THE JESUS OF THE SYNOPTISTS
Variety of Titles Used
There has now passed under our observation the whole series of designations applied to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. They are somewhat numerous, but all to much the same effect: and they unite to suggest a unitary conception of His person of the highest exaltation. Our Lord is called in these Gospels, ‘ Jesus, ‘ Jesus of Nazareth,’^ ‘ the Nazarene,’^ ‘ Jesus the Galilean,’^ ‘ Jesus the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee,’^ ‘ Jesus surnamed Christ.’® ‘ Jesus Christ,’® ‘ Jesus the Son of David,’^ ‘ Jesus King of the Jews,’^ ‘ Jesus, Master,’^ ‘ Jesus the Son of the Most High God.’® He is addressed respectfully, passing up into reverently, by the titles of ‘ Rabbi,’® ‘ Rabboni,’® ‘ Teacher ( oiddffy.ah) ^ ‘Master’^ {^Tzcardza) ^ ‘Lord’ '} and He is spoken of by Himself or others by the corresponding appellatives, ‘Teacher,’^ ‘Guide’ { ‘House-Master’ (o//o(^£<T;r6r2yc) ‘ Lord.’^ obviously with the highest implications these appellatives are capable of bearing. More specifically He is described as to His office and person by a long series of recognized Messianic titles: '"‘the Coming One,’"^ ‘the Prophet,^ ‘ the Christ,’^ ‘ the King of the Jews,’^ ‘ the King of Israel,’® ‘ the King,’"^ ‘ the Son of David,’^ ‘ the
Son of Abraham,’^ ‘ God’s Chosen One,’^ ‘ the Holy One of God,’® ‘ the Servant of God,’® ‘ the Son of God,’^ ‘ the Son of the Blessed,’® ‘ the Son of the Most High,’^ ‘ the Son of the Most High God,’® ‘ the Son of the Living God,’® ‘ God’s Son,’^ ‘ the Son,’^
‘ the Son of Man,’^ ‘ the Saviour who is Christ the Lord,’^ ‘ Immanuel,’® ‘ the Shepherd who is God’s Fellow,’® ‘ the Bridegroom,’^ ‘ the Beloved.’^ ^
We have spoken of these designations as recognized Messianic titles. They emerge as such on the pages of the Gospel narrative. But it is nat-
Jewish Use actual use as such by the Jews contemporary with our Lord admits of illustration from the very scanty remains of their literature which has come down to us in very varying measures. Suffice it to say that those of them which are most frequently found in the Gospel narrative and which seem most significant for it, already occur in the narrow compass of the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, 4 Esra, and the Psalms of Solomon: ‘ the Christ,’ ‘ the Son of David,’ ‘ the Chosen One of God,’ ‘ the Son of God,’ ‘ the Son of Man.’® The matter is of no great importance and requires to be noted chiefly that the richness of the Messianic vocabulary capable of being intelligibly employed in Jesus’ day may be appreciated, and that therefore the varying designations assigned to Jesus in the Gospels may occasion no surprise.
8 For a list of the Messianic titles in common use among the Jews see Schiircr’s The Jevjish People in the Time of Christy ii. 2, 158; Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, 214 seq., 248-9; Drummond, The J elvish Messiah, IL, X., pp. 283-289; and cf. Charles, Book of Enoch, pp. 51, 112, 301.
This rich body of designations is rooted, in all its Items, not In current Messianic speculation, but In Old Testament prophecy; and Is a witness much to the Messianic thought of Jesus’ day as to the great variety of the modes of representation adopted In Old Testament revelation to prepare the people of God for His future interv^entlon for their redemption. The focusing of all these lines of prediction In Jesus, and their satisfaction In His manifestation, is one of the phenomena which marked His appearance, and differentiates the movement inaugurated by Him from all other Messianic movements in Judaism — whether movements of thought merely or of action. He came forward and was recognized as the embodiment of the whole MessjaHc preformation of the Old Testament, moderating the current one-sided exaggeration of some elements of It and emphasizing other elements of it which had been neglected, transfiguring elements of It which had been cra^y apprehended and compacting the whole into a unitary fulfillment unImagIned before His appearance. What It particularly behooves us to take note of at the moment is the emphasis with which Jesus Is presented, by means of this long series of designations, as the Messiah, and the exalted conception of the Messianic dignity w^hlch accompanies this emphatic attribution of it to Him. Nothing Is left unsaid which could be said In simple and straightforward narratives to make It clear to the reader that Jesus Is the Messiah: and nothing is lacking In wTat Is said to make it clear that this Messiah is more than a human, even a divine, person.
