5. The Designations Of Our Lordin Luke And Their Implications
THE DESIGNATIONS OF OUR LORDIN LUKE AND
THEIR IMPLICATIONS
W e meet very much the same series of designations applied to our Lord in Luke as in the other Synoptists. But they are applied with some characteristic differences.
The Narrative Designations In Luke, too, the ordinary narrative designation of our Lord is the simple
'Jesus,' which occurs about seventy-seven times. This simplest of all designations is not so exclusively employed in the narrative of Luke, however, as in those of Matthew and Mark. There is an occasional variation in Luke to the more descriptive designation of 'the Lord' (7:13, 19, 10:1, 39,
41, 11:39, 12:42, 13:15, 17:5, 6, 18:6, 19:8, 22:61, 61, fourteen times). No other designation than these two, however, occurs as a narrative designation in Luke, although in three instances Luke makes use of another in his narrative. In two of these instances he is apparently repeating words from the lips of others: he tells us that it had been revealed to Simeon that he
should not die until he had seen 'the Lord's Christ' (2:26) and that Bartimæus was told that 'Jesus of Nazareth' was passing (18:37). In the remaining instance he remarks that the evil spirits knew that Jesus was 'the Christ' (4:41); where 'the Christ' is not strictly a designation of Jesus, but the general term 'the Messiah.' These instances exhibit Luke's willingness to speak of Jesus as the Messiah indeed; but are scarcely exceptions to the general fact that he himself designates Jesus in the course of his narrative only as 'Jesus' and as 'the Lord.' As in the other Synoptists, the simple 'Jesus' in Luke is also practically reserved for the narrative designation. Only in the two instances of the annunciation of His name by the angel (1:31), which is no exception, and in the address to Jesus on the cross by the dying thief
(23:42) is this rule broken. But, as in the other Synoptists, the name 'Jesus' occurs in compound forms of address to Him recorded by the evangelist,
—'Jesus, Thou Son of God' (8:28), 'Jesus, Thou Son of David' (18:38), 'Jesus, Master' (17:13); and at the hands of the evil spirits (4:34), the people
(18:37) and His disciples (24:19) alike, 'Jesus the Nazarene'—whence it emerges that it was by this name that He was popularly identified.
Ordinary Forms of Address The ordinary forms of address applied to Jesus in Luke are the simple honorifics, 'Teacher,' 'Master,' 'Lord,' employed, however, with a certain discrimination. The Aramaic form 'Rabbi' does not occur in Luke at all. Its common Greek rendering, 'Teacher' (διδάσκαλε), seems to be treated as the current noncommittal honorific, especially appropriate on the lips of those who were not, or at least not yet, His disciples (7:40, 10:25, 11:45, 12:13,
18:18, 19:39, 20:21, 28, 39, 8:49, 9:38). The only exception to its employment by this rule is supplied by 21:7, where we are told that certain of His disciples "asked Him saying, 'Teacher,' " etc. That it was not thought
inappropriate as a form of address from His disciples to Him is also evinced, however, by the report of His own employment of it on two occasions. He instructs His followers, in preparing the last passover meal for Him, to say to the goodman of the house, "The Teacher saith unto thee, where is the guest-chamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples" (22:11); and He tells them, broadly indeed, but no doubt with some, though certainly remote, reference to Himself and them, that "the disciple is not above his teacher; but every one when he is perfected shall be as his teacher" (6:40). The choice of the term 'Teacher' (διδάσκαλος) in these two passages appears to be due to the correlative "disciples" occurring in each; and it remains true that 'Teacher' (διδάσκαλε) as a form of address is characteristic in Luke, of non-followers of our Lord.
