,sostrongthatmanycommentatorsbalkatitandwishtorenderit'theonlyMaster,viz.,God,and our Lord Jesus Christ.' Butwe cannot feel surprised that onewhopointedly calls himself in the first verse of his Epistle "slave" of JesusChrist, should apply the correlative of that term, "DespoticMaster andLord" to Jesus Christ, three verses later.No doubt "no Jew could use"suchaphrase"withoutthinkingoftheoneMasterinheaven";5butthatisonly evidence that this Jew thought of Jesus who was his 'Lord' andwhose"slave"herecognizedhimselfasbeing,as, in thiseminentsense,his"Masterinheaven"(cf.2P2:1).ObviouslyitisthetestimonyofthesetwoEpistlesthatJesuswasconceivedbyHisfirstdisciplesastheirdivineLordandMaster.

Christologyof1Peter

ThedesignationsofourLordin1Peterarenotablysimple,butnonethelesssignificant.Peter'sfavoritedesignationforHim(asitisPaul's)isthesimple 'Christ', used, ordinarily at least, as a proper name, though ofcourse notwithout its appellative significance still clinging to it and inone or two instances (1:11, 11) becoming prominent (1:11, 11, 19, 2:21,3:15,16,18,4:1,13,14,5:1,10,14).Nexttothesimple'Christ'Peterusesby predilection the simplest of the solemn compound names, 'JesusChrist'(1:1,2,3,7,13,2:5,3:21,4:11).IntheaddresstotheEpistlehesetsthis designation in its place in the trine formula of Father, Spirit andJesusChrist,withtheeffectofsuggestingtheThreefoldName,thatistosay, with underlying implication of the Trinity. Similarly in 1:11 where"the Spirit of Christ," that is,most naturally, the Spiritwhich proceedsfromandrepresentsChrist,isspokenofashavingresidedintheancientprophets, the preëxistence of Christ is assumed. Besides these propernames,PeterspeaksofourLordbythedesignation'Lord'(2:3,13,3:15,cf. 2:25 and Bigg in loc. and p. 109) and in doing so applies an OldTestament text to Him in which 'Lord' stands for 'Jehovah,' and thusassimilatesHimtothedivineBeing.ByacombinationofthisgreattitleandthesolemnMessianicnameof'JesusChrist,'hecallsJesus'ourLordJesusChrist' (1:3); and it is noticeable that it is by this significant titlethat he designates Jesus when he is speaking of God as not only HisFatherbutHisGod—havingreferencedoubtlessto"thedaysofHisflesh"

(Heb5:7),thatistosay,toHishumiliation.Noothertitlesareappliedtoour Lord in this Epistle, except that in 2:25 He is spoken of as 'theShepherd and Bishop of our souls,' and at 5:3, 4 as 'Chief Shepherd,'modes of description in which the soteriological rather than theontologicalelementisprominent.

2PeterandtheDeityofOurLord

In comparison with 1 Peter, 2 Peter makes use of more elaboratedesignations in speakingofChrist.Notonlydoes thesimple 'Jesus'notoccur in this Epistle, but not even the simple 'Christ': and the lesscomplex compound 'Jesus Christ' occurs in its simplicity only once—intheformalityoftheaddress.Thesimple'Lord,'ontheotherhand,seemstobeusedofChristinafewcases(3:8,9,10,15),andanumberofmoreorlesssonorouscombinationsofitoccur:'JesusourLord'(1:2),'ourLordJesus Christ' (1:8, 14, 16), 'the Lord and Saviour' (3:2), 'our Lord andSaviour Jesus Christ' (1:11, 2:20, 3:18), with the last of which may beconnectedthegreatphrase'ourGodandSaviour,JesusChrist'(1:1).Twothingsthatarenotableinthislistofdesignationsaretherepeateduseof'Saviour'ofourLord,andtheclearnoteofdeitywhichisstruckintheirascriptions.'Saviour'itselfisadivineappellationtransferredtoChrist:towhomitisappliedfifteentimesoutofthetwenty-threeinwhichitoccursin theNewTestament. In2Peter it occurs five times, alwaysofChrist,andneveralone,butalwayscoupledunderasinglearticlewithanotherdesignation, and so forming a solemn formula. In this respect the twophrases, 'our Lord and Saviour JesusChrist' (1:11, 2:20, 3:18) and 'ourGodandSaviourJesusChrist'(1:1)areperfectlysimilarandmuststandor fall together. Not only, however, is the deity of our Lord openlyasserted in the direct naming ofHim here 'ourGod and Saviour.' It isalmost equally clearly asserted in the parallel phrase, 'our Lord andSaviour JesusChrist.'And it is implied in the conjunctionof 'God' and'Jesus ourLord' in 1:2 as co-objects of saving knowledge (cf. 1:8, 2:20,3:18),andintheascriptionto 'ourLordandSaviourJesusChrist'ofaneternalKingdom(1:11).Besidesthesedesignations,ourLordiscalledbyPeter, as by Jude (4), our 'Master' (δεσπότης) with the same highimplications (2:1); and the declaration of God the Father at thetransfigurationthatHeis'God'sSon,''God'sBeloved,'iscited(1:17)with

profoundandreverentialsatisfaction.

John'sEpistlesand'theSonofGod.'

