9. The Designations Of Our Lordin Acts And Their Significance
THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORDIN ACTS AND
THEIR SIGNIFICANCE
V alue of Acts' Testimony How great an illusion it is to look upon John as reflecting a new phase of teaching, which had grown up only in the course of years, in speaking of Jesus plainly as God, may be illustrated by attending to the designations employed of our Lord in the Book of Acts and in the letters of Paul. The Book of Acts and the Epistles of Paul both bring us testimony to how Jesus was thought and spoken of in Christian circles at the time, and indeed before the time, when the Synoptics were composed. The Book of Acts was not only written by the author of one of the Synoptic Gospels, but purports to record conversations and discourses by the actors in the great drama of the founding of the Christian Church; and indeed could not have seriously misrepresented them,—seeing that it was published in their lifetime,—without having been at once corrected. We may learn from it, therefore, how Jesus was esteemed by His first followers, including those
who had enjoyed His daily companionship throughout His ministry. The Epistles of Paul are none of them of later date, and many of them are of earlier date, than the Synoptic Gospels, and bring us, therefore, testimony to the estimation in which Christ was held in the Christian community at about the time when the Synoptic Gospels, or the sources on which they depend, were written. The conception of Jesus given expression alike in the Synoptics, in Acts and in Paul's Epistles, it cannot be doubted, was aboriginal in the Church. But this conception is distinctly that expressed in its own way in the Gospel of John.
'Jesus' in Acts The narrative of Acts does not concern the acts of Jesus during the period of His earthly life, but those of the exalted Jesus through His servants the Apostles (1:1 "began"). It is natural, therefore, that the simple designation
'Jesus' should occur less frequently in its pages than in the Gospel narrative; and that even when Jesus is spoken of, which is of course comparatively infrequently, He should be spoken of by a designation more expressive of the relation existing between Him and His followers, whose acts it is proximately the business of this book to describe. Accordingly in Acts the reverential 'the Lord' becomes the ruling designation of Jesus, and the simple 'Jesus' takes a subordinate place, both as the narrative designation and in the reports of the remarks of our Lord's followers incorporated in the narrative. Nevertheless it is employed by Luke himself with sufficient frequency to show that it suggested itself on all natural occasions. Thus, for example, Luke uses it in the first chapter where he is himself narrating what
Jesus did before His ascension (1:1, 14), and elsewhere currently in such phrases as "preaching Jesus" (5:42, 8:35, 9:27, 17:18), "proving that Jesus is the Christ" (9:20, 18:5, 28, 28:23), and the like (4:2, 13, 18, 5:40, 7:55,
9:27, 18:25). And he records it as employed in a natural way by the two chief spokesmen in Acts, Peter in the earlier portion (1:16, 2:32, 36; [3:13,
20]; 5:30, cf. 4:27, 30), and Paul in the later portion ([9:5, 20]; 13:23, 33, 17:3, 19:4, [13]), as well as occasionally by other actors in the historical drama (4:18, 27, 30, 5:40, 9:17, [20]; 17:7, 19:[13], 15, 25:19), including the angel explaining the ascension (1:11) and Jesus Himself revealing
Himself to Paul (9:5, 26:15).
'Jesus of Nazareth'
The fuller form, 'Jesus of Nazareth' (10:38), or more frequently, 'Jesus the Nazarene' (2:22, 6:14, 22:8, 26:9) also occurs, not as a locution of Luke's own, indeed, but upon the lips of Peter (2:22, 10:38), and Paul (22:8, 26:9), and in one case as a description of Jesus by Himself (22:8); and also on the lips of the inimical Jews describing with some contempt the great claims made by His followers for "this Jesus the Nazarene" (6:14). Twice, indeed, the full name 'Jesus Christ the Nazarene' is employed, as a solemn designation throwing up for observation His entire personality in all its grandeur (3:6, 4:10).
'Jesus Christ'
From these two last-named instances we may learn, what otherwise is sufficiently illustrated, that the full sacred name 'Jesus Christ' was in easy use by our Lord's first followers, whenever they wished to speak of Him with special solemnity. Luke himself so employs it in his narrative (8:12), and he quotes it from Peter (2:38, 9:34, 10:36, 48) and Paul (16:18)—in each instance as employed in circumstances of great ceremoniousness, in demanding faith or in working cures by this great Name. It is in similar conditions that the even more complete designation 'Jesus Christ the Nazarene' (3:6, 4:10) occurs; and that a designation which occurs very
frequently in the Epistles, 'the Lord Jesus Christ' (11:17, 28:31) or 'our Lord Jesus Christ' (15:26, 20:21), appears as in use by the Apostles,—Peter
(11:17), Paul (20:21), and the whole Apostolic body (15:26),—as well as by Luke himself (28:31). In all these instances it seems clear that the compound name 'Jesus Christ' is treated as a proper name, but of course not with any loss of the high significance of the element 'Christ.' Perhaps it would not be too much to say that the compound name is dealt with as the 'royal name' of our Lord, the name which is given Him when He is to be designated with special ceremony and solemnity.