'Master'
The place of 'Teacher' on the lips of His followers is partly taken by a new term for 'Master,' peculiar to Luke (ἐπιοτάτης), which however occurs only six times (5:5, 8:24, 45, 9:33, 49, 17:13), only one of which (17:13) forms an exception or quasi-exception to the rule that the term indicates that the user of it stands in the closest relation to Jesus, and acknowledges Him as his Superior Officer—Chief, Commander, Master, Leader. This quasiexception occurs in the case of the ten lepers who, we are told, lifted up their voices and said, "Jesus, Leader, have mercy on us." Perhaps there is an intention to convey the impression that these lepers, formally at least, recognized the authority of Jesus completely. We cannot account 5:5 another such exception, since the whole tone of the narrative indicates that this was not the first call of Peter to become Jesus' disciple (cf. Jno 1:42), but his call to become Jesus' constant companion. There is no such direct use of Jesus in Luke (or in Mk) as in Matthew of the figurative expression
'Master of the House' (οἰκοδεσπότης), although the term occurs in parables with reference to Him (13:25, 14:21).
'Lord' as an Address The prevailing form of address to Jesus in Luke is, however, the ordinary
Greek honorific 'Lord' (κύριε), used, however, obviously as an honorific of especially high connotation. It is put upon the lips, indeed, of outsiders, suitors for mercy (5:12, 7:6, 18:41, 19:8) and possibly others (9:59, 61,
13:23); and our Lord's own remark to the effect that some called Him 'Lord, Lord,' who did not do the things He said (6:46) shows that it might be insincerely used of Him. But this very passage also indicates that to address
Him as 'Lord' was to acknowledge His authority and involved subjection to His commandments, and accordingly the term is represented as employed chiefly by His professed followers (5:8, 10:17, 40, 11:1, 12:41, 17:37,
22:33, 38, 49). Something of its high implication, when so used, may be caught from 5:8 in comparison with 5:5. When our Lord, having used
Simon's boat for a pulpit, commanded him to let down his nets for a draught, Simon responded with the respectful address which implied that he recognized Jesus as his 'Superior Officer' (ἐπιοτάτης), "Master, we toiled all night, and took nothing: but at Thy word I will let down the nets." But when he saw the resultant miraculous draught, he fell at Jesus' knees and said:
"Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord"—using now the higher honorific, 'Lord' (κύριε). Obviously the address 'Lord' on the lips of Jesus' followers was charged with very high significance, and this is borne out in its entire use.
'Lord' as an Appellative Such a constant mode of address as 'Lord' by His followers, naturally would beget the habit of speaking of Jesus among themselves as 'the Lord';
and we can feel no surprise therefore that Jesus, in giving them instructions how to reply to possible objections to their taking the ass He sent them for as He was about to enter Jerusalem, placed this designation on their lips.
"Say," He said, "the Lord hath need of him" (19:31); and accordingly they said (v. 34), "The Lord hath need of him" (cf. 12:36, 42, 43 seq.). This instruction is recorded by all the Synoptists, and the usage which it involves of the term 'Lord' of Jesus as an appellative designation might very well, therefore, have been illustrated in the narratives of them all. The copious designatory employment of the title 'Lord' of Christ, however, is characteristic of Luke. It is placed on the lips of the disciples themselves in this designatory form at 24:34, and it occurs in two passages in the opening chapters of the Gospel—in the elevated language of the angelic announcement in the combination, 'Christ the Lord' or 'the anointed Lord'
(2:11), and in the response of Elisabeth (1:45) in which she expresses her wondering awe that "the mother of her Lord" should come to her.
Obviously in such usages the term connotes a very high dignity, certainly Messianic at the least. It is also employed of Himself by our Lord in the question He is recorded by all the Synoptists as putting to the scribes as to the significance of David's prediction of the Messiah as his 'Lord' (20:41 seq.)—again, obviously with a high connotation. But the particularly significant fact in this connection is its current employment by Luke himself as an alternative narrative designation to the simple 'Jesus' (7:13,
19, 10:1, 39, 41, 11:39, 12:42, 13:15, 17:5, 6, 18:6, 19:8, 22:61, 61). It does not seem easy to detect any special significance in the interchange of these designations; the reason for the passage from one to the other seems either purely literary or at least obscure. The meaning of the appearance of this narrative employment of the term in Luke seems, therefore, to be merely
that in the usage of Luke in his own person there emerges a reflection of a usage evidently common among the disciples of Jesus from the beginning, but not chancing to be copiously illustrated in the personal literary manner of Mark and Matthew: the usage, namely, of currently speaking of Jesus as 'the Lord.'