It belongs to the emphasis which is placed on His Messianic character that no room is left for that de- Jesus* velopment of Jesus’ Messianic con-
Messianic sciousness which it has been the chief Claims desire of many modern students of His career to trace. Nor, indeed, is room left for justifiable lagging of recognition of His Messiahship on the part of His followers or of His contemporaries. He is exhibited as already conscious of His unique relation to God as His Son, in the sole incident that is recorded of His early youth (Lk 2^^). He is represented as beginning His ministry under the profound impression necessarily made upon Him by His solemn designation as the Messiah by John the Baptist (Mt 3^^), confirmed as this was by a voice from the opened heavens proclaiming Him God’s Son, His Beloved, in whom God was well pleased (Mt 3^^, Mk Lk 3^“), and by His terrible experience of testing by Satan as the Son of God (Mt 4^’^ Lk 4^’^), and His succoring by the angels (Mk i^^). Accordingly He is represented as opening His ministry by publicly applying to Himself the prophecy of Isaiah 61^ with its enumeration of the works of the Messiah (Lk ^i^.isseq.^^ as entering at once upon the performance of those works, not merely accepting the ascriptions of Messianic dignity to Him which they elicited (Lk 5® 4^^’^h Mk Mt etc.), but Himself appealing to them as the criteria of His Messiahship (Mt ii^, Lk 7^®). He is represented as, under the impulse of His sense of His mission (Mk Lk 4^^), preaching throughout the land in accents of authority (Mk Lk 4^^), asserting His power over the religious ordinances of the people (Mk 2^®, Mt I2^ Lk 6^), and exercising
His authority not only over unclean spirits (e. g., Mk and the laws of nature (4^^), including even death hut over the moral world itself, in the divine prerogative of forgiving sins (2^^). Not only, however, is He represented as thus openly taking the position of Messiah and assuming the authority and functions of the Messiah (cf. Mt before the people: He is represented as from the first speaking of Himself as the Messiah in the use of His favorite Messianic designation, as frequently as He could be expected to do so in the circumstances in which He was placed and with the purpose which governed His entire course of life (Mt 8“^ || Lk 9^®; Mt 9® || Mk 2^^ Lk 5-^; Mt 10^^; Mt ii'^ll Lk 7^^; Mt i2« || Mk 2^^ Lk 6^; Mt 12^^; 12^^; Lk 6^“; Mt 13^^; before the confession of Peter at Mt 16^® ||).® When these instances of self-expression are taken in connection with those of reception of the Messianic ascription from others (e. g., Mk 3'' 5^ Mt 4^’" 8-^ I4^^ Lk 4^1 8^" 4^’^ Mt 9^^ 15^^), it will be seen that the early ministry of Jesus, as represented by the Synoptists, was marked by practically continuous assertion or confession of His Messiahship.
If, then, John the Baptist doubted in prison whether He was ‘the Coming One’ (Mt ii^), or it was only Divergence through a revelation from heaven that From Current Peter attained to confess Him with firm Expectations ‘ the Christ, the Son of the Living
God’ (Mt 16^®’^^), this was not because of any lack of opportunity to learn of His Messiahship, but be-
9 Cf. Dalman, Words, p. 259: “As for the Evangelists themselves, they take the view that Jesus called Himself the ‘ Son of Man ’ at all times and before all company.”
