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 supematural- ness 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 1^2,35) ^ i^ js by the term ' My Son ' above all that God Himself bore witness to Him on the two occasions when He spoke from heaven to give Him His testimony (Mk i" ()\ Mt 3^^ if, 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, and 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 i2«, 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-
140 The Designations of Our Lord
gether. 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 two remarkable passages in which He gives didactic expression to His relation as Son to the Father (Mt ii^ Lk lo-^, 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 'Lord* 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
20 Cf. Reinhold Ziemssen, Chrisiiis der Herr, 1867, p. 22: "But this is meant: that just as xnptn<^ '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 Synoptlsts 141
•which Jesus is called ' Lord ' we are puzzled to de- termine 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 fa- miliarly 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 24^2 (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