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 con- sideration 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 re- demption 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 super- naturalism 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 i^-) and is marked out as such by a supernatural birth (i^^). 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 ex- /f ception and that of i^^, 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 signiticance is gained by the angelic annunciation only if we take it in this sense — Christ-Adhonai, that is, Christ-Jehovah."
The Jesus of the Synoptists 145
* 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 11, 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 here 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 Im- ports His deity.^^
It is not necessary to add further evidence, derived from less frequently employed designations of our
Lord, 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 con- ceived Jesus, whom they Identify with the Messiah, as a divine person; and represent Him as exercising di- vine prerogatives and asserting for Himself a divine personality and participation In the divine Name.
-3 The nature of the xupiorrji^ ascribed to Jesus in the Synoptics is very interestingly expounded by Professor Erich Schaeder in two lec- tures on " The Christology of the Creeds and the Modern Theology," printed in Schlatter and Liitgert's Beitrdge zur Forderung 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 non- sense 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).
THE JESUS OF THE SYNOPTISTS THE PRIMITIVE JESUS
That we may estimate the significance of the testi- mony to the Divine Christ which we have seen to be
Significance bome by the Synoptists, we must bear of Synoptical In mind that it cannot be taken as merely
Testimony ^^^ individual opinion of three writers. It must be recognized as reflecting the consentient con- viction of the community which these three writers rep- resent and for which they wrote. And this is equiva- lent to saying that we have here the conception of Jesus which prevailed In the primitive age of the Christian propaganda.^
This might not be so obvious if we could follow certain extremists who, largely In order to escape this
^ , , very conclusion, have wished — formerly Date of the . -^ , , , ^
Synoptics '^ much greater numbers than more re- cently— to assign the composition of the Synoptic Gospels to a period somewhat late In the second century. It will be allowed by most reasonable men to-day that these Gospels- were all written before A. D. 80, and belong at latest to the seventh and eighth decades of the first century. Our own conviction is very clear that they were all written before A. D. 70, and therefore belong to the seventh decade at the