cause they were foolish and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets had spoken and their eyes were holden that they should not know Him as He walked with them in the way (Lk 24^®’^^). So little were they left in ignorance of who it was to whom they listened as their Teacher, and obeyed as their Master and reverenced as their Lord, that it is represented that angelic messengers descended from heaven to announce Him as the promised Messiah before His birth (Lk j32,35 predicted messenger who should go before the Lord, coming to redeem His people, pointed Him out as the One who should come after Him (Mt 3^^ II), that God Himself proclaimed Him from heaven as His Son (Mt 3^^ ||), that Satan and his subject spirits recognized Him on sight as the One who had been appointed to destroy them (Mk 5”^ || etc.), and that His whole career and teaching alike were ordered to convey to every seeing eye the great intelligence. The difficulty, according to the representation of the evangelists, was not that there was not evidence enough that here was the Messiah of God, the King come to His Kingdom; but that the evidence was not of the nature that had been expected and therefore puzzled men’s minds rather than convinced them. The gist of our Lord’s message to the Baptist (Mt ii^) was not that John might see in His works such things as he had been looking for in the Messiah, but that he might see in them such things as he ought to be looking for. “ Go and tell John that these are the kinds of things you see in me — the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up; and the poor have the good tidings preached to them: and blessed is he ziho shall find
The Jesus of the Synoptists 13 1 none occasion of stumbling in Me! It is as much as to say, “ Go and tell John to revise his conception of the Messiah, and to look and see if it is not these things which, according to the Scriptures (Is 61^), should mark His work: go and tell John, I am indeed He who is to come, but I am not the manner of Messiah who is expected to come.”^®
Accordingly the Synoptic narrative Is marked no more by the stress It lays on the Messlahship of Jesus Transfigured than by the transfigured conception of Conception of this Messlahship which It In every line Messiah insists upon. This constantly vibrating note Is already struck in the supernatural announcements of the birth of Jesus. It is the Son of David who Is to be born (Mt I“^ Lk the promised King
(Mt 2^ Lk; but, above all else and before all else, that Saviour who Is Christ the Lord (Lk 2^^), and whose name shall be called Jesus, because It is He who In fulfillment of the ancient prophecy promising the coming of Jehovah to His people, shall save His people frorn their sins (Mt i^^). It is not merely a spiritual function which Is here announced for this Messiah: It I'> also a divine personality. Who is that Saviour who is Christ “ the Lordf^ and whose name shall be called Jesus because He shall save from their sins His people — ''His” people, let us take good note, Jesus’ people, although It Is clear It Is Jehovah’s people who are meant? No wonder that it Is Immediately added that In this birth there Is, therefore, fulfilled the
Cf. the discussion by Shaller Mathews, The Messianic Hope in the N. T., 1905, pp. 95-6; although Professor Mathews’ treatment is dominated by the idea that our Lord’s followers saw in Jesus rather one who was after a while to do Messianic works than one who was already doing then>,.
prophecy of the issue from a virgin of one whose name is to be called Immanuel, which is, being interpreted, “God with us’’ (Mt i^^).
The note thus struck is sustained throughout the Gospel narrative. This Messiah who Jesus is, is certainly the Son of David, the King of Israel. But the Kingdom He has come to found is the kingdom of righteousness, not merely a righteous kingdom: it is the Kingdom of Heaven, not a kingdom of the earth: the Kingdom of God, not of men. We may see its nature in Daniel’s splendid dream of the heaven-founded kingdom of the saints of the Most High (Dan.
the method of its establishment in Isaiah’s vision of the Righteous Servant of Jehovah, who bears the sins of His people and preaches the good tidings to the meek (esp. Is 53 and 61); the person of its founder in that most glorious of all prophecies of the Old Covenant: “ Lo, your God will come; He will come and save you!” (Is 35^); “the voice of one that crieth. Prepare ye in the wilderness the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God;...
the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together,... Behold your God! Behold the Lord God will come... He shall feed His flock like a shepherd. He shall gather the lambs in His arms, and carry them in His bosom, and gently lead those that give suck” (Is To put it in one sentence, the Messianic ideal which is presented in the Synoptics as fulfilled in Jesus finds proclaim with one voice that the Lord (Jehovah) Himself will come, that He Himself will protect His flock, that He Himself will be King in Zion, that He Himself will be found of Israel.”