Significance of 'Lord'
This implies, naturally, that Jesus stood to His disciples for whatever the title 'Lord' meant to them. There is involved in it certainly the recognition of His Messianic dignity, and there is included, therefore, the recognition in Him of all that they saw in His Messianic dignity. So far, we suppose, we may be sure that, as has been suggested, He was thought of as 'Lord' in contrast to the earthly potentates who were claiming lordship of men, and especially in contrast with the emperor in Rome, the 'Lord' by way of eminence in all men's minds. To Jesus, rather than to the emperor, was allegiance due. But we must not forget that the allegiance expressed to Jesus rested on a spiritual basis, while, perhaps, it is going too far to suppose that the divine claims of the imperial monarch were held clearly in mind.11 The simplest thing to say is that the term 'Lord' was applied to Jesus by Luke obviously with the deepest reverence and obviously as the expression of that reverence.
The full height of this reverence may be suggested to us by certain passages in which the term 'Lord' occurs in citations from the Old
Testament, where its reference is to Jehovah, though in the citations it seems to be applied to Jesus. Like the other Synoptists, Luke cites, for instance, from Isaiah the promise of a voice crying in the wilderness, "Make ye ready the way of the Lord, make His paths straight" (3:4), and applies it to the coming of John the Baptist whom he represents as preparing the way
for Jesus' manifestation. As in the case of the other evangelists, the inference lies close that by 'the Lord' here Luke means Jesus, whose coming he thus identifies with the advent of Jehovah and whose person he seems to identify with Jehovah. On the other hand, in passages like 1:17, 76, although the language is similar, it seems more natural to understand the term 'Lord' as referring to God Himself, and to conceive the speaker to be thinking of the coming of Jehovah to redemption in Jesus without necessary identification of the person of Jesus with Jehovah. The mere circumstance, however, that the reader is led to pause over such passages and to consider whether they may not intend by their 'Lord'—who is Jehovah—to identify the person of Jesus with Jehovah, is significant. We should never lose from sight the outstanding fact that to men familiar with the LXX and the usage of 'Lord' as the personal name of the Deity there illustrated, the term 'Lord' was charged with associations of deity, so that a habit of speaking of Jesus as 'the Lord,' by way of eminence, such as is illustrated by Luke and certainly was current from the beginning of the Christian proclamation
(19:31), was apt to carry with it implications of deity which, if not rebuked or in some way guarded against, must be considered as receiving the sanction of Jesus Himself.
The 'Prophet'
The leading designations of Jesus in Luke, as in the other Synoptists, however, are, broadly speaking, Messianic. In other words, it is distinctively as the Messiah that Luke sets forth Jesus and represents Him as having conceived of Himself and as having been revered by His followers. We find in Luke, as in the other Synoptists, to be sure, traces of a widespread recognition of Him as a prophet (7:16, 39, 9:8, 19). His followers set their hopes upon Him in that office (24:19); and indeed with
no uncertainty He Himself assumed the rôle of a prophet (4:24, 13:33, 34).
But no more in Luke than in the other Synoptists is this particularly emphasized, and in Luke, too, the prophetic character is, no doubt, conceived as part of the Messianic function,—as indeed the collocation of His prophetic calling and His redemption of Israel in the thought of the disciples going to Emmaus not obscurely suggests (24:19, 21, cf. also 7:16).
