The Lord of Glory; Counterfeit Miracles; Revelation and Inspiration

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

It may be profitable to recall at this point that the epithet ‘ holy ’ is applied to our Lord also at the annun-

‘Holy’ explained that it was the circumstance that Llis birth was not according to nature, but due to the coming down upon Mary of the Holy Ghost and the overshadowing of her by the power of the Most High, which justified the Holy Thing which was being begotten in being called ‘ the Son of God’ The epithet is not elsewhere applied to Jesus in this Gospel, except in 2^^ where the precept of the law is quoted in reference to Llim, that “ every male that openeth the wom^b shall be Xcalled holy to the Lord ” — where it is obviously the X, conception of consecration which is prominent. In the present passage, however, it seems equally plain that it is not the notion of being set apart for God so much ^as that of being in Himself worthy of reverence and calling out veneration which is prominent. He who is thus supernaturally born is “ holy ” in the sense that He brings with Him something of the superhuman

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

character belonging to His origin, and is thus not set apart among men, but is by nature distinguished from men — shall we not say, “separate from sinners Nevertheless, the title ‘ Son of God ’ as applied to our Lord in Luke is closely connected with His Messianic office: though, of course, it is not limited to that office in its implications. It occurs in this precise form but seldom. Besides the declaration of the announcing angel that He shall be called the ‘ Son of the Most High’ ( — evidently with a Messianic connotation, as the subsequent context shows, but by no means equally evidently with none but a human connotation, as also the subsequent context assures us — it occurs only in the narrative of the Temptation, on the lips of Satan (4^’^),®^ and elsewhere on the lips of evil spirits 8^® ‘Son of the Most High God’)

who knew He was the Christ, and in the mouth of His judges when they adjured Him to tell whether He were ‘ the Christ,’ and on His answering that they should from thenceforth see Him, ‘ the Son of Man,’ seated at the right hand of God, demanded afresh, “ Art thou, then, the Son of God? ” (22’^^).^’^ It seems clear, indeed, from these passages that the title ‘ Son of God ’ was conceived as a Messianic title, and so far as the synonym of the simple ‘ Christ ’; but it is

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

31 Cf. Plummer in loc.: “ The reference is to the relation to God rather than to the office of the Messiah. The emphatic word is ul6(^.”

32 Cf. Plummer in loc.: “In the allusion to Daniel 713 they recognize a claim to divinity, and they translate 6 ulu? zoo dvOpconoo into 6 uld<$ TOO dsoo. But it is not clear whether by the latter they mean the Messiah or something higher.”

difficult not to gather from them also that It gave expression Vj a higher Messianic conception than was conveyed by the simple ‘ Christ.’ The brief conversation recorded as taking place between our Lord and His judges seems to have, in fact, the precise purport that in accepting the designation of ‘ the Christ ’ He does so in such a manner as to pour Into it a higher content than His judges were willing to accord to it — a higher content which they felt was more appropriately expressed by another title, — the ‘ Son of God.’ Whence it seems to follow that ‘ Son of God,’ while a current Messianic designation, was a Messianic designation charged with a higher connotation than merely that of the Messianic King — a conclusion we have already drawn from 1 22.35 33

The higher connotation of Sonship to God is, however, in Luke, as in the other Synoptists, most clearly expressed by the undefined term ‘ Son.’

‘The Son* Luke, as well as the others, records the divine proclamation of the Sonship of Jesus from heaven, on the occasion as well of His baptism as of His transfiguration: “ Thou art my Son, the Beloved; in thee I am well pleased” (3^^), “This is my Son, the Chosen” (9^^): and gives us the parable in which Jesus, with evident reference to Himself (20^^’^^), talks of the wicked husbandmen, to whom, after they had evil-entreated his servants, the lord of the vineyard sent in the end his ‘ beloved son ’ who was the heir. Luke also records a number of

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

those pregnant sayings in which Jesus appeals to God as in a unique sense His ‘ Father and he begins this series of pregnant sayings at so early a period as to make it clear to us that it represents a unique filial consciousness coeval with the dawn of our Lord’s intelligence. Already in His earliest youth He could speak of being “ in His Father’s house ” as His natural place of abode even as in later life He lived in constant communion with the Father ( 23^^’^®), and equally naturally spoke of “ the kingdom His Father had appointed Him” (22^^), and at the end spoke of His readiness to send forth “ the promise of His Father” (24^^). The glory He expected to enter, It is to be observed, was no less His own than His Father’s glory (22“^). But above all, Luke records for us that remarkable passage in which our