Its Old Testament basis not merely in the prediction of a Davidic King who reigns forever over the people of God, but, Interpreting that kingdom In the terms of Daniel’s dream of a heaven-founded kingdom of saints, interweaves with It the portraitures of the Servxant of Jehovah of Isaiah and the fundamental promise xthat Jehovah shall visit His people for redemption. The special vehicles of the exalted view of the person of the Messiah embodied In this Ideal are, so far as the Messianic designations are con- Designations cerned, first of all that of the ‘ Son of Man,’ then that of ‘ the Son of God,’ or rather. In the more pregnant simple form, of ‘ the Son ’; and outside of the Messianic titles proper, the high title of ‘ Lord.’ The history of these designations is somewhat obscure, and, although they all have their roots set In the Old Testament, Is Illustrated by only scanty usage of them In Jewish literature prior to our Lord’s time. ‘ The Son of Man ’ occurs only In the Similitudes of Enoch and In 4 Ezrad** the exact title ‘ Son of God ’ does not seem to occur at alV® though
there are only two Jewish writings known which deal with Dan 7^^, the Similitudes of the Book of Enoch and the Second [al. Fourth] Book of Esdras. The two agree in regarding the one like to a Son of Man as an individual person. And as they combine Dan 7 with Messianic prophecies from the O. T. they clearly show that they regard this individual as the Messiah.” Cf. p. 248.
•Rom writes as follows: “‘Son of God,’ like ‘Son of Man,’ was a recognized title of the Messiah (cf. Enoch 1052; 4 Ezra 728,29 1282,37,62 14®, in all which places the Almighty speaks of the Messiah as ‘ My Son,’ though the exact phrase ‘Son of God’ does not occur). It is remarkable that in the Gospels we very rarely find it used by our
in an interpolated fragment of the Book of Enoch (i05“) and in 4 Ezra the Messiah is represented as spoken of by God as ‘ My Son.’^^ It is noteworthy that in this rare Jewish usage both titles appear In connection with a transcendental doctrine of the Messiah/® and It may be that it is the unwontedness of a transcendental doctrine of the Messiah In Judaism which accounts for the little use made In Jewish speculation of them, because these titles were felt to be implicative of more than human qualities. Their emergence Into more frequent use in the Gospels would In that case be connected with the emphasis laid, according to their
Lord Himself, though in the face of Mt 27^^, Jno 10^®, cf. Mt 21^^ ei al., it cannot be said that He did not use it. It is more often used to describe the impression made upon others (e.g. the demonized, Mk 3I1 5” II, the centurion, Mk 15^^ ||), and it is implied by the words of the tempter (Mt 4^-6 ||)^ and the voice from heaven (Mk 9’^ID- The crowning instance is the confession of St. Peter... Mt 16I®.”
Cf. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, etc., 248: “ But here and
there there springs up, now, in the Jewish Apocalyptics a new transcendental Messiah-conception, that fits into these transcendental surroundings. In the first line there comes here under consideration the Similitudes of Enoch, springing from the pre-Herodian time. The standing designation of this peculiar Messiah is the ‘ Son of Man ’... Still more remarkable and unusual than, in part, the name is now the figure of this Son of Man. He is in no respect an earthly phenomenon; he is not, like the Messiah of the stock of David, born on earth; he is an angel-like being, whose dwelling place is in heaven under the pinions of the Lord of spirits; He is preexistent... Emphasis
must be laid on the Son of Man in the great judgment upon the kings of the earth and the evil angels; He takes His place by the side of God and indeed supplants Him... This representation of the Messiah, singular in the sphere of Judaism, has only one, though by no means so far-going a, parallel in the vision of the Son of Man of 4 Ezra.... Here too the Son of Man... is conceived as a preexistent (heavenly?) being. Here too he holds the great judgment, and, according to the original disposition of the apocalypse, seems also
representation, upon the essential divinity of the Messiah by Jesus and His followers.
Certainly the Messianic conception represented as expressed by Jesus through His constant employment of the title ‘ Son of Man ’ of Himself, ‘^n^oTMan* ^ supermundane Being entering the sphere of earthly life upon a high and beneficent mission, upon the accomplishment of which He returns to the heavenly sphere, whence He shall once more come back to earth, now, however, not in humiliation, but in His appropriate majesty, to gather up the fruits of Plis work and consummate all things. The characteristic note of ‘ the Son of Man ’ on earth is therefore a lowliness which is not so much a humility as a humiliation, a voluntary self-abnegation for a purpose. He came under the conditions of human life (Mt II) on a mission of mercy (Lk 19^^) which involved His self-sacrifice (Mk io^^||), and therefore lives a life unbefitting His essential nature (Mt 8“®). For, when He tells the questioning scribe that the ‘ Son of Man ’ is worse off than the very foxes, who have holes, and the birds of the air, wTo have nests, since He has not where to lay His head (Mt 8^^), the very point of the remark is the incongruity
to bring In the definitive end, and not merely a preliminary closing...” So also p. 215: “The title Son of God, closely connected
though it is with the conception of the Son of David and the Anointed, is comparatively very rare. It is found In the address in Psalm 2, which also became typical for the title ‘Messiah’ (verse 7, cf. Ps 89-'^). In 4 Ezra 7-® the filius Is not textually assured; in i. Enoch 1052 the words “ and My Son,” as perhaps also the whole clause, is a later interpolation. Accordingly the apposition, ‘ My Son,’ is found only In 4 Ez 113,32,37,52^ — jg section In which along with the Similitudes, the transcendent conception of the Messiah comes forward most vitally — and also in 4 Ezra 14^ (Dalman, 219).”