PerhapsnothingismorenotableinthedesignationsofourLordintheseEpistles—James,Jude,1Peter,2Peter,—thanthedroppingoutofsightofthetitle 'SonofGod.'Only inthesinglepassagein2Peter inwhichthetestimonyoftheFatherinthetransfigurationsceneisappealedto,istheterm 'Son' applied to Jesus at all. The case is very different in theJohannineEpistles.Of themtheapplicationtoJesusof the title 'SonofGod,'inoneformoranother,ispreëminentlycharacteristic.Heiscalled,indeed, simply 'Jesus' (1 Jno 2:22, 4:3, 4:15, 5:1), and 'Christ' withoutadjunct (1 Jno [2:22, 5:1],; 2 Jno9); andalso 'JesusChrist' (1 Jno4:2;[4:15]; 5:6, 2 Jno 7); and even 'JesusChrist theRighteous' (1 Jno2:1);and He is described in the great phrases 'Word of Life' (1 Jno 1:1),'Advocate with the Father' (2:1), 'Saviour of theWorld' (4:14). But thefavorite designations applied to Him in these Epistles emphasize HisdivineSonship.Themostcommonformulaemployedisthesimple'Son'standing in correlationwithGod or theFather (1 Jno 2:22, 23, 23, 24,4:10,14,5:9,10,11,12,2Jno9);butthefullform'SonofGod'occursalsowithsomefrequency(1Jno3:8,4:15,5:5,12,13,20)andquiteavarietyofexpandedphrasesappearbyitsside,suchas'God'sonlybegottenSon'(1 Jno 4:9, cf. 5:18), 'Jesus, God's Son' (1 Jno 1:7), 'God's Son, JesusChrist'(1Jno1:3,3:23,5:20),'JesusChrist,theSonoftheFather'(2Jno3). Bymeans of this constant designation of Jesus as 'the Son ofGod,'JohnkeepsbeforehisreadersHisdivinedignity.Heisnotoftheworld,buthascomeintotheworld(5:20)uponamission,todestroyallthatisevil (5:8) and to save the world (1:7, 4:10–14, 5:5), whereuntoHewassent(4:9,10,14),thatallmighthavelifeinHim(5:5,12,15);forGodhasgivenuntouseternallifeandthislifeisin'theSon,'sothatHewhohath'theSon'haththelife(3:11,12).SocloselyisHeassociatedwithGodtheFather (1:3,3:23) that todenyHim is todeny theFather (2:23)and toconfessHimistoconfesstheFather(2:23,4:15)andtoabideinHimistoabideintheFather(2:24,cf.1:3).ObviouslytoJohnthe 'SonofGod' isHimselfGod;andwhat is thus implied in thecurrentuseof this title isopenlydeclaredatthecloseoftheEpistle,whereof'theSonofGod,JesusChrist' it is solemnly affirmed, "This is the TrueGod andEternal Life"

(5:20).

Jesusthe'TrueGod'

InthisremarkableconcludingparagraphtheApostle isencouraginghisreadersinviewofthesinwhichisintheworldandwhichtheyfeeltobeworkinginthemselves."Weknow,"sayshe,"thateveryonewhohasbeenbegottenofGod"—thatistosay,everytrulyChristianman,whohasbeenbornoftheSpirit—"sinnethnot":notbecausehehasofhimselfpowertopreservehimselfpure,butbecause"HethatwasbegottenofGod"—thatisto say, God's own Son, Jesus Christ—"keepeth him and the evil onetouchethhimnot."This is but the Johanninewayof sayingwhatPetersaysinhiswaywhenheassureshisreadersthatChristians"areguardedbythepowerofGodthroughfaithuntoasalvationreadytoberevealedinthelasttime"(1P1:5).ButJohnproceedswithhisencouragingmessage."Weknow,"headds,"thatweareofGodandthewholeworldliethintheevilone.AndweknowthattheSonofGodiscomeandhathgivenusanunderstanding,thatweknowHimthatistrue,andweareinHimthatistrue,inHisSonJesusChrist."GodisHethatistrue;andwhatissaidisthatifweareinHisSonJesusChrist,weareinGod.Why?BecauseJesusChristHimself,beingHisSon, isHimself justthisGodthat istrue;andtherefore it is just this that theApostleadds:"This is,"hesayswiththeemphaticdemonstrative,—"thisistheTrueGodandLifeEternal"(5:20).The upshot of the whole matter, then, is that those who are in JesusChristneedhavenofearinthemidstofthetemptationsofearth:fortobeinJesusChrist is tobe in theonlyrealGod,sinceJesusHimself is this'RealGod,'andassuch'EternalLife.'

Here,then,aretwonewdescriptiveepithetsappliedtoJesus,asthe'SonofGod.'He is 'EternalLife,'—whichrecalls the figurativedesignationofHimas'theLife'intheGospelofJohn(14:6,11:25,cf.1:5,9,1Jno1:2,cf.1Jno2:8).AndHeis'theTrue,''theReal,God,'theGodwhocorrespondsineveryrespecttotheideaofGod,whoiswhatGodoughttobeandis.There is "onlyone trueGod,"JohnquoteshisMasterasdeclaring (Jno17:3),toknowwhomiseternallife:andnowhetellsusthatJesusChrist,becausethe'Son'ofthisonlytrueGod,isHimselfthis'TrueGod'andthis'Eternal Life.'He thenwho is inHim is in 'the TrueGod' and has 'theEternal Life,—'the Eternal Life' that was in the Father and has been

manifestedinHis'SonJesusChrist,'andisnowdeclaredbytheApostleinorderthathisreaders,too,mayenterintothatfellowshipwhichhewashimself enjoying "with theFatherandwithHisSonJesusChrist" (1:3).TheEpistlesofJohn,also,thusculminatenotonlyincallingChrist'God,'but insocallingHim 'God'as to throwout intoemphasis thatHe isallthatGodis.JamescallsHim'theGlory':Peter'thegreatGod':Paul'Godover all': John 'theRealGod.' Itwas because he so conceived Jesus asGod'suniqueSon(1Jno4:9)thatJohnisabletospeakoftheforgivenessof sins "through His Name" (1 Jno 2:12), and of faith "in His Name"securing eternal life (5:13, cf. 3:23), and even (3 Jno 7) of the wholeChristian course turning on loyalty to 'the Name,'—that is, obviously,Jesus'Name,—without further definition. Clearly, to him, 'theName ofJesus'wastheNamethatisaboveeveryname.