'Christ Jesus'
In 3:20, 5:42, 24:24, on the other hand, it is questionable whether we are to read the names together so as to yield the compound 'Christ Jesus,' which in that case meets us here for the first time in the New Testament, or are to take 'Christ' as the predicate,—'Jesus as the Christ.' The commentators seem inclined to follow the latter course. But in 24:24, where the question is about Paul, who, we know from his Epistles (1 Thess 2:14, 5:18 Rom passim), was accustomed, at an earlier date than this, to use the compound
'Christ Jesus' freely, it seems difficult not to read that compound. And this increases our hesitancy with reference to the two earlier passages. Paul's familiar use of 'Christ Jesus' must have had a history back of it: and it seems, therefore, natural that its employment in the primitive community should emerge into light in such passages as we now have before us.6
'The Lord Jesus'
Another compound designation of Jesus, which does not occur in the Gospels, meets us with some frequency in Acts—'the Lord Jesus.' This is employed by Luke himself in the course of the narrative (4:33, 8:16, 11:20,
19:5, 13, 17), and is also attributed to speakers whose words are reported,—
or to be more specific, to both Peter (1:21, 15:11) and Paul (16:31, 20:24, 35, 21:13). It is even used as an address by Stephen (7:59). Indeed the fuller designation, 'the' or 'our' 'Lord Jesus Christ,' is employed by Luke himself
(28:31) and attributed alike to Peter (11:17), the whole body of the Apostles (15:26), and Paul (20:21). In this last formula we have combined the three most usual designations of Christ, and it seems charged with the deepest reverence and affection for His person.
'Lord'
Of course these phrases, 'the Lord Jesus,' 'the [our] Lord Jesus Christ,' witness to the prevalence in the Christian community of the simpler designation 'Lord' of Jesus, and this prevalence is otherwise copiously illustrated in Acts. As the narrative does not concern what Jesus began to do and teach while in His own person on earth, but what "after He was received up" He did through His servants, His own person is not a figure in the narrative, subsequent to the few opening verses which tell of the period before the ascension. Accordingly outside of these verses (1:6) there is no occasion to record words directly addressed to Jesus, except in visions (9:5,
10, 13, 22:8, 10, 19, 26:15), or in prayers (1:24, 7:59, 60). On all these occasions, however, He is addressed by the supreme honorific 'Lord,' except in 7:59, where He is addressed more fully as 'Lord Jesus.' It is clear that this formula is employed in all cases with the profoundest reverence, and is meant to be the vehicle of the highest possible ascription. Perhaps it will be well to focus our attention upon the two or three instances in which it is employed in direct prayer to Jesus (1:24, 7:59, 60). In these He is not merely treated as divine—for to whom but God is prayer to be addressed?
—but also directly characterized as the possessor of divine powers and the exerciser of divine functions. It is as He "that knoweth the hearts of all
men" that He is appealed to at 1:24; as the forgiver of sin at 7:60; and as the receiver of the spirits of the dying saints at 7:59. All these traits are assigned to Jesus in the Gospel narratives, where Jesus claimed authority even on earth to forgive sins (Mk 2:10 ||) and represents Himself as the judge before whom all were at length to stand and receive according to the deeds done in the body (Mt 25:32): where He is represented as knowing what was in men and needing not that anyone should teach Him what were the thoughts of their hearts (Mk 2:8): and where His promise to the thief was that he should be that day with Him in Paradise (Lk 23:43). It can occasion no surprise, therefore, that He should be appealed to after His return to His glory as at once the searcher of hearts, the forgiver of sins, and the receiver of the spirits of the saints. What we learn in the meanwhile is that to the infant community the ascended Jesus was their God, whom they addressed in prayer and from whom they sought in prayer the activities which specifically belong to God.