of the situation. Accordingly even on earth He exercises an authority which does not belong to His condition: though destined to be set at naught by men, to be evil-entreated and slain, yet He has power to regulate the religious observances of the people of God (Mk 2^^) and even to forgive sins (2^^). And when His lowly mission is accomplished He ascends the throne of the universe (Mk 14®“, Mt 19“^) J due time will return in His glory and render to every man according to his works, seated as King on the universal judgment seat (Mk 8^^ Mt 25^^). The connection of the title with the dream of Daniel is obvious: the point of connection lying in the conception of the Kingdom of God, which Jesus came to introduce, and which He finds particularly promised in Daniel apparently because it is there depicted, specifically in contrast with the earthly kingdoms which it supercedes, as a Kingdom of heaven. But there is much more expressed by the title than is discernible In the dream of Daniel, and that not least with reference to the person of the founder, who is conceived, in Jesus’ idea, as represented by the Synoptic record, not merely as a supernmndane, perhaps angelic, figure,^® but distinctly as superangelic, transcending all creaturely relief. Stanton, J elvish and Christian Messiah, 286-7: “I may remark
- that the Idea of the preexistence of Christ as an angel, is irreconcilable X with that of a true Incarnation. Those who have thought of Christ as essentially an angel have never in fact conceived, and could not conceive, His human life to be real. A whole and complete human nature could not be united to another finite being, whether angel or man, as it could be united to, and could become the perfect organ of, God. Wherever, then, we find a belief in the real human nature of Jesus Christ, there we may confidently say the idea formed of His superhuman pregxistence and personality is not that of an angel.... Hellwag fails altogether to see this when he attributes such a concep-
latlons,^'^ and finding His appropriate place only by the side of God Himself, whose functions He performs^* and whose throne He occupies as Kingd®
The conception attached in these Gospels to the designation ‘ Son of God ’ is in no respect less exalted.
The title does occasionally occur, to be *^on^oi%od* circumstances in which this exalted significance seems more or less in danger of being missed. For example, it is employed by the Jewish officers at the trial of Christ as in some sense a synonym of the general Messianic title ‘ Christ ’ (Mk 14^ Mt 26^^ Lk 22^ cf. Mt 27^"’^^); it is also employed, according to Matthew’s account, by Peter in his great confession alongside 'of the term ‘ Christ’ (16^®); and on one occasion Jesus’ disciples, having witnessed a notable miracle, cried out as they did Him reverence, “ Of a truth Thou are the [or, a] Son of God” (Mt 14^^). Such passages, no doubt, illustrate the use of the term as a Messianic title. But it seems clear enough that they illustrate its use as a Messianic title of inherently higher connotation than, say, the simple term ‘ the Christ ' as a general synonym of which it is employed. The very point of the Jews’ approaching Jesus with this particular Messianic title appears to have been — as the form of the narrative in Luke may suggest^ -to obtain a confession which would enable them from their point of view to charge
Hellwag is the writer who has most insisted on the influence of a Jewish doctrine of the Messiah’s preexistence upon Christian belief.” The
speculative element in this remark is perhaps too dogmatically put: but there is food for thought in it.
Especially forgiveness of sins (Mk 2®) and judgment of the world (e.g. Mt 25^1 — two inalienable divine functions.