'Saviour'
Luke also records from the mouth of the angel announcing the birth of Jesus the new designation of 'Saviour'—if we can call a designation new which is so plainly adumbrated in a passage like Mt 1:21 (cf. also Lk
19:10). But this is so little un-Messianic that it is not only connected with the Messianic prophecies by adjacent references (1:47, cf. 2:30, 3:6), but is expressly defined as Messianic in the annunciation itself: "a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord" (2:11). Like Mt 1:21, this passage clearly indicates that to the circle in which Jesus moved His coming as the Messiah was connected with the great series of prophecies which promised the advent of Jehovah for the redemption of His people, as truly as with those which predicted the coming of the Davidic King. The terms, "a Saviour, which is
Christ the Lord," are, indeed, an express combination of the two lines of prophecy, and import that the Child who was born in the city of David was both the promised Redeemer of Israel and the Anointed King that was to come. Question may arise, indeed, as to how we are to construe these collocated designations. Some would wish us to take each separately, with an indefinite article to each: "There is born to you a Saviour, who is an Anointed One, a Lord." Others17 suggest that at least 'Messiah' and 'Lord' be kept separate: "There is born to you a Deliverer, who is Messiah, Lord."
In either of these constructions we have three separate designations which
so far explain one another: this Child is at once a Saviour, the promised Messiah, and Sovereign Lord of men and angels—for it is an angel who speaks these words. The essential meaning cannot be far from this in any case. Even if we should read "who is Messiah, the Lord," or even "who is an anointed Lord,"19 we have got but little away from this general sense: in either case what is said is that the Saviour is the promised Messiah and therefore entitled to our obedience as our Lord. Nor is much more said if we give the phrase the utmost definiteness possible, and translate, "There is born to you this day in the city of David that Deliverer who is the Messiah, the Lord,"—as, on the whole, we think we ought to read it, in the light of the distinction made between the two designations 'Messiah' and 'Lord' in such a passage as Acts 2:36, where Peter declares to the house of Israel that God has made Jesus both 'Lord' and 'Christ.' The precise distinction intended to be signalized between 'Christ' and 'Lord' is, no doubt, difficult to trace: perhaps there lies in it a testimony to the wider content of the idea of Messiahship than that of mere sovereign power; perhaps a testimony to a higher connotation of the term 'Lord' than that of mere Messianic dignity. In any event there is here a declaration that in this Child born in the city of David, the functions of Redemption, Messiahship and Supreme Lordship are united.
'The Lord's Christ'
Almost immediately afterward we are told that it had been revealed to Simeon that "he should not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ"
(2:26)—an Old Testament expression (Ps 2:2, cf. Lk 9:20, Acts 4:26) here applied to the infant Jesus, who is by it identified as the promised Messiah.
Accordingly in announcing the birth of this Child, who is thus so emphatically presented as the Messiah, the angel is represented as
describing Him as 'the Son of the Most High God,' to whom should be given the throne of His father David, for an everlasting dominion (1:32); and as explaining the Divine Sonship of this Holy Child as due to, or rather as evidenced by, His supernatural birth (1:35). The latter of these two declarations is clearly the explanation of the former. The angel had promised Mary that she should bring forth a son who should rightly bear the great name of the 'Son of the Most High God,' and he now explains that this
Holy Son of hers shall be a supernatural product, and should by His supernatural advent be witnessed as rightly bearing the name of 'Son of God.' That the title 'Son of God' bears in it a Messianic implication is clear from the functions ascribed in verses 33, 34 to the child so designated, but that this Messiah was conceived as something more than human appears to be implied in the connection of His claim upon the title of 'Son of God' with the supernaturalness of His birth. Perhaps it is not reading too much into the passage to say that His preëxistence and heavenly descent are asserted,— certainly His heavenly, or supernatural, origin is asserted. This 'Son' is not merely to be attended with supernatural assistance and so to exhibit supernatural gifts: He is of supernatural origin, and therefore so far of supernatural nature. Already in the opening chapters of his Gospel, devoted to an account of the birth and infancy of Jesus, therefore, Luke makes it plain that the Jesus whose history he is to recount was first of all the Messiah of God, and as such was of supernatural origin and therefore holy, was to establish the throne of David in perpetuity, and was to be recognized as Lord of men and angels.