Lord declares the perfect mutual knowledge which exists between the ‘ Father ’ and ‘ Son,’ by virtue of which the ‘ Son ’ is constituted the sole adequate revealer of the ‘ Father ’ — that ‘ Son ’ to whom all things were declared by His ‘ Father’: on the basis of which He announces that the things seen and heard in Him are the things which prophets and kings have desired to see and hear and have not. The phraseology in which Luke repeats this great saying differs slightly from that found in Matthew. But the two evangelists agree in all that is essential. In both It Is unlimitedly “ all things ” that are said to have been delivered by the ‘ Father ’ to the ‘ Son,’ so that God Is affirmed to hold back nothing, but to share all that He has with the

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

‘ Son.’^® In both the intimate knowledge of the ‘ Father ’ and ‘ Son ’ of each other is affirmed to be alike complete, exhaustive and unbrokenly continuous. In both the ‘ Son ’ is represented to be the sole source of knowledge of God. But in Luke it is said, not that the Father ’ and ‘ Son ’ know each other, but that each knows “ what the other is,” that is to say, all that each is. It would be difficult to frame a statement which could more sharply assert the essential deity of the ‘ Son.’3®

Our Lord’s own favorite designation of Himself is, however, in Luke as in the other Synoptists, ‘ the Son of Man ’; and as in the other Synop- ‘SonofMan’ designation is in Luke exclusively a self-designation of Jesus’ own. For obviously when the angel at the empty tomb is represented as saying, “ Remember how He spake unto

35 The emphasis is on the unlimited ndvra] cf. Hahn: “Jesus gives

expression accordingly primarily to the general idea, that God has held back nothing for Himself, but has made the Son participant in all that is peculiar to Himself. These first words form the ground for what follows. The emphasis in them is not on the fxot (Weiss), nor on the i)7td rou 7carp6<$ (Hofmann), but on Trdvra.”

Cf. Plummer in loc.: “It is impossible upon any principles of criticism to question its genuineness, or its right to be regarded as among the earliest materials made use of by the Evangelists. And it contains the whole of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel. It is like ‘an aerolite from the Johannine heaven’ (Hase, Gesch, Jesu, p. 527); and for that very reason causes perplexity to those who deny the solidarity between the Johannine heaven and the Synoptic earth.” It should

be compared with the following passages: Jno 3^^ 6^® 8^® lo^s.so i615 176,10^ and cf. further, Sanday, Fourth Gospel, p. 109; Keim Jes. of Naz., IV. 63 referred to by Plummer. Godet says strikingly that Jesus’ words here “become an echo of the joys of His eternal generation.” He means doubtless that the continuous interchange of perfect mutual knowledge here set forth is a reflection of the essential relation of Father and Son to one another.