HowOurCompanionsThoughtofHim

EvenarapidglancelikethisoverthedesignationsappliedtoChristintheEpistleswritten by Christ's immediate companionswill suffice to showthat the estimate put upon His personality by Paul has nothing in itpeculiar to thatwriter. Theremaymeet us, aswe pass fromEpistle toEpistle,varyingmethodsofgivingexpressiontothefaithcommontoall:butit iscommontoallto lookuponJesusChristasadivineperson.Sofar as appears it did not occur to anyone in the primitive Christiancommunity toputa lowerestimateuponHispersonality thanthat;andwritervieswithwriteronlyinhisattemptstogivehisfaithinhisdivineRedeemerclearandemphaticexpression. If therewasamoreprimitiveconceptionthanthisofJesus'dignity ithaddiedawayandleftnotracebehind it before the Christian community found a voice for itself.WhetherthatcanbeconceivedtohavehappenedinthecourseofthefewyearswhichintervenedbetweenthepubliccareeranddeathofJesusandthe rise of a Christian literature,—say, in James,—or, say, in Paul,—or,say,intheevangelicdocuments,—eachonemustjudgeforhimself.Butinseeking to form an opinion on thismatter, it should be borne inmindthatthereintervenedonlyaverybriefperiodindeedbetweenthedeathofChrist and the beginnings of Christian literature: that much of thisliteraturecrediblyrepresentsitselfastheproductofactualcompanionsofourLord:andthatitwasallwritteninthepresenceofsuchcompanions,

reflects their opinions, and was published under their eye. ThatabsolutelynotraceofalowerviewofthepersonofChristisdiscernibleinany portion of this literature seems in these circumstances not only avalidsuggestionbutaconvincingproofthatnosuchlowerviewhadbeenprevalent in theChristian community: that, in aword, the followers ofJesusmustbesupposedtohavebeenheartilyconvincedofHisdeityfromtheverybeginning.

THEWITNESSOFTHEEPISTLETOTHEHEBREWS

TheEpistletotheHebrewsentersnoclaimtobethecompositionofoneofourLord'simmediatefollowers.Neitherdoesitrepresentthethoughtof a period antedating the composition of the Epistles of Paul. ItsynchronizesinitsdateratherwiththatofthelaterhalfoftheseEpistles(c. A.D. 64). It comes to us like its ownMelchizedek, "without father,without mother, without genealogy," bearing its own independentwitness to how Jesus was thought and spoken of by the Christiancommunity in the seventh decade of the first Christian century; or, atleast,byaspecialandvery interestinggroupofChristians livingat thattime,madeupofthoseJewswhohadseeninJesusthepromisedMessiahandacceptedHimastheirlonged-forRedeemer.

Prevalenceof'Christ'

InthedesignationsitappliestoourLordingeneral,thisEpistlereflects,ofcourse,theusageofthefirstageoftheChurch,whichhasalreadybeenobservedintheotherEpistles:butequallyofcoursenotwithoutitsownpeculiarities.AsintheEpistlesofPaul,themostfrequentlyoccurringofthe simple designations is 'Christ' (3:6, 14, 5:5, 6:1, 9:11, 14, 24, 28,11:26). The simple 'Jesus,' however, is employed relatively muchmorefrequently than in Paul's letters (2:9, 3:1, 6:20, 7:22, 10:19, 12:2, 24,13:12): it occurs almost as frequently, indeed, as 'Christ.' Neither is,however,acommontitleinHebrews(nineandeighttimesrespectively),noristhecompoundtitle'JesusChrist,'whichoccursthreetimes(10:10,13:8,21),while'LordJesus'(13:20)and'JesustheSonofGod'(4:14)each

occurs once. The simple 'Lord' also is only occasionally applied to ourLord (1:10, 2:3, 7:14; [12:14]); and no combinations of it with otherdesignationsoccuratall,except,aswehavealreadyintimated,thephrase'ourLordJesus' isoncemetwith(13:20). It isnoticeable that in twoofthethreeinstancesinwhichtheterm'Lord' isemployedofChrist(1:10,2:3)itisusedinordertothrowintoprominenceHissuperangelicdignity.ThepeculiarityofHebrewsismanifestedinthefreeuse itmakesof thetwodesignations,'theSon'(1:2,5,5,8,3:6,5:5,8,7:28),ormorefullythe'SonofGod' (4:14,6:6, 7:3, 10:29), and 'the (orour)HighPriest' (2:17,3:1,4:14,15,5:10,6:20,7:26,8:1,9:11)orsimply'priest'(5:6,7:3,11,[15],17,21;[8:4];10:21),whichformrespectivelythefavoriteontologicalandthefavoritesoteriologicaldesignationsofChristinthisEpistle.

RecognitionofJesus'Humanity

It is chieflybymeansof and in connectionwith the title 'Son' that thisEpistle (in this, like the Epistles of John) gives expression to itsconception of our Lord's person. There is no lack of recognition of thehumanityofourLord.Indeed,nowhereelseintheNewTestamentdowefindtherealityandthecompletenessofHishumanitysofullyexpoundedand so strongly insisted upon. But it is the transcendent conception ofChrist,which looks uponHim as 'the Son ofGod,' clothedwith all theattributesofGod,thatgivesitswholetonetotheEpistle.4Thekeynoteisstruck in the very opening verses, where our Lord is set as 'Son' incontrastnotmerelywiththeprophets,thegreatestrepresentativesofGodonearth,butalsowiththeangels,thehighestofcreatures.Alltheseareservants of God: He is His 'Son,' through whom no doubt God works(1:2),butasoneworksthroughafellowinwhomHeisreduplicated;andwhomHeaddressesby thegreatnamespeculiar toHimself, 'God' (1:8)and—itsequivalenthere—'Lord'(1:10,2:2).

What'theSon'is

That it is what is called the metaphysical Sonship, which is hereattributedtoourLordisobviousinitselfandisputbeyondalldoubtbythedescriptionwhich isgivenofHimas 'Son.' In thisdescription thereareassignedtoHimdivineworks,ineternityandintime:thecreationofthe world and the upholding of the universe. But the most striking

elementofittellsusratherwhatthe'Son'isthanwhatHehaddoneorisyettodo.Heis,wearetold,"theeffulgenceofGod'sgloryandtheveryimageofHis substance"—which seems tobeonly a rich and suggestivewayofsaying,toputitbriefly,thatthe'Son,'as'Son,'isjustGod'sfellow.He is the repetitionofGod's glory: the reiterationofHis substance.Bythe"gloryofGod"ismeantherejustthedivinenatureitself,apprehendedinitssplendor:andbyits"effulgence"ismeantnotareflection,but,sotospeak,areduplicationofit.The'Son'isjustGodoveragaininthegloryofHismajesty.Similarlybythe"substance"ofGodismeant,notHisbareessence, butHis whole nature, with all its attributes; and by "the veryimage" ismeantacorrespondenceascloseas thatwhichan impressiongivesbacktoaseal:the'Son'ofGodinnosingletraitintheleastdiffersfromGod.7Inaword,whatisgiventousinthe'Son'isheredeclaredtobeGodas'Son'standingoveragainstGodas'Father.'

