The Lord ^ Lord Jesus.’ This Is em-
4 So e.g. the Revised English Version at 3^0 542^ Meyer-Wendt at 3“®: and so also A. H. Blom, De Leer ‘van het Messiasrijk bij de eerste Christenen, pp. 292 and 303. On 320 Blom says: “There can be no doubt... but that Xptarov ’Irjdovv is not to be taken as one name, but that ^Irjffouv is the epexegetic appositive of Xpiarov, which has here its original significance of a dignity.” On the other side, cf. Gloag, Barde, Rackham at 320.
® Paul Feine, Jesus Chrisius und Paulus, 1902, p. 35, is among those (see note 4) who take the opposite view. He says: “This formula is
a specifically Pauline one. The compound name ’‘iT^aou? Xpurro^i is found also in the other N. T. writings.... But the reverse sequence meets us only in Paul. No doubt it may be possible to discover it if we wish to do so in Acts. But even in Acts 320 173 1 85.28^ the Xpi(rr6<;^ standing before ^Ir^aod?, is the predicate; 5^2 means similarly, ‘they preached the Messiah Jesus.’ Then only 242^ is left eT? Xptffzdv ^Iiqffoov Tziareax;^ Even here, however, it is possible that we do not have the Pauline formula, but what is spoken of is faith in the Messiah Jesus.”
by Stephen (7^®). Indeed the fuller designation, ‘ the’ or ‘ our ’ ‘ Lord Jesus Christ,’ is employed by Luke himself (28^^) and attributed alike to Peter the whole body of the Apostles (15^®), and Paul (20^^). In this last formula we have combined the three most usual designations of Christ, and it seems charged with the deepest reverence and affection for His person.
Of course these phrases, ‘ the Lord Jesus,’ ‘ the [our] Lord Jesus Christ,’ witness to the prevalence in the Christian community of the simpler des- ‘Lord’ Ignation ‘ Lord ’ of Jesus, and this prevalence is otherwise copiously illustrated in Acts. As the narrative does not concern what Jesus began to do and teach while in His own person on earth, but what “ after He was ‘received up ” He did through His servants. His owm person is not a figure in the narrative, subsequent to the few opening verses which tell of the period before the ascension. Accordingly outside of these verses (i®) there is no occasion to record words directly addressed to Jesus, except in visions 26^^), or in prayers dressed by the supreme honorific ‘ Lord,’ except in 7^^, where He is addressed more fully as ‘ Lord Jesus.’ It is clear that this formula is employed in all cases with the profoundest reverence, and is meant to be the vehicle of the highest possible ascription. Perhaps it will be well to focus our attention upon the two or three instances in which it is employed in direct prayer to Jesus y59,60)^ these He is not merely treated as divine — for to whom but God is prayer to be ad- dressed? — but also directly characterized as the possessor of divine powers and the exerciser of divine functions. It is as He “ that knoweth the hearts of all men ” that He is appealed to at as the forgiver of sin at and as the receiver of the spirits of the dying saints at 7^^. All these traits are assigned to Jesus in the Gospel narratives, where Jesus claimed authority even on earth to forgive sins (Mk 2^® ||) and represents Himself as the judge before whom all were at length to stand and receive according to the deeds done in the body (Mt 25^^): where He is represented as knowing what was in men and needing not that
® De Wette, Meyer, Wendt, Nosgen, Blass, in loc., wish this passage to be understood as addressed to God; so also Sven Herner, Die Anfivendung des IVortes xbpio<; im N. T., 1903, p. 17; “In the sen-
tence, ‘Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men’ God is probably meant. According to 15® (4“^) and Lk God is the searcher of hearts, and the prayer of the primitive Church recorded at 424-30 is also addressed to God. Several exegetes, however, are of the opinion that it is directed to the Lord Christ; and the 6 xbpio<; A-q<ToT)<i of v. 21 can be urged in support of this.” Among the exegetes who
consider it to be addressed to Christ are Bengel, Olshausen, Baumgarten, Lechler, Bisping, and van Oosterzee (see the solid statement of the last): as also Alexander, Hackett, Gloag, Barde, Felton, Rendall. Rackham prefers to leave the question undecided.
