lips of the disciples themselves in this designatory form at 24^*, and it occurs in two passages in the opening chapters of the Gospel — in the elevated language of the angelic announcement in the combination, ' Christ the Lord' or 'the anointed Lord' (2^^), and in the response of Elisabeth ( i^^) in which she expresses her wondering awe that " the mother of her Lord " should come to her. Obviously In such usages the term con- notes a very high dignity, certainly Messianic at the least. It is also employed of Himself by our Lord In the question He is recorded by all the Synoptists as putting to the scribes as to the significance of David's predic- tion of the Messiah as his 'Lord' (20^^°®''-) — again, obviously with a high connotation. But the particu- larly significant fact In this connection Is Its current employment by Luke himself as an alternative narra- tive designation to the simple ' Jesus ' (y^^-^^ jq^'^^'^^ i i^^ 12*- 1-^15 jy5,6 J go J ^8 22^^'^^). It does not seem easy to detect any special significance in the Interchange of these designations; the reason for the passage from one to the other seems either purely literary or at least obscure. The meaning of the appearance of this nar- rative employment of the term in Luke seems, there- fore, to be merely that In the usage of Luke in his own person there emerges a reflection of a usage evi- dently common among the disciples of Jesus from the beginning, but not chancing to be copiously Illustrated
the time when Christ was, though resurrected, not yet manifested to His disciples, and one of the certain ones (24^*) is a word of the dis- ciples to whom the risen Lord had manifested Himself, yet all the others fall in the time before the resurrection. Although Luke men- tions Jesus, however, comparatively often by the designation ' Lord,' this is nevertheless far from his current designation of Him, as the names of 'Jesus' and 'Christ' meet us 112 times."
104 The Designations of Our Lord
In the personal literary manner of Mark and Matthew : the usage, namely, of currently speaking of Jesus as ' the Lord.'
This Implies, naturally, that Jesus stood to His dis- ciples for whatever the title ' Lord ' meant to them.
„, .^ There Is Involved In It certainly the
Significance . . r tt- tv/t • • i- •
of 'Lord' recognition of His Messianic dignity,
and there Is Included, therefore, the rec- ognition in Him of all that they saw In His Messianic dignity. So far, we suppose, we may be sure that, as has been suggested, He was thought of as ' Lord ' In contrast to the earthly potentates who were claiming lordship of men, and especially In contrast with the emperor In Rome, the ' Lord ' by way of eminence In all men's minds. ■'^ To Jesus, rather than to the em- peror, was allegiance due. But we must not forget that the allegiance expressed to Jesus rested on a spir- itual basis, while, perhaps. It Is going too far to sup- pose that the divine claims of the Imperial monarch were held clearly In mlnd.^^ The simplest thing to say is that the term ' Lord ' was applied to Jesus by Luke obviously with the deepest reverence and obviously as the expression of that reverence.
i<> Cf. Dalman, Words, 330: "When the Christians called Jesus 6 xuptog, they will have meant that He is the true ' divine Lord ' in opposition to the ' God and Lord ' on the imperial throne of Rome. Luke's frequent use of 6 xuptog is certainly intended in this sense. The phrase Xpiaru's xijpio<; used in his Gospel 2^^ (of. Acts 2^^) de- fines the term XpcffToi; in that sense for the reader." Dalman is prob- ably thinking of " Luke " as representing a Gentile Christian usage. It is clear, on the contrary, that his is simply an aboriginal Christian usage — possibly with slightly changing — or enlarging — content, but with no essential alteration of meaning.
^1 On the employment of y.vptoi; of the emperor and its signifi- cance see T. D. Woolsey in the Bibliotheca Sacra for i86i, pp. 595-608.
The Designations in Luke 105