HisDeity

Itcancausenosurprise,therefore,whentheauthordeclaresthatitwasof the 'Son' thatGodwas speaking in the Psalm (45:6),whenHe said,"Thythrone,OGod,isforeverandever."Thisisonlytoapplydirectlytothe'Son'thenamewhichisinthewholediscussionimpliedtobeHis:forundoubtedly the very point of thewhole argument is to the effect thatJesusChristasthe'SonofGod'standsinfinitelyaboveeverycreaturejustbecause He is 'God' Himself. We may leave undecided the questionwhetherornothedoxologyatthecloseoftheEpistleistobereferredtoChrist,treatedhereastheGodHeisrecognizedthroughouttheEpistleasbeing. Certainly there is no reason why this author should not haveascribed "eternal glory" to the Being he had described as in His verynature"theeffulgenceofthedivineglory,"andforthatveryreasonitmaybeamatterof indifference touswhetherhehasdonesoornot.Nor ismuchaddedtothispictureofthedivineChristbyhisdesignationofHim,withoutqualification,as'theFirstborn'(1:6),orbyhisnoticingthatGodhas "appointedHimHeir of all things" (1:2). 'Firstborn' and 'Heir' arelittlemorethanspeciallyhonorificwaysofsaying'Son.'God's'Firstborn'assuchtakesrankaboveallotherexistingbeings:evenalloftheangelsshalldoHimreverence.God's'Firstborn'isalsonaturallyGod's'Heir,'anheir whose inheritance embraces the universe, and whose tenure

stretches to eternity. All these declarations are bound very closelytogetherintheircommonrelationtothefundamentalconceptionofourLord'sdivineSonship;andconstituteitemsbythementionofwhichthecontents of the idea of Sonship are developed. The statements of theopeningversesoftheEpistleseemtobearrangedinasortofclimaxbymeansofwhich thegloryof theNewCovenant, revealed in the 'Son,' ismoreandmoreenhanced.Thegloryof theNewCovenant is that ithasbeen introduced by God the 'Son'—that 'Son' who, despite His lowlymanifestation on earth, has been appointed heir of all things,—that is,Lord of all: by whom, indeed, the worlds were made in the depths ofeternity,—thatis,whoistheeternalCreatorofallthatis:who,infact,isinHimselftheeffulgenceofGod'sgloryandtheimpressofHissubstance—thatistosay,allthatGodis:andbywhom,becauseHeisallthatGodis,theuniverseisheldinbeing.

SoteriologicalTitles

ItisparticularlynoticeablethatatthisprecisepointamentionofChrist'spropitiatory work is introduced. This 'Son of God,' whose dignity hasbeen thus expounded, "made purification of sins." The soteriologicalinterest is present, therefore, even in this ontological passage, and it isthe soteriological interest, indeed, which gives its importance to thisontologicaldiscussionintheeyesofthewriter.Thesoteriologicaltitlesbywhich he designates our Lord are therefore naturally as rich as theontological ones. He is 'theMediator of the New Covenant' (8:6, 9:15,12:24):HeistheGroundofeternalSalvation(5:9):Heis 'theAuthorofSalvation'(2:10,cf.Acts3:15,5:31):Heis'theAuthorandPerfecterofourFaith' (12:2): He is our Forerunner into that which is within the veil(6:20):Heis'theApostleandHighPriestofourConfession'(3:1):Heis'the Great Shepherd of the Sheep' (13:20): and, above all (for this is afavoriteconceptionofthisEpistle),Heisour'Priest'(5:6,7:3,11,[15],17,21;[8:4];10:21)ormorespecificallyour'HighPriest'([2:17];3:1,4:14,15,5:10,6:20,7:26,8:1,9:11).Allthesearegreatdesignations:andweseeataglance that they reflect in their substance thehighestimateputuponourLord'spersonasthe'SonofGod.'ItisonlybecauseHeisthe'SonofGod' that He may be fitly described in His saving work by these highdesignations. It isalsoatonceobservable that theMessanicconception

underliesandgivesformtothemall.IfJesusisconceivedbythewriterofthisEpistleinHispersonfundamentallyastheeternal'SonofGod';HeisequallyconceivedinHisworkasfundamentallytheMessiahappointedofGodtoinauguratetheneworderofthingsandtobringHispeoplesafelyinto the experience of the promised salvation.As 'Mediator of theNewCovenant'HegivesHislifefortheredemptionofHispeople,establishingnew relations between them and God by means of His blood. As the'Originator of Salvation,' He tasted death for every man, receiving inHimselfthepenaltiesduetothem,nottoHim.As'AuthorandPerfecterofourfaith'Heenduredthecross,despisingtheshamethatHemightbenotmerelyourexample,butourSaviour.As'theGreatShepherd'HelaiddownHis life forHis sheep.As 'theApostle andHighPriest'He is theOne appointed by God tomake sacrifice ofHimself for the sins of thepeople,—for everyHighPriestmustneedshave somewhat to offer, andthis 'our High Priest' has through His own blood obtained eternalredemptionforus.

Christour'Priest'

Weseethat theredthreadofredemption inblood iswovenintoall theallusionstothesavingworkofthe'SonofGod.'Andweseethatthechiefvehicle in this Epistle for the expression of this high teaching is therepresentation of our Lord's work as priestly in its nature, and theproclamationofHimas'thegreatHighPriest.'Theinterestofthisgrowsout of the circumstance that here at last in the New Testament theconceptionofMessiahasPriestcomestoitsrights.IntheirabsorptionintheconceptionofMessiahasKingtheJewsgavescantyhospitalitytotherichsuggestionsoftheOldTestamentofotheraspectsinwhichHisofficeand work might be contemplated. It was characteristic of Christianity,undertheilluminationthrownbackuponthepromisebyitsfulfillment,to gather these neglected aspects together and note their fulfillment inChrist. Among them was the conception of Messiah as a priestperformingthepriestlyworkofpropitiation.ThereseemstobelittletraceofthecurrencyofsuchaconceptionamongtheJews.ThereisalsolittleusemadeofitinotherbooksoftheNewTestament.ButintheEpistletotheHebrewsit isgivenitsfullexposition;strikinglyillustratedfromthesame Psalm which declares the Messiah David's Lord not less than

David'sson,—"ThouartaPriestforeveraftertheorderofMelchizedek";andmadethevehicle for the inculcationof the fundamentaldoctrineofChristianity—thepropitiatorydeathofJesus,thereconciliationofGodbyHissacrificeofHimself,andHiseternalintercessionforHispeople.Thisis the great contribution of the Epistle to the Hebrews to theapprehensionofthenatureofourLord'swork.

