Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:28:12.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jesus as Lord

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2011

Benjamin Wisner Bacon
Benjamin Wisner Bacon
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In successive discussions of the title Son of God, which seems to have been Jesus' own self-designation, and Son of Man, which would seem to have been applied to him after his death by the primitive Aramaic-speaking community of believers in his second coming, we have sought to disentangle primitive from secondary tradition. We have particularly emphasized the fact that in its distinctive principles Jesus' own teaching attaches itself to the primitive form of the messianic ideal—Israel as Yahweh's son; not the later theocratic—the Davidic heir to the throne as Son of God; nor the still later apocalyptic—the supernatural deliverer coming on the clouds of heaven as the fulfilment of the promise. In agreement with this view of the teaching of Jesus, our earliest documents, the Pauline epistles, make sonship in the ethical and religious sense the essence of the glad tidings. Since the publication of our argument our conclusions have been confirmed by the important newly-discovered document, the Odes of Solomon. The confirmation is especially strong if the view of Harnack be taken, that the Odes in their original form are Jewish, rather than the view of their discoverer, J. Rendel Harris, who regards them as Christian. The Odes give irrefutable evidence of the existence in first-century Judaism, or at least in primitive Christian circles, of a doctrine of sonship in the ethical and religious sense closely in line with what we have urged as the distinctive element in the messianic consciousness of Jesus. The ideal of the odist for Israel is an ideal of spiritual sonship. By the knowledge and love of the Beloved, “the Most High and Merciful,” Israel is guaranteed not only sonship to God, but immortality, an eternal dwelling in God's presence.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , April 1911 , pp. 204 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1911

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cf. Euseb., H. E. ii, 23 13.

2 Cf. Jerome, De viris illustribus 2.

3 Cf. Clem. Alex., Strom, iv, 6 35.

4 It is not within the province of the present discussion to point out the practical superiority of a formula expressive of the sentiment of personal loyalty over a formula expressive only of abstract belief. Nevertheless, in days like ours, when efforts are being made to find a watchword of union, one can hardly resist asking the question, Why not return to the earliest attested of all? Thousands who differ widely in their definitions of the person of Christ, and their theories of the nature of this redemption, stand ready to unite upon the principle of a common loyalty to a common Master. Why not unite on the confession of “Jesus as Lord”?

5 Cf. also Rom. 8 34, Eph. 1 20, Col. 3 1.

6 Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. xxvi (1907), pp. 151–161Google Scholar.

7 A notable instance is the quotation of Ps. 102 25 ff. in Heb. 1 10–12 as if applying to Christ as creator. See the present writer's discussion in Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. iii, 1902. Here the doctrine is of course a Pauline doctrine.

8 Case, ibid. p. 161.

9 In addition to Acts 2 34 f. and 1 Cor. 15 25, see especially Rom. 8 34, Eph.1 20, Col. 3 1. Fss. 110 and 8, combined in 1 Cor. 15 25–27, are made almost the entire Scripture substratum of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

10 In the Gospel of Matthew, which was not followed by a record of the mighty works of the Spirit, the Lordship is expressed by a declaration of Jesus (Mt. 28 18; cf. Mk. 16 17).

11 On the later and legendary character of Acts 1 6–14 as compared with Acts 2 15 ft., and still more with Acts 3 1–4 31, see Harnack, Acts, ad loc.

12 Whether the Lordship (κυριότης) despised by the heretics in Jude 8, 2 Pet. 2 10, is that of Christ is doubtful.

13 Such, according to Sanday and Headlain, should be the rendering of Rom. 1 4.

14 Clement of Alexandria shows precisely this point of view in arguing for the observance of the fourteenth of Nisan as the anniversary of the death and resurrection. “And the resurrection confirms this [argument for quartodeciman observance]. At all events [Jesus] rose on the third day, which is the first day of the weeks of wheat-harvest, on which it was prescribed that the priest should offer the sheaf [of firstfruits]. (Citation in Paschal Chronicle.)

15 Epiphanius, Haer. ἂπαξ γὰρ τοῦ ἒτους μίαν ἠμέραν τοῦ πάσχα οί τοιοῦτοι (quartodecimans) θιλονείκως ἂγουσι.

16 Apollinaris of Hierapolis in Paschal Chronicle.

17 Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, p. 471. The italics are ours.

18 “And the Lord cried out, saying, My Power, my Power, thou hast forsaken me. And as soon as he had spoken he was taken up” (καὶ εἰπὼν ἂνελήΦθη).

19 New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia, Art. “Easter,” vol. iv (1909), pp. 46 fGoogle Scholar.

20 Didache, 8 1.

21 Even the quartodeciman Fourth Gospel is affected on this point by its predecessors (cf. Jn. 20).

22 Cf. the statement of Clement cited above, p. 219, note.

23 Orthodox rabbinic interpretation of the legal date “the morrow after the sabbath” seems to have given it the sense as early as New Testament times of Nisan 16, regardless of the day of the week. Samaritan and sectarian practice made Firstfruits (and consequently Pentecost) fall invariably on Sunday.

24 Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, p. 466.