'Lord' as Narrative Name Quite naturally in these circumstances the chief narrative name for Jesus in Acts becomes the honorific 'the Lord,' which is employed about twice as frequently as the simple Name 'Jesus,' and which is occasionally given more precision by taking the form of 'the Lord Jesus' (4:33, 8:16, 11:20, 19:5, 13,
17) and even 'the Lord Jesus Christ' (28:31). All of these designations are placed also on the lips of actors in the history recounted. Thus Peter speaks of Jesus as 'the Lord' in [2:34]; 2:36, 11:16, 12:11, as 'the Lord Jesus' in 1:21, 15:11, and as 'the Lord Jesus Christ' in 11:17; Paul as 'the Lord' in 13:10, 11, 12, 20:19, 26:15, as 'the Lord Jesus' in 16:31, 20:24, 35, 21:13, and as 'the Lord Jesus Christ' in 20:21; and others speak of Him as 'the Lord' in 8:22, 24, 9:17, 16:15, as 'the Lord Jesus' in 7:59, and as 'the Lord
Jesus Christ' in 15:26. It is quite clear that 'the Lord' is a favorite designation of Jesus in this book, and was such also in the community whose usage it reflects. And it is equally clear that in the use of this term what is primarily expressed is the profoundest reverence on the part of the community and the highest conceivable exaltation and authority on the part of Jesus Himself. It belongs to the situation that it is often extremely difficult to determine whether by 'Lord' Jesus or God is meant. That is to say, so clearly is Jesus 'God' to this writer and those whose speech he reports that the common term 'Lord' vibrates between the two and leaves the reader often uncertain which is intended. The assimilation of Jesus to God thus witnessed is illustrated also in other ways. Thus, for example, in Peter's
Pentecostal sermon Jesus is conceived as sitting at the right hand of God (2:34) and as having been constituted "both Lord and Christ," where the conjunction is significant (2:36): and more explicitly still He is designated in a later discourse of the same Peter, "Lord of all" (10:36), that is to say, universal sovereign, a phrase which recalls the great declaration of Rom 9:5 to the effect that He is "God over all," as indeed He who sits on the throne of God must be.
'Son of Man'
That in this rich development of the conception of the Lordship of Jesus, His Messianic dignity is not out of mind is already apparent from the phraseology of 2:36. The emphasis of Peter's preaching turns, indeed, precisely on the fact that God has made the Jesus whom the Jews crucified
"both Lord and Christ." It is thus with Acts as truly as with the Gospels the Messianic office of Jesus on which the greatest stress is laid. Naturally as Jesus is not a speaker in the narrative of Acts, His own favorite selfdesignation of 'Son of Man' is here conspicuous by its absence. It occurs
only a single time, when the dying Stephen declared that he saw the heavens opened and the 'Son of Man' standing at the right hand of God
(7:56). This is the only instance in the whole New Testament where this designation is employed by anyone except our Lord Himself: Stephen's use of it seems a reflection of our Lord's declaration, "Henceforth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power" (Mt 26:64 ||), and is at once Stephen's testimony to the greatness of his Lord in His divine Majesty, and a witness to the genuineness of the whole series of declarations attributed to our Lord in which He saw Himself in the Danielic vision and developed on that basis His conception of His Messiahship in its earthy humiliation and subsequent elevation to participation in the divine glory.
'Son of God'
The great companion designation 'Son of God' is almost as rare in Acts as the 'Son of Man.' This precise designation, indeed, occurs but once, where we are told that Paul immediately after his conversion began to proclaim in the synagogues of Damascus Jesus as the 'Son of God' (9:20), which is explained as meaning that he proved Jesus to be 'the Christ' (9:22). In his speech in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch, Paul indeed declared that by raising up Jesus God fulfilled the announcement of the second Psalm,
"Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee" (13:33); and the risen Jesus is quoted as twice speaking of God as "the Father" (1:4, 7), and Peter is cited as repeating one of these declarations in his Pentecostal sermon
(2:33). Occasion has been taken from the circumstance that in all these three cases of allusion to the 'Father' the term employed is 'the Father' to suggest that it is not specifically Jesus' Father but the general Father of spirits that is intended. To this is added the suggestion that in Paul's allusion to the second Psalm it is of the incarnation or even perhaps of the
resurrection that he is thinking as the point when the Son was begotten. The conclusion is then drawn that in Acts there is no allusion to a metaphysical
Sonship of Christ. It must be frankly admitted that had we these passages alone to consider, we might hesitate to ascribe to Acts the doctrine of a divine Messiah. But this is by no means the case, and we need only note in passing that the title of 'Son of God' is very little in evidence in Acts either in its precise form or in its cognate modes of expression. Nevertheless, the locution 'the Father' does not appear in the usage of it here to be without suggestion of its correlative 'the Son'; and Paul's citation of the second
Psalm does not seem to be without implication of a Sonship for Jesus lying deeper than either His resurrection or His incarnation.