THEWITNESSOFTHEAPOCALYPSE

ASummaryViewofEarlyConceptions

Thepeculiarityof theBookofRevelation,asanApocalypse,gives it thesuperficialappearanceofstandingapartfromtheotherbooksoftheNewTestament in a class by itself. It requires little scrutiny of its contents,however,toassureusthatthisistrueonlyofitsform.Inthematterofthedesignations it applies to our Lord, for example, the cursory reader isimpressed by their novelty and astonished by the richness of theirsuggestion; but on analyzing their content he soon discovers that theyembodyintheirsplendidphraseologynootherconceptionsthanthosehehasbeenmade familiarwith in theotherbooksof theNewTestament.Indeed, there isasense inwhich itwouldnotbeuntrue tosay that theBook of Revelation, written as it was at the close of the first Christiancentury(c.A.D.96),gathersupintoanepitomeandgivesvivid,andwemay say even emotional, expression to the whole century's thought ofJesus.Acertaincomprehensivenessisthusimpartedtoitschristologicalallusionswhichhas puzzled the critical student andbeenmadebyhimthereproachofthebookandeventheoccasionofdenialtoitofunityofcomposition.ItisintruthmerelyawitnesstotheunityoftheconceptionofJesuswhichcharacterizedthewholeApostolicChurch,finding,indeed,varied expression according to the idiosyncrasy of each writer, butremainingthroughallvarietyofexpressionessentiallythesame.

TwoClassesofDesignations

ThelonglistofdesignationsinwhichthisconceptionofJesusisatleastin part embodied in theBook ofRevelationmay be perhaps somewhatroughly divided into two classes. We say roughly divided because theseparating line is an uncertain one and the two classesmelt insensiblyinto one another. These two classes may perhaps equally roughly bediscriminated as simple and descriptive designations: simpledesignations,thatistosay,namesmerelydesignatingourLord,though,ofcourse,nooneofthesenamesmerelydesignatesourLord,butallhavemoreorlessofadescriptiveelement;anddescriptivedesignations,thatistosay,designationswhicharemoreorlesselaboratedescriptionsofHisnatureandfunctions.

SimpleDesignations

Thesimpledesignationsare,inaccordancewiththegeneralcharacterofthe book as a symbolical Apocalypse, both few and infrequentlyemployed. In the formalopeningof thebookwehave—as in the formalopeningofseveralothersoftheNewTestamentbooks(Mt1:1,18,Mk1:1,Jno1:17,Rom1:1, 1Cor 1:1,Gal 1:1, 1P 1:1,2P 1:1, [Jno1:3,2Jno3],Jude 1)—the full ceremonious name, 'Jesus Christ' (1:1, 1, 5). In theformalclosingversesofthebooktheplaceofthissolemndesignationistaken by the somewhat more descriptive designation 'the Lord Jesus'(22:20,21,cf.however,v.r.'JesusChrist'inverse21).Thesimple'Jesus'occursmorefrequently(1:9,9,12:17,14:12,17:6,19:10,10,20:4,22:16),and, if we may be allowed the expression, appears to be the moreemotional,asdistinguishedfromthemoreformal,simpledesignationofour Lord in this book. The simple 'Christ' occurs only twice (20:4, 6),although in what we may call its more descriptive form—that is in itsappellative use—'the Lord's Christ (Anointed),' 'God's Christ(Anointed),'—itoccurstwicemore(at11:15,12:10).Theterm'Lord'seemsto be a designation of Christ at 14:13: and His Lordship is of coursecopiously recognized elsewhere, not merely by implication as in thedesignation of a day as "the Lord's day" (1:10), but in a series ofelaboratelydescriptivedesignationsthesimplestofwhichisperhaps'theKingofKingsandLordofLords'(19:16),variedto'theLordofLordsandKing of Kings' (17:14, cf. 1:5, 2:1, 12, 3:7, 5:5). Of the more common

Messianicdesignations,besidesthefundamental'theChrist'(11:15,12:10;andincompounds1:1,2,5)and 'Christ' (20:4,6),only 'theSonofGod'occurs,andthatbutonce(2:18,cf.'myFather,'2:27,3:5,21;'HisGodandFather,'1:6;'myGod,'3:2,12),andaccompaniedbydescriptiveadjunctswhichgiveit itsveryhighestconnotation.OurLord'sown'SonofMan,'however,has its echo in thedescriptionofJesus in twovisionsas "onelike unto a Son of Man" (1:13, 14:14): and by the preservation in thisdesignationofthe"likeunto"oftheDanielicvision(7:13)—strengthenedfromthesimpleὡςtotheemphaticὅμοιον,—theseermanagestoassertwithgreat strength theessentialdeityofourLord.Hewasnotasonofmanbutonly"likeuntoasonofman."HeevenenhancesthisimplicationbyinterweavingintothedescriptiontraitsdrawnnotonlyfromDaniel's"Son of Man," but also from his "Ancient of Days."5 The Johanninedesignationof 'theWordofGod' (19:13)alsooccursas thenameof theconquering Christ, apparently with the implication that in Jesus ismanifested the definitive revelation of God in which He addressesHimself to man with irresistible power. Probably the "man child" (or"son")of12:5(cf.12:13,"theman")ultimatelyreferstoourLord:andifsoitalsoisdoubtlessMessianic,takingholdatonceofIs66:7andPsalm2:9,possiblyevenofGen4:1:inanyeventtheallusionistotheconquestofevilbythisSonofthewoman.