In accordance with these declarations, recorded in the opening of the Gospel, Luke tells us that the evil spirits knew Jesus to be 'the Christ' and greeted Him by the title 'Son of God' (4:41), and records Peter's great
confession in the form of "Thou art the Christ of God" (9:20), and Jesus' ready acceptance of it, as also His acquiescence in the ascription of the title of Messiah, 'Christ,' to Him by His enemies ('the Christ,' 22:67, cf. 23:39;
'Christ a King,' 23:2). Such an ascription of the title 'Christ' to Him by His enemies (22:67, 23:2, 35, 39) is the best of all proofs that it was commonly employed of Him by His followers. But the significant fact for us is that in accepting it at their hands Jesus claims it for Himself (22:67, 23:2). We are not surprised, therefore, to find Him using it of Himself when, after His resurrection, He expounded from Scripture to His followers the doctrine of the Suffering Messiah and applied it to Himself (24:26, 46), even as He had at an earlier point expounded to the scribes (20:41) the doctrine of the Reigning Messiah with an equally clear application of it to Himself. He who was David's 'Lord' as truly as his 'Son' was to enter upon His Lordship only through suffering, a suffering which should lay the basis of a preachment in His name of repentance and remission of sins (24:46). Here again is the Saviour, who is the Messiah, the Lord: and the Gospel ends much on the same note on which it began.
'The King'
The royal dignity of this 'Anointed King' (23:2) is of course dwelt upon in Luke as in the other Synoptics. But the precise term 'King' is not of frequent occurrence. His disciples as He entered Jerusalem on the ass's colt acclaimed Him as "the King that cometh in the name of the Lord" (19:38), and when the Pharisees appealed to Him to rebuke them therefor— employing the simple formula of respect, 'Teacher,' in addressing Him and thereby repudiating His Messianic claim by the contrast of this address with the title of 'King'—Jesus was so far from yielding to their request that He declared that if His disciples held their peace the very stones would cry out
and recognize Him as the Messianic sovereign (cf. Lk 3:8, Mt 3:9).
Similarly, when the Jews accused Him to Pilate as representing Himself to be "Christ, a King" (23:2), and that governor accordingly demanded of Him whether He was 'the King of the Jews,' our Lord was so far from denying the ascription that He expressly accepted the designation (23:3), and thus brought it about that He was mocked on the cross by this title, and had it set over His head (23:37, 38). The equivalent title 'Son of David' also is recorded as having been given Him by an applicant for His mercy as a recognition of His authority to heal (18:38, 39, cf. 1:32, 69), and by no means repudiated when (20:41 seq.) Jesus explained that He was something much more than David's son.
'God's Elect', 'God's Holy One'
In the midst of the designations we have somewhat rapidly adduced, clustering around the central title 'Christ,' there is one which we should not pass over unnoticed because it has not met us heretofore. The mocking
Jews, scoffing at Jesus as He hung on the cross, are represented as flinging in His face His claim to be 'the Christ of God, His Chosen' (23:35). The same designation occurs in the account of the transfiguration, where the voice from heaven is represented by Luke as declaring of Jesus, "This is my
Son, my Chosen" (9:35). No doubt the Greek is not quite the same in each instance: ὁ ἐκλεκτός of the one is replaced by ὁ ἐκλελεγμένος in the other.
But doubtless the underlying Messianic title is the same in both instances. It is rooted in Isaiah 42:1, "Behold my servant whom I uphold; my chosen in whom my soul delighteth," etc. (where the parallel terms are ὁ παῖς and ὁ ἐκλεκτός), and emerges into view even in pre-Christian Jewish usage
(Enoch 40:5, 45:3, 53:6, 39:9, etc.). The conception seems to be not essentially different from a designation which has already met us in Mark
(1:24) and which occurs also in the parallel passage of Luke (4:34), but elsewhere in the New Testament only at Jno 6:69—'the Holy One of God.'
For it does not seem likely that this epithet, in the first instance at least, refers to the moral purity of the Messiah, but rather probable that it designates Him as One whom God has "separated out, equipped and dedicated to His service," in a word as 'the Consecrated One.' In this understanding of it, it stands in close relation to the epithet, 'the Elect One,' and unites with it in emphasizing the unique loftiness of the Messianic office. At the same time it seems difficult to believe that there is no implication of moral purity, or perhaps we would better say moral exaltation, in the epithet, as used whether by Peter (Jno 6:69) or by the demoniacs (Mk 1:24, Lk 4:34), although this reference may be secondary. It is scarcely conceivable that the demons could recognize a mere officialstanding on sight (Mk 3:11), while the contrast between the moral perfection or exalted nature of Jesus and their uncleanness may be presumed to have obtruded itself upon their consciousness, whenever they were brought into His presence. Along with these titles we must note also that Luke, too, makes use of the title 'the Beloved,' though only at the baptism of our Lord (3:22), replacing it at the transfiguration by 'the Chosen
One' (9:35), and thus exhibiting the essential synonymy of the two.