^ That the prayer in is addressed to Jesus is pretty generally allowed. Cf. e.g. Sven Herner, p. 16: “We think we can maintain that in Stephen’s prayer the words, ‘ Lord, lay not this sin to their charge’ (7®®), are directed to Jesus, since the immediately preceding verse has the expression ‘ Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’ ” Also A. H. Blom, p. 126: “It is probable that the same person is addressed by the xbpis as was called xbpte '‘Irjffod in v. 59.” Blom points out that it is the dominant conception of Acts that the forgiveness of sins is to be had in Christ: therefore men are baptized in His name (2^® 22^®), and He has been exalted to God’s right hand as a Prince and a Saviour (5^^), and all who believe in Him receive forgiveness through His name (lo^^) j “and therefore,” he adds, “Stephen can have had Him in mind when he prayed for his foes, Lord, reckon not this sin to their charge (7®®).”
anyone should teach Him what were the thoughts of their hearts (Mk 2®): and where His promise to the thief was that he should be that day with Him in Paradise (Lk 23^^). It can occasion no surprise, therefore, that He should be appealed to after His return to His glory as at once the searcher of hearts, the forgiver of sins, and the receiver of the spirits of the saints. What we learn in the meanwhile is that to the infant community the ascended Jesus was their God, whom they addressed in prayer and from whom they sought in prayer the activities which specifically belong to God.
Quite naturally in these circumstances the chief narrative name for Jesus in i\cts becomes the honorific
‘ the Lord,’ which is employed about twice as frequently as the simple
‘ Jesus, and which is occasionally given more precision by taking the form of ‘ the Lord Jesus ’
(28^^). All of these designations are placed also on the lips of actors in the history recounted. Thus Peter speaks of Jesus as ‘the Lord’ in [2^^] 2^® 12^^
‘ the Lord Jesus ’ in 1 5^^ and as ‘ the Lord Jesus
Christ’ in ii^^: Paul as ‘the Lord
‘the Lord Jesus Christ’ in 20^^; and others speak of
Him as ‘the Lord’ in as ‘the Lord
Jesus’ in 7^^ and as ‘the Lord Jesus Christ’ in 15^^ It is quite clear that ‘ the Lord ’ is a favorite designation of Jesus in this book, and was such also in the community whose usage it reflects. “ And it is equally clear
p. 20: “The frequent employment of the word xupio<; in Acts is that in the use of this term what is primarily expressed is the profoundest reverence on the part of the community and the highest conceivable exaltation and authority on the part of Jesus Himself. It belongs to the ^ situation that it is often extremely difficult to deter- ^mine whether by ‘ Lord ’ Jesus or God is meant.^^ That is to say, so clearly is Jesus ‘ God ’ to this writer and
shown not merely in the cases where it refers to God, but even more where it is Christ that is spoken of. Acts loves to call Christ ‘ Lord.’ According to 2^6 God has made Jesus Lord and Christ; He is ‘the Lord over all’ and, therefore. He is often spoken of by the
speaks therefore extremely often of Christ by the designation ‘ Lord,’ even if we neglect the passages adduced at an earlier point, where decision is uncertain whether God or Christ is meant.”