DescriptiveDesignations

'TheLamb'

The more elaborate descriptive titles which are applied to our Lordembody the same circle of ideas as are more briefly suggested by thesimpler designations; and only more vividly and richly express theircontents.SomeofthesehavefortheirburdenthesavingactivitiesofourLordandmaytherefore fitlybecalledsoteriological.AgoodexampleoftheseisprovidedbythedirectdescriptionofHimas"HimthatlovedusandloosedusfromoursinsbyHisblood"(1:5).Butthemoststrikingandatthesametimethemostfrequentlyemployeddescriptivedesignationofthisclass isthatwhichcallsHim"theLambthathathbeenslain"(5:12,13:8, cf. 5:6, 9, 7:14), or more commonly simply "the Lamb" withoutexpressbutalwayswithimpliedreferencetotheactualsacrifice(5:8,13,6:1‚16,7:9,10,14,17,12:11,14:1,4,10,15:3,17:14,19:7,9,21:9,14,22,

27, 22:1, 3). Indeed, we understate thematter whenwe say this is themostfrequentlyemployeddescriptivedesignationofChristofitsclass.ItisinfactthemostfrequentlyemployeddesignationofJesusofanykind,and must be looked upon as embodying the seer's favorite mode ofconceivingofJesusandHiswork.Heevenusesitinsuchamannerastosuggest that ithadacquired forhimmuch thestatusofapropername,andsuggesteditselfasadesignationofJesusevenwhenthemindofthewriterwasdwellingonotheraspectsofHisworkthanthatmostcloselysymbolizedbythistitle.TherecouldbenomorestrikingindicationofthehighsignificancethewriterattachedtothesacrificialdeathofChrist,andtothedominanceofthefifty-thirdchapterofIsaiahintheframingofhisMessianicconceptions;matterswhichareotherwisecopiouslyillustratedby his language.9 Other prevailingly soteriological designations advertespeciallytoourLord'sresurrection,—suchasthatbywhichHeisspokenof as 'the First born of the Dead' (1:5); and others still to Histrustworthiness,suchaswhenHeiscalled'theFaithfulandTrue'(19:11),or 'the Faithful Witness' (1:5), and more elaborately 'the Amen, theFaithfulandTrueWitness,thebeginningofthecreationofGod'(3:14);oragain,'Hethatisholy,Hethatistrue,HethathaththekeysofDavid,Hethatopenethandnoneshallshutandthatshuttethandnoneshallopen'(3:7).

AccumulativeDesignations

The transition fromthesesoteriologicaldesignations to thosewhicharemorepurelyhonorific,orperhapswemightbettersay,ontological,isverygradual, or indeed insensible: andnothing ismore characteristic of thebookthanthesharpcontrast intowhichdesignationsof the twoclassesarebroughtbytheirimmediateconjunction.Thus,forexample,weread:"AndIweptmuch,becausenoonewas found toopen thebook,…andoneoftheelderssaithuntome,Weepnot,beholdtheLionthatisofthetribe of Judah… hath overcome to open the book.… And I saw in themidstofthethrone,andofthefourlivingcreatures,andinthemidstoftheelders,aLambstandingasthoughithadbeenslain,…andhecameand taketh the book …" (5:4 seq.). There is no question of mixedmetaphorshere: there isonlyquestionofbringing together inJesusbythemost varied of symbols all the aspects of theMessianic prediction,

and the exhibition of these all as finding their fulfillment in Him. AllthesedesignationsaredistinctlyMessianicintheirgroundtone,andtheMessianic ground tone is taken from all forms of the Messianicexpectation,butperhapsprevailinglyfromthatassociatedintheGospelswiththetitleof'SonofMan,'towhichthereismanifestallusioneveninpassages in which there is not only no adduction of that title, but nodirect designation of our Lord from that point of view (1:7). The greatopeningdescriptionofourLordas'JesusChrist,thefaithfulwitness,thefirstbornofthedead,andtherulerofthekingsoftheearth'(1:5)unitesalreadynearlyallformsofdesignatingHimemployedinthebook.Hereisthe simple name, the recognition of His dependableness, and theascriptiontoHimoftheinaugurationoflifeandofuniversalsovereignty.TheMessianicgroundtoneisespeciallyprominentinsuchdesignationsasthosewhichcallHim'theLionofthetribeofJudah,theRootofDavid'(5:5), or 'the Root and theOffspring ofDavid, the bright, themorningStar'(22:16),butpassesmoreintothebackgroundinsuchasthosewhichspeakofHimas'theSonofGodwhohatheyeslikeaflameoffireandHisfeetare likeuntoburnishedbrass' (2:18),or 'He thatholdeth thesevenstarsinHisrighthand,Hethatwalkethinthemidstofthesevengoldencandlesticks'(2:1),or'HethathaththesevenspiritsofGodandthesevenstars' (3:1). It is His Messianic function of judgment which is thrownforwardinthedescriptionofHimas 'Hethathaththesharptwo-edgedsword'(2:12);'Hethatistherulerofthekingsoftheearth'(1:5),'whoseeyes are like a flame of fire' (2:18), and who, since His dominion isuniversal, is 'the Lord of Lords and King of Kings' (17:14, 19:16)—although a greater than a Messiah is obviously here. The climax isattained in thedescriptionofHimas 'theFirstandtheLast,whichwasdeadand livedagain' (2:8), 'theFirstand theLast,and theLivingOne'(1:18), 'theAlphaandOmega,theFirstandtheLast, theBeginningandtheEnd'(22:13),inwhosehandsarethedestiniesofmen(1:18,3:7).