Meaning of 'Holy'
It may be profitable to recall at this point that the epithet 'holy' is applied to our Lord also at the annunciation of His birth by the angel, when it was explained that it was the circumstance that His birth was not according to nature, but due to the coming down upon Mary of the Holy Ghost and the overshadowing of her by the power of the Most High, which justified the Holy Thing which was being begotten in being called 'the Son of God'
(1:35). The epithet is not elsewhere applied to Jesus in this Gospel, except in 2:23, where the precept of the law is quoted in reference to Him, that "every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord"— where it is obviously the conception of consecration which is prominent. In the present passage, however, it seems equally plain that it is not the notion of being set apart for God so much as that of being in Himself worthy of reverence and calling out veneration which is prominent. He who is thus supernaturally born is "holy" in the sense that He brings with Him something of the superhuman character belonging to His origin, and is thus not set apart among men, but is by nature distinguished from men—shall we not say, "separate from sinners"?
Nevertheless, the title 'Son of God' as applied to our Lord in Luke is closely connected with His Messianic office: though, of course, it is not limited to that office in its implications. It occurs in this precise form but seldom. Besides the declaration of the announcing angel that He shall be called the 'Son of the Most High' (1:32)—evidently with a Messianic connotation, as the subsequent context shows, but by no means equally evidently with none but a human connotation, as also the subsequent context assures us (1:35),—it occurs only in the narrative of the Temptation, on the lips of Satan (4:3, 9), and elsewhere on the lips of evil spirits (4:41,
8:28 'Son of the Most High God') who knew He was the Christ, and in the mouth of His judges when they adjured Him to tell whether He were 'the Christ,' and on His answering that they should from thenceforth see Him,
'the Son of Man,' seated at the right hand of God, demanded afresh, "Art thou, then, the Son of God?" (22:70). It seems clear, indeed, from these passages that the title 'Son of God' was conceived as a Messianic title, and so far as the synonym of the simple 'Christ'; but it is difficult not to gather
from them also that it gave expression to a higher Messianic conception than was conveyed by the simple 'Christ.' The brief conversation recorded as taking place between our Lord and His judges seems to have, in fact, the precise purport that in accepting the designation of 'the Christ' He does so in such a manner as to pour into it a higher content than His judges were willing to accord to it—a higher content which they felt was more appropriately expressed by another title,—the 'Son of God.' Whence it seems to follow that 'Son of God,' while a current Messianic designation, was a Messianic designation charged with a higher connotation than merely that of the Messianic King—a conclusion we have already drawn from 1:32, 35.
'The Son'
The higher connotation of Sonship to God is, however, in Luke, as in the other Synoptists, most clearly expressed by the undefined term 'Son.' Luke, as well as the others, records the divine proclamation of the Sonship of Jesus from heaven, on the occasion as well of His baptism as of His transfiguration: "Thou art my Son, the Beloved; in thee I am well pleased"
(3:22), "This is my Son, the Chosen" (9:35): and gives us the parable in which Jesus, with evident reference to Himself (20:13, 14), talks of the wicked husbandmen, to whom, after they had evil-entreated his servants, the lord of the vineyard sent in the end his 'beloved son' who was the heir.