Prevalence of 'Christ'
The prevailing Messianic designation in Acts is the simple 'Christ,' and Luke tells us that the staple of the Apostolic teaching was that Jesus is 'the Christ' (5:42, 8:5, 9:22, 18:5, 28), and illustrates this fact by instances recorded both from Peter (2:31, 36, 3:18, 20) and from Paul (17:3, 26:23).
The general employment of the compound names, 'Jesus Christ,' 'the Lord Jesus Christ' (or 'our Lord Jesus Christ') and even 'Christ Jesus,' testifies to the fixedness of the conviction that Jesus was 'the Christ' and the close attachment of the title to His person as at least a quasi-proper name. Luke does not himself make use of any other Messianic title, except in the one instance when he tells us that Paul on his conversion began at once "to proclaim Jesus that He is the Son of God" (9:20). But he quotes quite a rich variety of such titles as employed by others. To Peter there is ascribed, for example, a considerable series, which, moreover, he is represented as weaving together in a most striking way, as all alike designations of the same Jesus, which bring out the several aspects of the unitary conception
fulfilled in Him. Prominent among them are those which apply to Jesus the prophecies concerning 'the Righteous Servant of Jehovah' (3:13, 14, 26, cf.
4:27, 30) and 'the Prophet like unto Moses' (3:22, 26), which are inextricably combined with those which speak of Him as 'the Anointed
King.'
Accumulation of Titles In Peter's early discourses 'the Servant (παῖς) of God' is one of the most notable of the designations of Jesus (3:23, 26‚ cf. 4:27, 30); and along with it occurs 'the Holy and Righteous One' (3:14) which belongs to the same series of designations; and in the same context appeal is made likewise to Moses' prophecy of a Prophet like unto himself (3:22, 23); while to these is added further the striking title of the 'Prince' or 'Author' 'of life' (3:15). In other discourses Peter calls Jesus a 'Prince and Saviour' (5:31) and indeed even 'Judge of the quick and the dead' (10:42). The composite portrait which he presents of Jesus the Messiah as he passes freely from one of these designations to another is a complex and very lofty one: what is most apparent is that he conceives Him as the focus upon which all the rays of Old Testament prophecy converge, and as exalted above all earthly limitations. A somewhat similar list of designations is placed on the lips of Paul. To him the 'Lord Jesus' (16:31, 20:21, 24, 35, 21:13) is 'the Christ'
(17:3, 26:23), 'the Holy One' (13:35) 'the Righteous One' (22:14, cf. 7:52, Stephen) who has come as a 'Saviour' (13:23) to Israel, and who though a 'Man' (ἀνήρ, 17:31) is 'God's own Son' (13:33), nay, in some high sense
'God' Himself (20:28),—for it was by nothing else than "the blood of God" that the Church was purchased.
A rapid enumeration of the mere titles applied to Christ, such as we have made, fails utterly to reproduce the impression which they make on the
reader as he meets them in the course of the narrative. That impression is to the effect that although the true humanity of our Lord is thoroughly appreciated (ἄνθρωπος, 5:28, cf. 7:56: ἀνήρ, 2:22, 17:31, cf. Lk 24:19), yet it is the majesty of this man which really fills the minds of these first
Christians, as they perceive in Him not merely a man of God's appointment, representing God on earth, in whom all that they can conceive to be the source of dignity in Old Testament prophecy meets and finds its fulfillment
(10:42, 43), but also something far above humanity, which can be expressed only in terms of precise deity (20:28).
'The Name'
A side-light is thrown upon the high estimate which was placed among these early Christians on Jesus' person by the usurpation by it of the Old
Testament pregnant use of the term "Name." As in the Old Testament we read continually of "the Name of Jehovah" as the designation of His manifested majesty, and even of simply "the Name" used absolutely with the same high connotation, so in Acts we read of the Name of Jesus Christ, to the exclusion of the old phrase, and again of simply "the Name" (5:41, cf.
3 Jno 7) used absolutely of Jesus. Those who were persecuted for His sake we are told rejoiced "that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name" (5:41, cf. 3 Jno 7). In the Old Testament this would have meant the Name of Jehovah: here it means the Name of Jesus.25 "The Name," as it has been truly remarked, "had become a watchword of the faith, and is consequently used alone to express the name of Jesus, as it stood in former days for the Name of Jehovah (Lev 24:11)." Nothing could more convincingly bear in upon us the position to which Jesus had been exalted in men's thoughts than this constant tendency to substitute Him in their religious outlook for Jehovah.