the life of Jesus on earth, the narrative in Acts revolves around the Jesus exalted to the right hand of God, whom God has made Lord and Christ (226). It is He who leads to eternal life; He is the Lord of life (3!^). He is the Saviour, and there is salvation in no other (4I2). He deals out His blessings (3I®) and pours out the Holy Spirit on believers (222). His power is not bounded by the limits of space (26H), and His flesh shall not see corruption (221). He is not only the Lord and Master according to the ordinary representation of the Gospels (cf. e.g. Mt 2i2, Mk ii2, Lk 1921 with Mt 2612, Mk 1411^, Lk 22I1 and John 1312), but He is the Lord over all (io26). Accordingly Acts can leave it undetermined whether certain assertions are to be made of God or Christ; a designation is employed which is common to both, and it can often not be decided whether God or Christ is meant, — indeed sometimes it seems almost as if Acts had chosen a common designation just because it was unnecessary more precisely to express whether what was spoken of was to be ascribed to God or Christ. It is thus characteristic of Acts that a large number of passages occur where we cannot be
those whose speech he reports that the common term ‘ Lord ’ vibrates between the two and leaves the reader often uncertain which is intended.^® The assimilation of Jesus to God thus witnessed is illustrated also in other ways. Thus, for example, in Peter’s Pentecostal sermon Jesus is conceived as sitting at the right hand of God (2^^) and as having been constituted “both Lord and Christ,” where the conjunction is significant (2^^): and more explicitly still He is designated in a later discourse of the same Peter, “ Lord of all ” (10^®), that is to say, universal sovereign, a phrase which recalls the great declaration of Rom 9^ to the effect that He is “ God over all,” as indeed He who sits on the throne of God must be.^^
sure whether xupto? means God or Christ ^31,35,42
13 Therefore commentators have been tempted sometimes to seek out an easy and mechanical rule of discrimination. In his Neueste Theol. Journal, IV., pp. 11-24 (cf. iii. p. 501), Gabler, e.g., maintained that anarthrous xbpio<^ always is God in the N. T., while articled xbptog is always Jesus. Winer in the first and second editions of his Grammar blindly repeated this. But on investigating the matter he was soon convinced of the error, and showed in his monograph, Disputatio de sensu <vocum x6pto<^ et 6 xf)pio<s im Actis et Epistolis Apostolorum (Erlang., 1828), pp. 26, that the assumed rule did not hold good. Moses Stuart had meanwhile taken up the whole subject and printed the results of his researches in a somewhat rambling but useful paper in the first volume of the Biblical Repository (1831, Oct.), to the same effect. Dr. A. Plummer in his commentary on Luke repeats as regards that book the artificial statement of Gabler. In truth the distribution of the usage between Christ and God cannot in any book of the N. T. be determined on such grounds: and the difficulty in determining the reference is rooted ultimately in the assimilation of the two persons in the minds of the writers. Cf. Harnack, History of Dogma, i. p. 183.
That in this rich development of the conception of the Lordship of Jesus, His Messianic dignity is not ^ out of mind is already apparent from the
Man° phraseology of 2^^}^ The emphasis of ( Peter’s preaching turns, indeed, precisely on the fact that God has made the Jesus whom ^the Jews crucified “ both Lord and Christ.” It is thus with Acts as truly as with the Gospels the Messianic office of Jesus on which the greatest stress is laid. Naturally as Jesus is not a speaker in the narrative of Acts, His own favorite self-designation of ‘ Son of Man ’ is here conspicuous by its absence. It occurs only a single time, when the dying Stephen declared that he saw the heavens opened and the ‘ Son of Man ’ standing at the right hand of God (7^®). This is the only instance in the whole New Testament where this designation is employed by anyone except our Lord Himself: Stephen’s use of it seems a reflection of our Lord’s declaration, “ Henceforth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power” (Mt 26^^ ||), and is at once Stephen’s testimony to the greatness of his Lord in His divine Majesty, and a witness to the genuineness of the whole series of declarations attributed to our Lord in which He saw Himself in the Danielic vision and developed on that basis His conception of His Messiahship in its earthy humiliation and subsequent elevation to participation in the divine glory.