Luke also records a number of those pregnant sayings in which Jesus appeals to God as in a unique sense His 'Father': and he begins this series of pregnant sayings at so early a period as to make it clear to us that it represents a unique filial consciousness coeval with the dawn of our Lord's intelligence. Already in His earliest youth He could speak of being "in His
Father's house" as His natural place of abode (2:49), even as in later life He
lived in constant communion with the Father (10:21, 21, 22, 27, 23:34, 46), and equally naturally spoke of "the kingdom His Father had appointed
Him" (22:29), and at the end spoke of His readiness to send forth "the promise of His Father" (24:49). The glory He expected to enter, it is to be observed, was no less His own than His Father's glory (22:29). But above all, Luke records for us that remarkable passage (10:21, 22) in which our
Lord declares the perfect mutual knowledge which exists between the 'Father' and 'Son,' by virtue of which the 'Son' is constituted the sole adequate revealer of the 'Father'—that 'Son' to whom all things were declared by His 'Father': on the basis of which He announces that the things seen and heard in Him are the things which prophets and kings have desired to see and hear and have not. The phraseology in which Luke repeats this great saying differs slightly from that found in Matthew. But the two evangelists agree in all that is essential. In both it is unlimitedly "all things" that are said to have been delivered by the 'Father' to the 'Son,' so that God is affirmed to hold back nothing, but to share all that He has with the 'Son.'
In both the intimate knowledge of the 'Father' and 'Son' of each other is affirmed to be alike complete, exhaustive and unbrokenly continuous. In both the 'Son' is represented to be the sole source of knowledge of God. But in Luke it is said, not that the 'Father' and 'Son' know each other, but that each knows "what the other is," that is to say, all that each is. It would be difficult to frame a statement which could more sharply assert the essential deity of the 'Son.'36
The 'Son of Man'
Our Lord's own favorite designation of Himself is, however, in Luke as in the other Synoptists, 'the Son of Man'; and as in the other Synoptists, this designation is in Luke exclusively a self-designation of Jesus' own. For
obviously when the angel at the empty tomb is represented as saying, "Remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified and the third day rise again" (24:7),—this is not an instance of the employment of this title by another than Jesus, but only another attribution of it to Jesus. The title occurs in Luke about twenty-five times, and in the same collocations and with the same import as in the other
Synoptists. If we attempt, therefore, to derive from the substance of the passages in which it is employed a notion of the conception which was attached to it, we arrive at the same conclusion as in the case of the other
Synoptists. In Luke, the purpose of the coming of the 'Son of Man' is declared in the form, "The Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost" (19:10).
Accordingly human destiny is connected absolutely with the relations of men to Him. Those are blessed whom men hate and ostracise and reproach, casting out their name as evil, if it be for the 'Son of Man's' sake (6:22). For everyone who shall confess Him before men, him shall the 'Son of Man' confess before the angels of God (12:8); and on the other hand every one who denies the 'Son of Man' in the presence of men shall be denied in the presence of the angels of God (12:9), and whosoever shall be ashamed of the 'Son of Man' and of His words, of him shall the 'Son of Man' be ashamed when He comes in His own glory and that of the Father and of the holy angels (9:26). That nevertheless blasphemy against the 'Son of Man' may be forgiven as blasphemy against the Spirit may not (12:10), doubtless belongs to the humility of His earthly life before He has come in His glory.
