N. T. the Saviour is called xupio?, 'Lord,' (i) in the sense of Adho- nai-Jehovah; (2) by a heightening of the human sense or an adapta- tion from the relations of human sovereignty: and that the name 'Lord* belongs to the Saviour according to the N. T. essentially and fundamen- tally in the sense of Adhonai or Jehovah, not as the transference or heightening of the human relation of sovereignty." The use of xupio<i in the N. T. of our Lord, he says again, " has in the first instance noth- ing to do with glory, 86^a^ and just as truly stands in the N. T. in no essential connection viith. xopieveiv ruling" (p. 10). This is not to contend that 6 xupioi} in N. T. when applied to Christ always means Jehovah. In almost all the passages in the Gospels where xupnx} 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 xvpioq viz., Lk 2^. '^0 xuptoq 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 34^^ (p. 20).
142 The Designations of Our Lord
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 i2^*''^^ 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 i*^ 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 unworthi- ness 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 7^^'" also obviously involves a recognition of Jesus as the Lord of life, and in Mt 2 ;j37,44 < 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 Jesus of the Synoptists 143
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 iioth 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 Mes- siah very much greater than could belong to Him sim- ply as David's son (Mk 12^'^'^').^^ 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 hu- man 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 consentlently speak of as the forerunner of Jesus, ful- filling 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 i^ Mt 3^ Lk
21 Cf. Bengel on Mt 22*^ : stgnum subjectionis, dominatio, cujus sub-- ditus est ipse David, coelestem et Regis majestatem et Regni indolent ostendit.
144 The Designations of Our Lord