of Philip, 12"^). Of course, seeing that He was cur- rently addressed as ' Teacher,' ' Lord,' He could not but be spoken of by these titles, used appellatlvely: 'the Teacher' (II^^ cf. 131^-1* 3^) rarely, and com- paratively frequently 'the Lord' (20^'^^-^®'-^ 21^). The latter usage the evangelist himself adopts In his own person (4^ 6"^ 11^ 20^" 21"^'^-). It Is noteworthy that the title ' the Lord ' Is In this Gospel confined to Jesus, never occuring of God the Father except In a very few citations from the Old Testament (12^^'^^, cf. i^^). It is an odd circumstance that the appellative use of ' Lord ' of Jesus occurs, however, only after His resur- rection. We say this Is an odd circumstance, because our Lord is represented as Himself telling us that It was applied to Him during His life (13^^'"), as In- deed It could not fail to be from the currency of the corresponding formula of address with respect to Him. This circumstance must be set down, therefore, as merely an accident of the record.
From the substance of the passages In which It is employed, we get very little guidance to the significance
of -' the Lord ' as thus applied to Jesus. •Lord* It Is only obvious that it Is used with
reverential recognition of His author- ity. Only in the great passage (20^^) where Thomas' doubt breaks down at the sight of his risen Master and he cries to Him, " My Lord and my God," do we catch an unmistakable suggestion of its highest meaning. That this exclamation was addressed to Christ Is expressly stated: "Thomas answered and said to Him." The strong emotion with which it was
1 82 The Designations of Our Lord
spoken is obvious. It is not so clear, however, what precise connotation is to be ascribed to the term ' my Lord ' in it. There may be a chmax in the progress from ' my Lord ' to ' my God.' But it seems impos- sible to doubt that in this collocation ' Lord ' can fall little short of 'God' in significance; else the conjunc- tion of the two would be incongruous. Possibly both terms should be taken as asserting deity, the former with the emphasis upon the subjection, and the latter with the emphasis on the awe, due to deity. In any event in combination the two terms express as strongly as could be expressed the deity of Jesus; and the con- joint ascription is expressly accepted and commended by Jesus. It must rank, therefore, as an item of self- testimony on our Lord's part to His Godhead.''
The ascription to our Lord of prophetic character
is, as in the other evangelists, cursorily noted (4^^
6" 74o>[52] oi7\ ^g |g ^ig^ Q^^ Lord's
Tcsus the 'Christ' ^^^ acceptance of the role (4'^^). But
in John, too, it is particularly the spe- cifically Messianic titles which attract attention. The simple designation ' the Christ ' is not, indeed, fre- quently applied directly to our Lord, although it is made clear that He announced Himself as ' the Christ,' and was accepted as such by His followers, and therefore
■^ Cf. Westcott, in loc: "The words are beyond question addressed to Christ {saith unto Him), and cannot but be understood as a con- fession of belief as to His Person . . . expressed in the form of an impassioned address. . . . His sublime confession, won from doubt, closes historically the progress of faith which St. John traces. At first (ch. i^) the evangelist declared his own faith: at the end he shows that this faith was gained in the actual intercourse of the disciples with Christ. . . , The words which follow show that the Lord accepted the declaration of His Divinity as the true expression of faith."
The Designations in John 183