For in this life He comports Himself like other men, eating and drinking (7:34), passing a hard and suffering existence (9:58), and so fulfilling the
Scriptures (18:31 seq.). Meanwhile, however, He exercises even on earth the authority to regulate religious observances (6:5) and to forgive sins
(5:24). In other words, the sufferings He endures (9:44, 22:48) are not the result of fate or chance, and do not belong to Him by right, but are voluntarily undertaken as part of His mission (18:31, 32, 17:25, 24:7). They issue in death indeed (9:22, 18:33, 22:22, 24:7), but after death comes resurrection (9:22, 11:30, 18:33, 24:7); and after resurrection, in its own good time, a return in His appropriate glory (22:69, 9:26, 12:40, 17:22, 24,
18:8, 21:27, 22:69). The humiliation over, at once the 'Son of Man' is seated at the right hand of the power of God (22:69), and when He comes again He will come "in a cloud with great power and glory" (21:27),—a glory described as "His own glory, and the glory of His Father and of the holy angels" (9:26). The suddenness of this coming is adverted to (12:40, 17:22–
24, 26, 30), and the main fact emphasized, that it is in point of significance the day of judgment, when the destinies of men shall be finally assigned them by the 'Son of Man' (21:36, 12:8, 9:26): destinies which shall be determined according to the attitude which each has occupied towards the 'Son of Man' on earth (12:8, 9:26). To all His enemies it is therefore a day of vengeance (18:8), and only as one prevails to stand before the 'Son of Man' can he hope to escape the dread which His coming brings to the earth
(12:36). The picture, it will be seen, is the picture of a Redeemer and Adjuster who comes in humiliation to save, and returns in glory to gather up the results of His work and finally to adjust the issues of the historical development of the world. Whence does He come to save? There is no plain declaration. We are left to infer it from the obvious connection of the title with the oracle of Daniel 7:13, from the more narrative portions of the Gospel, as e. g., the opening chapters where the supernatural birth of Jesus
is set forth in detail and with all its implications, and from the very clear suggestion that the whole career of the 'Son of Man,' in its earthly manifestation and its subsequent glory alike, is of a piece and is the outworking of a definite plan of action held clearly in His own mind from the first and carried firmly out in every detail of His living.
Jesus' Mission The sense of His mission which is thus inherent in the favorite Messianic designation He applied to Himself finds expression also in other forms of locution which Luke reports our Lord as employing. Thus, for example, He is reported as speaking of Himself repeatedly as "coming" with obvious pregnancy of meaning, possibly with some reference to the expectation of the Messianic coming which found embodiment in the designation of the Messiah as 'the One to Come,'—a designation in Luke also reported as applied to Jesus hypothetically by John the Baptist (7:19, 20),—but certainly with its chief implication in a profound sense of His mission
([3:16]; 4:34, 5:32, 7:19; [cf. 7:33 of John the Baptist], 19:10), and possibly with some contrast in mind with His second coming (9:26 [12:36 seq.] 18:8,
21:27). Without essential difference of meaning this "coming" is interchanged with "being sent"—the author of the "mission" being thus more clearly indicated as God. Thus Luke varies Mark's language (1:38) in recording our Lord's declaration that "He had come forth" specifically to preach, by giving it rather: "for therefore was He sent" (4:43)—plainly indicating that "came" and "was sent" alike refer to His divine mission.
Possibly in this variation there is an allusion to the passage from Isaiah which Jesus read in the synagogue at Nazareth (cf. Lk 4:18), but in any event the term is unambiguous, and is elsewhere repeated (9:48, 10:16), and from it we may at least learn that according to the representation in Luke
also Jesus prosecuted His work on earth under a sense of performing step by step a task which had been given Him to do and which He had come into the world to perform.
The 'Bridegroom'
We need call attention only in passing to the record by Luke also (5:34, 35) of Jesus' employment of the figure of the 'Bridegroom' with reference to Himself and His relations to God's people, thus declared to be His Bride, as they were currently represented as the Bride of Jehovah in the Old
Testament. In this remarkable saying, preserved in all three of the Synoptics and assigned by all of them to the earlier portion of His ministry, we have evidence not only that Jesus regarded His ministry as a mission He had come to perform, and already knew that it involved His death, but that He conceived this mission as Messianic and the Messiahship as a divine function, so that His coming was the coming of Jehovah, the faithful husband of His people (Hos 2:19).
The general impression left on the mind by this series of designations is that Luke was less interested in the preëxistence of our Lord than in His divine quality and the divine nature of His mission. To him Jesus was the authoritative Teacher, the God-appointed Messiah, the heaven-sent
Redeemer from sin and divine Founder of the Kingdom of righteousness, the Judge of all the earth, Lord of men and angels, and God's own Son, between whom and the Father there persists unbroken and perfect communion. If there is scarcely as full a witness to these things in his general narrative as meets us in Matthew, there is an air thrown over the whole of settled conviction which is very striking; and the reader carries away with him the impression that the engrossment of the evangelist with
his narrative represses much more testimony to the divine dignity of the Messiah than actually finds expression in his pages.