The great companion designation ‘ Son of God ’ is
“ Christians were thoroughly convinced that the Messiah had appeared in Jesus the Nazarene. This was the main content of the preaching of the Apostles, whether they turned to the Jews (Acts 222-36 ^13,26 48-12 £29-32 y62 p2o^ etc.), 01 to the Samaritans (8^), or to the heathen
almost as rare In Acts as the ‘ Son of Man.’ This precise designation, Indeed, occurs but once, where we are told that Paul Immediately after his conversion began to proclaim X In the synagogues of Damascus Jesus as the ‘ Son of XGod’ w^hlch Is explained as meaning that he
X proved Jesus to be ‘the Christ’ (9^^). In his speech In the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch, Paul Indeed declared that by raising up Jesus God fulfilled the announcement of the second Psalm, “ Thou art my Son, ^thls day have I begotten Thee ” (13^^); and the risen Jesus Is quoted as twice speaking of God as “ the Father” and Peter Is cited as repeating one of these declarations In his Pentecostal sermon (2^^). Occasion has been taken from the circumstance that In all these three cases of allusion to the ‘ Father ’ the term employed Is ‘ the Father ’ to suggest that It Is not specifically Jesus’ Father but the general Father of spirits that Is Intended. To this Is added the sugges- /Tlon that In Paul’s allusion to the second Psalm it IS' ^ of the Incarnation or even perhaps of the resurrection ("that he Is thinking as the point when the Son was be- (^gotten. The conclusion is then drawn that In Acts there Is no allusion to a metaphysical Sonship of Christ.^® It must be frankly admitted that had we these
70, 71: “ We think we may conclude that the Christians as little as the Jews connected with the ‘ Son of God ’ the conception of a divine na-, ture; and that the ethical element in the idea of the Messiah lay more in the Tzdl<s than in the ul6<s of God”... “It attracts our attention that Jesus here and there speaks of God as ‘ the Father * (Acts and that Peter too on one occasion made use of this designation (2^3). Seeing how that elsewhere in the N.T. the most intimate communion of God with men, His life for and in men, is expressed by this term, it is all the more remarkable that Jesus by speak-
passages alone to consider, we might hesitate to ascribe to Acts the doctrine of a divine Messiah. But this is by no means the case, and we need only note in passing that the title of ‘ Son of God ’ is very little in evidence in Acts either in its precise form or in its cognate modes of expression. Nevertheless, the locution ‘ the Father ’ does not appear in the usage of it here to be without suggestion of its correlative ‘ the Son ’; and Paul’s citation of the second Psalm does not seem to be without implication of a Sonship for Jesus lying deeper than either His resurrection or His incarnation.
The prevailing Messianic designation in Acts is the simple ‘ Christ,’ and Luke tells us that the staple of the Apostolic teaching was that Jesus illustrates this fact by instances recorded both from Peter ^18,20^ from Paul (17^
26^^). The general employment of the compound names, ‘Jesus Christ,’ ‘the Lord Jesus Christ’ (or ‘ our Lord Jesus Christ ’) and even ‘ Christ Jesus,’ testifies to the fixedness of the conviction that Jesus was ‘ the Christ ’ and the close attachment of the title to His person as at least a quasi-proper name. Luke does not himself make use of any other Messianic title, except in the one instance when he tells us that Paul
ing not of His but of the Father, does not lay claim by it for Himself alone to such a relation to God. And Peter follows Him in this, since he employs the term to the Jews, who did not yet believe in Christ, from which it may be inferred that this fatherlike love of God for men was not conceived as dependent on their belief in Christ, but as grounded in His nature.... And if we were not arbitrary in suggesting
that for the early Christians the title ‘Servant of Jehovah* was of much more ethical significance than that of ‘ Son of God,’ it would seem to follow that we should not seek a rich ethical sense in the name of Father.”
on his conversion began at once “ to proclaim Jesus that He Is the Son of God” (9^^). But he quotes quite a rich variety of such titles as employed by others. To Peter there Is ascribed, for example, a considerable series, which, moreover, he Is represented as weaving together In a most striking way, as all alike designations of the same Jesus, which bring out the several aspects of the unitary conception fulfilled In Him. Prominent among them are those which apply to Jesus the prophecies concerning ‘ the Righteous Servant of Jehovah ’ (3^^’^^’“®, cf. and ‘ the Prophet like unto
(Moses’ (3^^’^®), which are Inextricably combined with ( those which speak of Him as ‘ the Anointed Klng.’^’
With respect to this intermingling of designations, cf. A. H. Blom, De Leer ‘van het Messiasrijk bet de eerste Christenen, 1863, p. 48:
“ It scarcely needs to be said that only the religious-minded were in a position rightly to understand Jesus, and that undoubtedly the most of those who became His followers in the first years belonged to this class. The question thus becomes, What was the conception which they had formed of the Messiah, when they came to know Jesus? And the Book of Acts answers us, that the Messiah, in their view, was to be the offspring and successor of David, a Prophet like to Moses, the Servant of Jehovah, the Son of God and the Son of Man. The three first of these characterizations describe His dignity, while the two last raise the question for us what nature was ascribed to Him.” Again, pp. 55-56: “Diverse as were the ideas expressed in these three views of a King like David, a Prophet like Moses, and the Servant of Jehovah, and little as the particulars in which they were developed permitted themselves to be united into a unitary, consistent, concrete conception, yet since the Messiah was seen in all three, they were looked upon as identical. Accordingly what was said of one of them was considered unhesitatingly to be applicable to the others. A striking example of this is afforded by the words applied to Jesus in Mt 17^ — ‘ This is my Son, the Beloved, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him.’ Here the predicate, ‘ my Son,’ belongs to the idea of the King of Ps 2; the ‘ in whom I am well pleased ’ is a trait only of the portrait of the Servant of Jehovah (Is 42^); and the ‘hear Him’ points to what is due to the prophet (Deut We meet with a like phenomenon in
In Peter’s early discourses ‘ the Servant (:ra7c) of God ’ is one of the most notable of the designations of Jesus cf. 4“^’^®); and along with occurs ‘ the Holy and Righteous One ’ (3^^)^® which belongs to the same series of designations; and in the same context appeal is made likewise to Moses’ prophecy of a Prophet like unto himself (3"^’^®) while to these is added further
Acts. It is declared that what stands written in Ps 2^ of the King — ‘ The Kings of the earth set themselves and the princes take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed ’ — is fulfilled in God’s holy Servant (Acts cf. verse 30). Similarly the idea of the prophet is brought into connection with that of the Servant of Jeho- >^vah when Peter, after adducing the words, ‘A shall the Lord
your God raise up,’ announces that God has actually sent him to them, ‘having raised up to you His servant Jesus’ (Acts And if the
splendid successor of David received the glory, which the Holy One of God expected (Acts so also the sufferings of the Servant of
Jehovah were unhesitatingly assigned to the King (3^®), as Peter declares that God through all His prophets has proclaimed that ‘ His Christ should suffer.’ ”
Cf. Blom, op. cit., p. 33: “Whatever weight can be attached here to the appeal to this anointing of Jesus with the Holy Spirit of prophecy and with power, as a proof that He must be the Messiah, there was yet another side to the manifestation of Jesus which strongly impressed the Christians and by which they were led to recognize His religious greatness. He was the offio^ (Acts 2-’^ 13^^) > the dtxato? (7^^
And this He was not only after His exaltation, but already on earth, for the guilt of the Jews was so great just because they had rejected and killed Him, the dyio^ xai di'xaco?^ instead of a murderer. These general predicates, however, are not enough to give us a just notion of the perfection which they saw in Jesus. It is undoubtedly wrong for men to see nothing more in them than that He was guiltless in the matters of which He was accused by the Jews. This is already plain from the emphasis with which He is named 6 dyco?, b dixato<$.... And so the predicate 6 dyio<$ must include in itself a religious and ethical sense...”
these words to a particular person, they do not seem to have all thought
the striking title of the ‘ Prince ’ or ‘ Author ’ ‘ of life ’ (3^®). In other discourses Peter calls Jesus a ‘ Prince and Saviour’ (5^^) and Indeed even ‘Judge of the quick and the dead’ (10^^). The composite portrait which he presents of Jesus the Messiah as he passes freely from one of these designations to another Is a complex and very lofty one: what Is most apparent Is that he conceives Him as the focus upon which all the rays of Old Testament prophecy converge, and as exalted above all earthly limitations. A somewhat similar list of designations Is placed on the lips of Paul. ^To him the ‘Lord Jesus’ (16^^ 21^^) Is ‘the
of the same one; and while some held ‘ him of whom Moses wrote in the law’ (Jno or ‘the prophet who should come into the world’ (6^^ cf. for the Messiah, others must have distinguished Him from the Messiah (i2i. cf. 20, 740, cf. 4i), According to these last, he was, in harmony with the prophecy of Malachi (3I 4® ®), the returning Elijah, who was to prepare the way before the Messiah (Mt 17^*^). The Christians did not share this view. While they also had expected an Elijah and had found him in John the Baptist (Acts 132^), they conceived that the promise of Moses had found its fulfilment only in the Messiah; and Peter, therefore, in his preaching, appealed directly to these words (Acts 3^2), and Stephen also seems to have meant the same thing (7^^). Accordingly on their basis the gift of prophecy was a main element of the idea of the Messiah, and that, such a gift as placed Him by the side of Moses and elevated Him above all other prophets. There was certainly connected with this also an inner communion with God; and God was understood to speak with Him face to face, and to reveal to Him His counsel more clearly as in the case of Moses (Ex 33^1, Numb 12®*®).”