TheDeityofOurLord

TrinitarianBackground

Itseemsscarcelynecessarytodrawoutindetailthewealthofimplicationofdeitywhichthesedesignationscontain.TheApocalypsedoesnotapplytoourLorddirectlythesimpledesignation'God.'Buteverythingshortof

that is done to emphasize the seer's estimate ofHim as a divineBeingclothedwithallthedivineattributes.Thisisgenerallyallowed;andthosewho are set uponhaving theApocalypsewitness to a lower christologycommonlycontentthemselveswiththeremarkthatitslanguagemustnotbetakenatitsfacevalue.Baur,forexample,contendsthatalthoughthehighest predicates are ascribed to Jesus, they are "only names borneoutwardlybyHim,andarenotassociatedwithHisperson inany innerunity of nature"; that "inner connection between the divine predicatesandthehistoricalindividualwhobearsthem"islacking.Inpointoffactthesedivinepredicatesare there;andwhether theseermeansanythingbythemmaybesafelylefttothereadertodecide.Jesusisrepresentedasemphatically as God Himself, as the living one (1:18), eternal (1:18),omniscient(1:14,2:18,19:12),thesearcherofthereinsandhearts(2:23),inwhosehandsarethekeysofdeathandhell(1:18).IfinreminiscenceofIs44:6wheretheLord,theKingofIsrael,andhisRedeemer,theLordofhosts, declares ofHimself: "I am the first and the last: and besidemethere is noGod,"—God is represented as announcing: "I am the AlphaandtheOmega,thebeginningandtheend"(21:6,cf.1:8),Jesusequally(despite the strong monotheistic assertion of the original passage) isrepresented as announcing: "I am the first and the last, and the livingone"(1:17,18,cf.2:8),"IamtheAlphaandtheOmega,thefirstandthelast,thebeginningandtheend"(22:13).Indeed,intheopeningaddresswe have one of those Trinitarian arrangements which betray the realunderlying conception of deity in others, too, of the New Testamentwriters:"GracetoyouandpeacefromHimwhichisandwhichwasandwhich is to come"—that is Jehovah, of which this is an analysis,—"andfrom the seven Spirits"—that is the Holy Spirit set forth in His divinecompleteness,—"and from Jesus Christ who is the faithful witness, thefirstbornfromthedeadandtherulerofthekingsoftheearth"(1:4seq.).InthepresenceofsuchpervasiveanduniversallyrecognizedascriptionsofdeitytoourLordweneednotstoptoexpoundthesignificanceofsuchdesignationsasthatbywhichHeiscallednotmerelythe'Amenandthefaithfulandtruewitness,'but'theprincipleofthecreationofGod'(3:14)—that is to say, the active agent in creating all that God creates. It isabundantlyclearthattheChristoftheApocalypseisadivineperson.16

THEISSUEOFTHEINVESTIGATION

FundamentalConvictionoftheChristianCommunity

WehavenowpassedinreviewthewholebodyofdesignationswhichareappliedtoourLordinthepagesoftheNewTestament.Wecannotfailtobe impressedwith the varietyof thesedesignations and the richnessoftheir suggestion. It would be a pleasant task to develop all theirimplications.Thiswould,however,takeustoofarafieldforourpresentpurpose.LetitsufficetoobservethatatbottomtheyseemtobechargedwiththreespecificconvictionsonthepartoftheChristiancommunity,towhich they give endlessly repeated and endlessly varied expression.ChrististheMessiah;ChristisourRedeemer;ChristisGod:thesearethegreatasseverationswhichareespeciallyembodiedinthem.AllthreearealreadysummedupintheangelicannouncementwhichwasmadetotheshepherdsatHisbirth:"Ibringyougoodtidingsofgreatjoywhichshallbetoallthepeople:forthereisborntoyouthisdayinthecityofDavidtheSaviour,whoisChristtheLord"(Lk2:11).ThewholeNewTestamentmaybesaidtobeanexpositionandenforcementofthatannouncement:andinthecourseofthisexpositionandenforcementitteachesusmanythings.Aboveall, itplacesbeyonddispute themain factwithwhichwehavenowtodeal, this fact, towit, that thewholeChristiancommunity,andthatfromtheverybeginning,wasfirmlyconvincedthatJesusChristwasGodmanifestintheflesh.

PresupposesOurLord'sTeaching

There really can be found no place for doubt of this fact. But upon itsemergenceasanindubitablefactitbecomesplainthatitisfreightedwithgreatsignificance.ThefactthatthewholeChristiancommunityfromthevery beginning held, as to its fundamental principle, to the deity of itsfounder,isaveryremarkablefact,andsurelyneedsaccountingfor.AnditwillbefounddifficulttoimpossibilityadequatelytoaccountforitexceptupontheassumptionthatthefounderofChristianityreallywasadivineperson.ThisuniversalanduniformconvictionofthedeityofChristinthe

primitiveChristianbodyinawordimpliestheactualdeityofChrist,asitspresupposition. It cannot be supposed that the whole body of the firstChristiansfirmlybelievedinthedeityoftheirMasterwithoutevidence—withoutmuchevidence—withoutconvincingevidence.TheprimaryitemofthisevidencewasnodoubtourLord'sownself-assertion:andthisisafactofthefirstimportancewhichisimmediatelygiveninthefactoftheuniversalanduniformbelief inourLord'sdeitywhichcharacterizedthefirst age of the Church. That belief cannot possibly be accounted forexceptonthesuppositionthatitwasfoundedinourLord'steaching.AscertainasitisthenthattheprimitiveChristianswerefirmlyandwithoutexceptionconvincedofourLord'sdeity,socertainisitthatourLord—asindeedHeisrepresentedtohavedoneintheuniformtradition—assertedHimselftobeadivineperson.Andnowwemustgofurther.Ascertainasit is that these two thingsare true, that thewholeChristiancommunitybelievedtheirLordtobedivineandthatJesustaughtthatHewasdivine,socertainitisthatneitherofthemcouldbetrueif itwerenottruethatourLordwasdivine.

AndSomethingMorethanHisTeaching

We have already remarked that the Christian community cannot besupposed to have formed and immovably fixed in their hearts theconvictionthattheirLordwasdivinewithoutevidence—muchevidence—convincingevidence.Wehavealsopointedout that theprimary itemofthisevidencewasourLord'sownassertion.ButtherecertainlymusthavebeenmoreevidencethanourLord'sbareassertion.Mendonotwithoutado believe everyonewho announces himself to beGod, upon the baldannouncement alone. There must have been attendant circumstanceswhich supported the announcement and gave it verisimilitude,—nay,cogency—oritwouldnothavehadsuchpowerovermen.OurLord'slife,His teachings, His character, must have been consonant with it. Hisdeeds as well as His words must have borne Him witness. The creditaccordedtoHisassertionisthebestpossibleevidencethatsuchwasthecase.WecanunderstandhowHisfollowerscouldbelieveHimdivine, ifin point of factHe not only assertedHimself to be divine but lived asbecame a God, taught as befitted a divine Instructor, in all Hisconversationintheworldmanifestedaperfectionsuchasobviouslywas

nothuman:andifdying,Heroseagainfromthedead.IfHedidnoneofthesethingscantheirfirmandpassionatefaithinHisdeitybeexplained?