Him with blasphemy. That is to say, the implications of this Messianic title in their minds seem to have been such that its use by a mere man, or by one seemingly a mere man, would involve him in claims for himself which were tantamount to blasphemy. It seems equally clear that Peter in acknowledging Jesus to be the Messiah (Mt 16^®) intended by adjoining to the simple, “ Thou art the Christ ” the defining phrase “ the Son of the Living God ” to attach an exalted conception of the Messiahship to Him. And it is fairly obvious that the frightened disciples in the boat (Mt 14^^), — though certainly they understood not and their heart was hardened (Mk 6'^^), — yet expressed out of their distracted minds at least the sense of a supernatural presence when they cried out, “ Truly Thou art ” — possibly “ a,” not “ the ” — “ Son of God.” Their exclamation thus may in its own degree be paralleled at least with that of the centurion at the cross (Mk 15^^ Mt 27^^), “ Truly this man was a Son of God ” — which surely is the natural expression, from his own point of view, of his awe in the presence of the supernatural.
This series of exceptional instances of the employment of the term ‘ Son of God ’ will scarcely, therefore, avail to lessen the general impression we get from the current use of the title, that it designates the Messiah from a point of view which differentiates Him as ‘ the Son of God ’ from the children of men, and throws < into emphasis a distinct implication of the supernatural- ^ ness of His person. It seems to be on this account that it is characteristically employed by voices from the unseen universe. It is by this term, for instance, that ^ Satan addresses Jesus in the temptation, seeking to " Induce Him by this exploitation of His supernatural character to perform supernatural deeds (Mt 4^’®, Lk 4^’^). It is by this term (Lk 4^^) that the demons greet Him when they recognize in Him the judge and destroyer of all that is evil (Mk 3^^ 5^, Mt 8^^ Lk 8“®; 4^^). It is by this term that the angel of the annunciation is represented as describing the nature of her miraculous child to Mary: “ He shall be great,” he announced, “ and shall be called the Son of the Most High God.” And in doing this, it must be noted, the angel connects the title no more with His appointment to a supernatural service than with the supematuralness of His origin: because Mary’s conception should be supernatural, therefore, that holy thing which was being begotten should bear the name of the ‘ Son of God ’ (Lk jg ‘ ]\4y gon ’ above all that God Himself bore witness to Him on the two occasions when He spoke from heaven to give Him His testimony (Mk 9”^, Mt 3^^ 17^ Lk 3^^ 9^^) — adding to it moreover epithets which emphasized the. uniqueness of the Sonship thus solemnly announced. It would seem quite clear, therefore, that the title ‘ Son of God ’ stands in the pages of the Synoptics as the supernatural Messianic designation by way of eminence, xand represents the Messiah in contradistinction from children of men as of a supernatural origin and nature.
It is, however, from our Lord’s own application of the term ‘ the Son ’ to Himself that we derive our plainest insight into the loftiness of its implications. Already in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Mk 12^ Mt 21^^ Lk 20^^, cf. Mt 22^), He sets Himself as God’s Son and Heir over against all His servants, of whatever quality; which would seem to withdraw Him out of the category of creatures alto- gather. And this tremendous inference is fully supported by the remarkable utterance in which, in declaring His ignorance of the time of His future coming, He places Himself outside of the category even of angels, that is of creatures of the highest rank, and assimilates Himself as Son to the Father (Mk 13^^, Mt 24^®). It is carried out of the region of inference into that of assertion in the tw^o remarkable passages in which He gives didactic expression to His relation as Son to the Father (Mt i Lk Mt 28^^). In these. He tells us He is co-sharer in the one Name with the Father, and co-exists with the Father in a complete, perfect and unbroken interpenetration of mutual knowledge and being. The essential deity of the Son could not receive more absolute expression.
The difficulty of forming a precise estimate of the implications of the application of the term ‘ Lord ’ to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels arises from the confluence of two diverse streams of significance in that term. On the one hand Jesus may be and is called ‘ Lord ’ by the application to Him of a title expressive of authority and sovereignty commonly in use among men: above all others who have a right to rule He has a right to rule. On the other hand, Jesus may be and is called ‘ Lord ’ by the application to Him of a current Biblical title expressive of the divine majesty: much that was said of the ‘ Lord ’ in the Old Testament ^ Scriptures was carried over to Him and with it the term itself.^® When, then, we meet with an instance in
this is meant: that just as xupco^^ ‘Lord,’ occurs in the O. T. (i) as the equivalent of Jehovah; (2) as the rendering of Adhonai; and (3) as a transference of the human honorific title to God, — so also in the
The Jesus of the Synoptists 14 1 which Jesus Is called ‘ Lord ’ we are puzzled to determine whether there Is merely attributed to Him supreme authority and jurisdiction, or there Is given to Him the Name that Is above every name.