20 Cf. 2^7. In both cases it is derived from Ps 16^®, and the term
In some high sense ‘ God ’ Himself (20^®), — for it was by nothing else than “ the blood of God ” that the Church was purchased.^^
A rapid enumeration of the mere titles applied to Christ, such as we have made, fails utterly to reproduce the impression which they make on the reader as he meets them In the course of the narrative. That Impression Is to the effect that although the true humanity of our Lord is thoroughly appreciated (dvdpconoc, 5“®, cf. 7^®: 2^^ cf. Lk 24^®), yet it is the r majesty of this man which really fills the minds of these "first Christians, as they perceive in Him not merely a man of God’s appointment, representing God on earth. In whom all that they can conceive to be the source of dignity In Old Testament prophecy meets and finds Its fulfillment (10^^’^®), but also something far above humanity, which can be expressed only in terms of precise deity (20^®).
A side-light is thrown upon the high estimate which was placed among these early Christians on Jesus’ person by the usurpation by it of the ‘The Name* Old Testament pregnant use of the term “ Name.” As in the Old Testament we read continually of “ the Name of Jehovah ” as the designation of His manifested majesty, and even of simply “ the Name ” used absolutely with the same high connotation, so in Acts we read of the Name of
22 The variant reading, “the blood of the Lord,” means the same thing. But Dr. Hort justly says, “roD Osod is assuredly genuine.” See for a discussion of the reading, Westcott and Hort, The Ne^w Tesla’- ment in the Original Greek, ii. pp. 98-99.
Jesus Christ, to the exclusion of the old phrase, and again of simply “the Name” (5^^ cf. 3 Jno 7) used absolutely of Jesus. Those who were persecuted for His sake we are told rejoiced “ that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name” (5^^ cf. 3 Jno 7).^^ In the Old Testament this would have meant the Name of Jehovah: here it means the Name of Jesus.^® “ The Name,” as it has been truly remarked, “ had become a watchword of the faith, and is consequently used alone to express the name of Jesus, as it stood in former days for the Name of Jehovah (Lev 24II) ” 26 Nothing could more convincingly bear in upon us the position to which Jesus had been exalted in men’s thoughts than this constant tendency to substitute Him In their religious outlook for Jehovah.
23 Only in citations from the O. T. (221 1514,17) jggg Name of God ” appear in Acts. On the other hand the phrase “ the Name of Jesus Christ” is quite frequent: 2^^ 36.(16) ^10,18,30 540 312,10 ^14,15 916,27 iq43,48 1520 16I8 jg5,i3.i7 2J13 221® 26®. Instances like 4'’'. 12. it $28 ^21^ where “ the Name ” or “ this Name ” is used more absolutely, are quite instructive from the point of view of the significance of the term. Only at 5^1 is the completely absolute use of it found.
21 Cf. Meyer on 5II: “The absolute ro ovofia denotes the namexar^ — namely ‘Jesus Messiah’ (3® 4!®) — the confession and announcement of which was always the highest and holiest concern of the apostles. Analogous is the use of the absolute (Lev 24H»i®), in which the Hebrew understood the name of his Jehovah as implied of itself. Cf. 3 Jno 7.” Cf. on the general question Giesebrecht, Die alttest. Schdtzung des Gottesnamens, p. 1901; G. B. Gray, B. £>., ill. p. 480, and also Conybeare, J. Q. R., ix. p. 66, and Chase, 7. T. S., January, 1907.
25 That the Name was simply “Jesus” is thought by Hackett and Barde: that it was “ Christ,” by De Wette and Gloag: that It was “the Lord Jesus Christ” is Blass’ view; and that it was “the Messiah Jesus” is Wendt’s, as it was Meyer’s.