IncludingSomethingVeryConclusive

Possibly we do not always fully realize the nature of the issue herebroughtbeforeus.Hereisayoungmanscarcelythirty-threeyearsofage,emerged from obscurity only for the brief space of three years, livingduring thoseyearsunder thescornof theworld,whichgrewsteadily inintensityandfinallypassedintohatred,anddyingattheendthedeathofa malefactor: but leaving behind Him the germs of a world-widecommunity,thespringofwhosevitalityisthefirmconvictionthatHewasGodmanifestintheflesh.Ifanythinghumanisobviousitisobviousthatthis convictionwasnot formed and fixedwithout evidence for it of themostconvincingkind.TheaccountHisfollowersthemselvesgaveofthematteristhattheirfaithwasgroundednotmerelyinHisassertions,normerelyintheimpressionHispersonalitymadeupontheminconjunctionwithHisclaims,—butspecificallyinaseriesofdivinedeeds,culminatingin His rising from the dead, setting its seal upon His claims and theimpressionmadebyHispersonality.ThisistheaccountofthegreatplacetheResurrectionofChristtakesintheApostolicpropaganda.ItisthesealsetbyheavenuponthetruthofHisdeityasproclaimedinHisteaching.Itis safe to say thatapart fromevidence so convincing thehighclaimsofJesuscouldnothavebeenmetwithsuchfirmandunquestioningfaithbyHis followers. This very faith becomes thus a proof of the truth ofHisclaims.

NotSupposablethatJesusmadeFalseClaims

Andso,infact,isthemerefactthatHemadetheseclaims.Wehaveseenthat the fact thatHemade these claims is not only asserted by allHisfollowers, but is safeguarded by their faith in His deity, which wereinexplicablewithoutit.ButitisevidentthatHecouldnothavemadesucha claimunlesswhatHe claimedwas true.We arenot absurdly arguingthattheclaimtobeGodisonewhichcannotbemadebyahumanbeinguntruly.Whatisitthatthefollyorwickednessofmenwillnotcompass?Butwhyshouldweabsurdlyargue thatJesusmaybe supposed tohavedone whatever we think within the compass of human folly or human

wickedness?WasJesusthesilliestofmen;orthemostwicked?Thepointisnotthatnomancouldmakesuchaclaimuntruly,butthatJesuscouldnotmakeituntruly!Manymentherehavebeen,andare,whomightdoso;somehavedoneso—menwhowerevilelyimpostorsorwildlyinsane.IsJesustobeclassedwiththesemen?ArewetoaskwithRenanhowfarJesusmaybesupposedtohavegoneinassumingarôleHeknewHehadno claim upon? Are we to ask, with Oscar Holtzmann, was Jesus afanatic?Thesearethealternatives:grosslydeceiving;grosslydeceived;orelseneitherdeceivingnordeceived,butspeakingthewordsofsobernessand truth.He, the flowerofhuman sanity;He, the ripe fruit of humanperfection;canHebesupposedtohaveannouncedtoHisfollowersthatHewasaboveallangels,abodecontinuallyinequalintercoursewiththeFather, sharedwithHim in the ineffableName—and itnotbe true?AsDr.Gwatkincrisplyputsit,"Thereisatremendousdilemmaherewhichmustbe faced: assuming that the tremendous claimascribed toHim isfalse,onewouldthinkitmusthavedisorderedHislifewithinsanityifHemadeitHimself,andtheaccountsofHislifeifothersinventedit."Thiswitnessistrue.NeitherJesusnorHisfollowerscouldhaveinventedtheclaimstodeitywhichJesusisreportedtohavemadeforHimself:forthetruth of these claims is needed to account both for Jesus and for Hisfollowers.

TheIssuetheSufficientEvidenceoftheSource

Wehavenointentionofstoppingheretoarguethesepoints;ifindeedtoestablish them they needmore argument than theirmere statement. Itwasnecessary,however,tosuggesttheminordertoindicatethegainweregister upon ascertaining, as we have ascertained, that the entireChristiancommunityfromtheveryfirstwasfirmlyconvincedofthedeityof its Lord. That fact established, it carries with it the truth of theconviction. For the conviction, in the circumstances in which it wasformedandheld,cannotbeaccountedforsaveontheassumptionoftheexistence of compelling evidence for it, and this compelling evidencemustincludeinittheclaimsofJesus,whichinturncannotbeaccountedfor save on the assumption of their truth. Grant that Jesus was reallyGod, inaword, andeverything fallsorderly into itsplace.Deny it, andyou have a Jesus and a Christianity on your hands both equally

unaccountable.Andthat isasmuchas tosay that theultimateproofofthedeityofChristisjust—JesusandChristianity.IfChristwerenotGod,we shouldhave a very different Jesus and a very differentChristianity.And that is the reason thatmodern unbelief bends all its energies in avain effort to abolish the historical Jesus and to destroy historicalChristianity. Its instinct is right: but its task is hopeless.We need theJesusofhistory to account for theChristianityofhistory.AndweneedboththeJesusofhistoryandtheChristianityofhistorytoaccountforthehistoryoftheworld.ThehistoryoftheworldistheproductofthepreciseChristianity which has actually existed, and this Christianity is theproductofthepreciseJesuswhichactuallywas.ToberidofthisJesuswemustberidofthisChristianity,andtoberidofthisChristianitywemustberidoftheworld-historywhichhasgrownoutofit.WemusthavetheChristianityofhistoryandtheJesusofhistory,orweleavetheworldthatexists,andasitexists,unaccountedfor.ButsolongaswehaveeithertheJesusofhistoryortheChristianityofhistoryweshallhaveadivineJesus.