you when He was yet in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified and the third day rise again ” (24'^), — this is not an instance of the employment of this title by another than Jesus, but only another attribution of it to Jesus. The title occurs in Luke about twenty-five times, and in the same collocations and with the same import as in the other Synoptists. If we attempt, therefore, to derive from the substance of the passages in which it is employed a notion of the conception which was attached to it, we arrive at the same conclusion as in the case of the other Synoptists. In Luke, the purpose of the coming of the ‘ Son of Man ’ is declared in the form, “ The Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost” (19^®). Accordingly human destiny is connected absolutely with the relations of men to Him. Those are blessed whom men hate and ostracise and reproach, casting out their name as evil, if it be for the ‘ Son of Man’s ’ sake (6“^). For everyone who shall confess Him before men, him shall the ‘ Son of Man ’ confess before the angels of God (12®); and on the other hand every one who denies the ‘ Son of Man ’ in the presence of men shall be denied in the presence of the angels of God (12®), and whosoever shall be ashamed of the ‘ Son of Man ’ and of His words, of him shall the ‘ Son of Man ’ be ashamed when He comes in His own glory and that of the Father and of the holy angels (9^®). That nevertheless blasphemy against the ‘ Son of Man ’ may be forgiven as blasphemy against the Spirit may not (12^^), doubtless belongs to the humility of His earthly life before He has come in His glory. For in this life He comports Himself like other men, eating and drinking (7^^), passing a hard and suffering existence (9^^), and so fulfilling the Scriptures Meanwhile, however. He exercises even on earth the authority to regulate religious observances (6^) and to forgive sins (5^^). In other words, the sufferings He endures (9^^ 22^^) are not the result of fate or chance, and do not belong to Him by right, but are voluntarily undertaken as part of His mission 17^® 24'^). They issue in death in- its own good time, a return in His appropriate glory (22®^ 9^® 12^^* 1^22,24 jg8 2j27 22®^). The humiliation over, at once the ‘ Son of Man ’ is seated at the right hand of the power of God (22®^), and when He comes again He will come “ in a cloud with great power and glory” (21^^), — a glory described as “ His own glory, and the glory of His Father and of the holy angels ” (9^®). The suddenness of this coming is adverted to (12^^ jy22-24,26,3o^ ^ main fact emphasized, that it is in point of significance the day of judgment, when the destinies of men shall be finally assigned them by the ‘ Son of Man ’ (21^® 12® 9^®): destinies which shall be determined according to the attitude which each has occupied towards the ‘ Son of Man ’ on earth (12® (f^). To all His enemies it is therefore a day of vengeance (18®), and only as one prevails to stand before the ‘ Son of Man ’ can he hope to escape the dread which His coming brings to the earth (12^®). The picture, it will be seen, is the picture of a Redeemer and Adjuster who comes in humiliation to save, and returns in glory to gather up the results of His work and finally to adjust the issues of the historical development of the world. Whence does He come to save? There is no plain declaration. We are left to infer it from the obvious connection of the title with the oracle of Daniel 7^^, from the more narrative portions of the Gospel, as e. g., the opening chapters where the supernatural birth of Jesus is set forth in detail and with all its implications, and from the very clear suggestion that the whole career of the ‘ Son of Man,’ in its earthly manifestation and its subsequent glory alike, is of a piece and is the outworking of a definite plan of action held clearly in His own mind from the first and carried firmly out in every detail of His living.

The sense of His mission which is thus inherent In the favorite Messianic designation He applied to Hlm-,, self finds expression also In other forms

Mission locution which Luke reports our

Lord as employing. Thus, for example, He Is reported as speaking of Himself repeatedly as “ coming ” with obvious pregnancy of meaning, possibly with some reference to the expectation of the Messianic coming which found embodiment In the designation of the Messiah as ‘ the One to Come,’ — a designation In Luke also reported as applied to Jesus hypothetically by John the Baptist (7^^’“®), — but certainly with Its chief Implication In a profound sense of His mission ([3^®] 4^^ 5^^ 7^^ [cf. 7^^ of John the Baptist], 19^^), and possibly with some contrast In mind with His second coming (9“® [12^® 18® 21^’^).

Without essential difference of meaning this “ coming ” is Interchanged with “ being sent ” — the author of the

“ mission ” being thus more clearly indicated as God. Thus Luke varies Mark’s language (i^^) in recording our Lord’s declaration that “ He had come forth ” specifically to preach, by giving it rather: “ for therefore was He sent” (4^^) — plainly indicating that “ came ” and “ was sent ” alike refer to His divine mission.^® Possibly in this variation there is an allusion to the passage from Isaiah which Jesus read in the synagogue at Nazareth (cf. Lk 4^®), but in any event the term is unambiguous, and is elsewhere repeated (9^^ 10^^), and from it we may at least learn that according to the representation in Luke also Jesus prosecuted His work on earth under a sense of performing step by step a task which had been given Him to do and which He had come into the world to perform.

We need call attention only in passing to the record by Luke also of Jesus’ employment of the figure of the ‘ Bridegroom ’ with refer-’*

‘Bridegroom’ Himself and His relations to

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

38 Cf. Weiss on Lk 4^^; “ Luke therefore already interprets the of Mark incorrectly of His divine Mission.” But perhaps Weiss dees not know the true meaning of the expression in Mark as well as Lake did!

the coming of Jehovah, the faithful husband of His people (Hos

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

preserved with literal exactness in the tradition; accordingly we find it in identical words in the three S^moptists. It proves, first, that from the earliest period of His ministix- Jesus regarded Himself as the Messiah; next, that He identified His coming with that of Jehovah, the husband of Israel and of mankind (Hos 2^®, see Gess, Christi Zeugniss, pp. 19, 20); lastly, that at that time He already foresaw and announced His violent death.” Godet adds: “It is an error, therefore, to oppose on these three points, the founh Gospel to the other three.”