That the designation ‘ the Lord ’ had attached Itself to Jesus during His lifetime so that He was thus familiarly spoken of among His followers Is perfectly clear from the Gospel narrative. It Is Indeed already Implied In the Instruction given His disciples by Jesus to bring Him the ass’s colt on which He might make His entry Into Jerusalem. He could not have Instructed them to say to possible objectors, “ The Lord hath need of him” (Mk ii^ Mt 2i^ Lk 19^^), unless He had been accustomed to be spoken of as ‘ the Lord.’ That He was accustomed to thinking of Himself as their ‘ Lord ’ follows also from such a passage as Mt 24^^ (cf. Mk 13^^): “Watch, therefore, for ye know not on what day your Lord cometh”; and indeed from the didactic use of the term of Himself
N. T. the Saviour is called xupio<$^ ^Lord,’ (i) in the sense of Adhonai-Jehovah; (2) by a heightening of the human sense or an adaptation from the relations of human sovereignty: and that the name ‘Lord’ belongs to the Saviour according to the N. T. essentially and fundamentally in the sense of Adhonai or Jehovah, not as the transference or heightening of the human relation of sovereignty.” The use of xopto<^
in the N. T. of our Lord, he says again, “ has in the first instance nothing to do with glory, do^a, and just as truly stands in the N. T. in no essential connection with ruling” (p. lo). This is not to contend that 6 xupto<s in N. T. when applied to Christ always means Jehovah. In almost all the passages in the Gospels where xupto<s appears as a formula of address it is a human honorific. In certain others, as Lk 1931,34^ Lk 6^®, Mt 7^1, something may be said for either interpretation (p. 21). But there are passages where It must be taken as the divine xupco?^ viz., Lk 2^. *0 xupio^ Zeimssen holds, is the name of Jesus as the Son of God, just as Jesus is His name as the Son of man, and Christ is His office-name (p. 30); and refers back to the prophecies of Jehovah’s advent, such as Ezek 34I1 (p. 20).
in encouraging or warning His followers (Mt 10^"^), and its free employment in parabolic pictures, where He represents Himself as the ‘ Lord ’ over against His servants (Lk 12^®’^^). In what sense the term is used in such allusions is not, however, immediately obvious. The opposition of it to “ slaves ” in such passages as Mt 10^^, Lk leads to its instinctive interpretation in the sense of ownership and sovereignty, and does not appear to call for direct divine implications save as the absoluteness of the sovereignty which is suggested may surpass that enjoyed by men. Perhaps something to the same effect may be said of Luke where Elisabeth, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, expresses her wondering joy that “ the mother of her Lord ’’ should come to her. Clearly she intends to express by the designation the height of at least Messianic glory: but it does not seem obvious that her thought went beyond the delegated glory of the divine representative. In a passage like Luke 5®, however, there seems to be an ascription to Jesus of a majesty which is distinctly recognized as supernatural: not only is the contrast of ‘ Lord ’ with ‘ Master’ here express (cf. v. 5), but the phrase “ Depart from me; for I am a sinful man ” (v. 8) is the natural utterance of that sense of unworthiness which overwhelms men in the presence of the divine, and which is signalized in Scripture as the mark of recognition of the divine presence. The ‘ Lord, Lord ’ of Mt also obviously involves a recognition of Jesus as the Lord of life, and in Mt 2^37,44 ‘ Lord ’ is the appropriate address to the King on the judgment throne of the whole earth. In these instances the sense of the mere supernatural gives way to the apprehension of that absolute sovereignty over the destinies of men which can belong to deity alone; it is this ‘ Lord ’ in whose name all the works of life are done, by whose determination all the issues of life are fixed.
