former passage, It might conceivably be possible to look upon the dominion here claimed and the con- junction here asserted of the Son with the Father in the future government of the Kingdom as having no root- ing in His essential nature but as constituting merely a reward consequent upon our Lord's work. In the presence of that passage we cannot void this, how- ever, of its testimony to essential relations. And the relation here assigned to the Son with respect to deity Is the same as was suggested there. The significant point of this passage is the singular " Name." It does not read, " Into the names " — as of many, but of one, — " Into the Name " of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Father, the Son and the Spirit are therefore In some Ineffable sense one, sharers in the single Name. Of course It Is what we know as the Christian doctrine of the Trinity which Is sug- gested here, as It was less clearly suggested In the former passage, and as this doctrine Is needed In order to give consistency and solidity to the pervasive sug- gestion of Matthew's entire narrative that Jesus, whose career he Is recounting. Is In some higher sense than mere delegation or representation not merely a super- human or superangellc or supercreaturely person, but an actually Divine Person, possessed of divine preroga- tives, active In divine power, and In multiform ways manifesting a divine nature. It were Impossible for Matthew to paint Jesus as he has painted Him, and to attribute to Him what we have seen him attributing to Him, without some such conception as Is enunciated In these two great passages In his mind to support, sus- tain and give Its justification to his representation. So far from these passages offending the reader as they
g6 The Designations of Our Lord
stand in Matthew's Gospel, therefore, and raising doubts of their genuineness, we should have had to postulate something like them for Matthew, had they not stood in his Gospel. Matthew's portrait of Jesus and the self-witness he quotes from Jesus' lips to His estate and dignity, in other words, themselves necessi- tate a doctrine of His nature and relations with God very much such as is set forth in these passages: and we can feel perfectly assured, therefore, that these passages represent with great exactness what Matthew w^ould tell us of Jesus' deity and what he would report as Jesus' own conception of His divine relations. And what they tell us — we must not balk at it — is just that Jesus is all that God is, and shares in God's nature as truly as in God's majesty and power.
THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORD IN LUKE AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS
We meet very much the same series of designations applied to our Lord in Luke as in the other Synoptists. But they are appHed with some characteristic dif- ferences.
In Luke, too, the ordinary narrative designation of our Lord is the simple ' Jesus,' which occurs about sev- enty-seven times. ^ This simplest of all des- The Narrative . . . ^ i • i i j
Designations ignations IS not SO exclusively employed
in the narrative of Luke, however, as in those of Matthew and Mark, There is an occasional variation in Luke to the more descriptive designa- tion of 'the Lord' (7^3,19 jqI.SMI jj39 j^^ j^15 j^5.6
18^ 19^ 22*^^'^^ fourteen times). No other designation than these two, however, occurs as a narrative desig- nation in Luke, although in three Instances Luke makes use of another in his narrative. In two of these ia- stances he Is apparently repeating words from the lips of others: he tells us that it had been revealed to Simeon that he should not die until he had seen ' the Lord's Christ' (2-*^) and that Bartimasus was told that 'Jesus of Nazareth' was passing (18^'^). In the remaining instance he remarks that the evil spirits knew that Jesus was 'the Christ' (4^^); where 'the Christ ' is not strictly a designation of Jesus, but the
1' Jesus' is anarthrous: i^i 22i.43.52 321,23 ^1 58,10 341 jjse.so i$37,40
2248,52 2328 24I5.I9.
97
98 The Designations of Our Lord
general term ' the Messiah.' These instances exhibit Luke's willingness to speak of Jesus as the Messiah indeed; but are scarcely exceptions to the general fact that he himself designates Jesus in the course of his narrative only as ' Jesus ' and as ' the Lord.'^ As in the other Synoptists, the simple ' Jesus ' in Luke is also practically reserved for the narrative designation. Only in the two instances of the annunciation of His name by the angel (i"^), which is no exception, and in the address to Jesus on the cross by the dying thief (23^")^ is this rule broken. But, as in the other Syn- optists, the name ' Jesus ' occurs in compound forms of address to Him recorded by the evangelist, — 'Jesus, Thou Son of God' (8-^), 'Jesus, Thou Son of David" (18''), 'Jesus, Master' (17''); and at the hands of the evil spirits (4^^), the people (18^'^) and His disciples (24^^) alike, 'Jesus the Nazarene '