Perhaps something similar is implied in the designa- tion of Him in Eph i^ as the ' Beloved,' the epithet appearing in its simple majesty without 'The Beloved' qualification: "His grace which He" — that is God — " freely bestowed on us in the Beloved." We have already had occasion to point out the significance of this phrase on Its appear-
given by loyal or pliant cities of Asia to the Emperors, but belonging in Christian eyes only to God and to His Christ. The Pastoral Epistles supply examples of both applications, (i) i Tim i^ 2^, Tit i^ 3*, (2) Tit I* 2^3 jS" Also p. clxiii.: "The phrase is perhaps suggested by the free use of ffojzrjp on coins and in inscriptions in reference to cer- tain of the heathen deities (e.g. Zeus, Asklepios), and to the Emperors. John recalls the word from these unworthy uses, and claims it for the Ultimate Source of health and life. But in this attribution he includes Jesus Christ."
30 Cf. Weiss (Meyer) in loc, correcting Huther. Cf. Schmiedel- Winer, Grammatik, p. 158: " In Tit 2^^, 2 P i^, 2 Thess i^^, Jude 4, Eph 5^, and Acts 20^8, according to the badly attested reading ttjv kxxX. rod xvpiou xai 0SOU, grammar strictly requires, as well as in 2 P i^^ 220 32,18^ that there should be in every case a single person in- tended, and therefore Christ be called ^eo? or fj.ovo? deff-Korrji;. Nevertheless it is possible for xuptot; in 2 Thess and Jude, and deog in Eph (and Acts) to stand as a designation of a new person (§ 19, 13 d). That (TWTrjp too in Titus and 2 P can also be so construed,
246 The Designations of Our Lord
ing in the Gospels as a designation of Jesus (Mt 3" 12^^ I7^ Mk i^^ 9^ Lk 3^2). Here the same epithet meets us without the defining accompaniments: Jesus Christ Is in full simplicity set forth as by way of eminence ' the Beloved,' in and through whom God has communicated His grace to men. This designation of Christ " makes us feel," we are told, " the great- ness of the divine grace. "^^ But It does this only by making us feel the greatness of the Mediator of this grace. It is only at the cost of the blood of the ' Beloved ' that God has redeemed us. The epithet of ' Saviour ' Is a designation of our Lord from the point of view of men: this epithet of ' Beloved' tells us what He Is from the point of view of God — He Is God's own unique One, the object of His supreme choice, who stands related to Him In the Intimacy of appropriating love. In the parallel passage In the sister Epistle (Col i^^), Paul calls our Lord "the Son of God's love." This seems a combination of the two titles, the ' Son of God,' and the ' Beloved ' ; and bears witness to their close affinity, — which Indeed is Inherent in their significance. We will recall that In the evangelical use of ' the Beloved ' It stands In the closest relation with ' Son ' : " This Is my Son, the Beloved, in whom I am well pleased." It is only in
since it has ijiiwv with it, is ace. to § 19, 5, to be left open. In any case no one will ground here on Grammar, but must hold a careless construction possible, and therefore in deciding the question leave room for material considerations." Winer (Thayer, p. 130) had on Biblico-theological grounds decided in these passages for two persons — that is, he had decided on the strength of his conception of what these authors would be likely to say; but he allows that grammatically they are flexible to the other opinion. 31 Meyer in loc.
The Corrohoi-at'ion of Paul 247
connection with the idea of ' Son,' thus, that ' Beloved ' comes to its rights.^^
On the other side, the compound names, ' Jesus Christ ' and ' Christ Jesus,' appear in Paul's Epistles also in combination with designations 'Man'^ which emphasize rather the human as- pect of our Lord's person. We read of "the man Jesus Christ" (Rom 5^^), of "the man Christ Jesus" (i Tim 2^), and somewhat more fre- quently we are, apart from such a combination with His personal name, directed to contemplate our Lord as a " Man " {dvOpconoi;) . In very few of these in- stances, it is true, is the emphasis primarily upon the fact of humanity. Most commonly it Is thrown upon some point of likeness or contrast between Jesus and that other man, Adam (Rom s^^'^^^\ i Cor i52i.47,[48,49]^ cf. 15^^, " last Adam "), and it is the singleness or the superiority of this ' Man ' which is in question. But in a passage like i Tim 2^ " There is one God, one mediator also between God and man, Himself man, Christ Jesus," it is clear that the humanity of Christ itself is insisted upon: and there is a necessary if some- what unemphasized suggestion of humanity underlying all these passages. The lesson we must first of all' draw from this series of passages seems, then, to be that neither ' Jesus Christ ' nor ' Christ Jesus ' is a designation of such supreme dignity that it could not suggest itself as an appropriate name for Jesus when