If in such instances we appear to be employing the word in its highest connotation of sovereignty, in such instances as the discussion of David’s words in the noth Psalm we seem to rise into a region of actual divine ascription. Here, with obvious reference to Himself, our Lord argues that when David in the Spirit represents the Lord as saying to his Lord, “ Sit thou on My right hand,” he ascribes a dignity to the Messiah very much greater than could belong to Him simply as David’s son (Mk That seems as much as to say that sovereignty of the royal order, however absolute, is too low a category under which to subsume this Lordship: and therefore appears to point to a connotation of ‘ Lord ’ beyond illustration from human analogies. The question inevitably obtrudes itself whether our Lord does not intend to suggest that David applies the divine name itself to the Messiah. That the evangelists may very readily have so understood Him seems evident from their own application to Jesus of the term ‘ Lord ’ in Isaiah 40^, — representing ‘^^'the incommunicable name of Jehovah as it does, — in their account of the mission of the Baptist, whom they consentiently speak of as the forerunner of Jesus, fulfilling the prophecy of the coming of the voice of one crying, “ Prepare ye in the wilderness the way of the Lord, make His paths straight” (Mk Mt 3^ Lk
Cf. Bengal on Mt 22^^; signum subjectionis, dominatio, cujiis subditus est ipse David, coelestem et Regis majestatem et Regni indolent ostendit.
3^). And there remains the remarkable passage in the angelic annunciation to the shepherds of the birth in the city of David of that “ Saviour ” who is “ Christ the Lord” (Lk 2^^). It seems impossible to suppose that the term ‘ the Lord ’ here adds nothing to the term ‘the Christ’ — else why is it added? But what can the term ‘ Lord ’ add as a climax to ‘ Christ ’? In ‘ Christ ’ itself, the Anointed King, there is already expressed the height of sovereignty and authority as the delegate of Jehovah. The appearance is very strong that the adjunction of ‘ Lord ’ is intended to convey the intelligence that the ‘ Christ ’ now born is a divine Christ.
This appearance is greatly strengthened by the consideration that the appeal to prophecy in calling the Messiah ‘ the Saviour ’ is an appeal to the great series of predictions of the advent of Jehovah for the redemption of His people (cf. Mt i“^): and also by the general context in which this annunciation is placed, which contains a sustained attempt to make the supernaturalism of this birth impressive, and includes the declaration that the child here designated “ the Saviour who is Christ the Lord ” is in His person the ‘ Son of the Most High God ’ (Lk and is marked out as such by a supernatural birth Nor should we permit to fall out of our sight the circumstance that this passage occurs in a context in which the term ‘ Lord ’ appears unusually frequently, and always, with this exception and that of of Jehovah. It would be very difficult for the simple reader to read of the angel of
22 Cf. R. Ziemssen, Christus der Herr, 1867, p. 19: “In any event its significance is gained by the angelic annunciation only if we take it in this sense — Christ-Adhonai, that is, Christ- Jehovah.”
‘ the Lord ’ and of the glory of ‘ the Lord ’ in Lk 2®, and of ‘ the Lord ’ making known in verse 15, and, in the middle of these statements, of ‘ Christ the Lord ’ in verse ii, and not institute some connection between it and its ever-repeated fellows: especially when he would soon read in verse 26, of “ the Christ of the Lord.” That at least a superhuman majesty is hei:e ascribed to Jesus seems scarcely disputable: and there appears a strong likelihood that this supernaturalness is meant to rise to the divine. In any event it is clear that the term ‘ Lord ’ is sometimes applied to Jesus in the Synoptics in a height of connotation which imports His deity.^®
It is not necessary to add further evidence, derived from less frequently employed designations of our Synoptical ^ord, that a true deity is ascribed to Christ Divine person in the Synoptic Gospels. On the basis of the considerations already presented it is abundantly clear that the Synoptists conceived Jesus, whom they identify with the Messiah, as a divine person; and represent Him as exercising divine prerogatives and asserting for Himself a divine personality and participation in the divine Name.
; 23 The nature of the xupi6fq<s ascribed to Jesus in the Synoptics is very interestingly expounded by Professor Erich Schaeder in two lectures on “The Christology of the Creeds and the Modern Theology,” printed in Schlatter and Liitgert’s Beitrdge zur Fbrderung christlicher Theologie, ix. 5. (1905). That this Lord of spirits and of the world is not conceived as of the world, he makes very obvious. “ It is nonsense to suggest that the world itself can produce its Lord. The world can produce only what is like it, not one who stands above it” (p. 201).