Vol. 2 No. 3 (1958): 115-27
Christology in Luke-Acts (2)
Abraham J. Malherbe
II. Christological Titles
The Introduction to Luke-Acts
In the Prologue (Luke 1:1-4), which is to be considered as the prologue to Luke and Acts, Luke states his purpose: He plans to write a history of what has taken place from the beginning. In introducing Jesus, whose life and work are the subject of the first book, and who is responsible for the events of the second book, Luke clarifies his purpose still further. Jesus is introduced as the Savior. During his ministry he was to fulfill his mission in this respect, and after his death his disciples carried on the work as they carried the good news about him to the world.
At the Annunciation Mary is told to call her son Jesus (Luke 1: 31). Although this was a common name, and did not ordinarily carry the connotation of its meaning, "savior," it does so in the birth narratives. Matthew interprets it in this way (Matt. 1:21). Furthermore, Jesus is also called Soter, "Savior," in Luke 2:11, a title which also appears in Acts 5:31 and 13:23. The use of the cognates of soter in Luke and Acts further indicates that the theme of salvation as it is related to Jesus stands in the foreground for Luke. The frequency in the occurrence of these cognates distinguishes Luke from the other Synoptists. Only he uses soter, soteria, and soterion. Thus soteria is connected with Jesus' activity (Luke 19:9), and he himself is the salvation (Acts 13:26), and salvation is to be found only in him (Acts 4:12). In the Gospel, sozo, which can mean "I heal," or "I deliver,"1 occurs seventeen times2 and it is never used in a purely therapeutic manner when it is used in connection with healing. There is always a higher purpose, and this higher purpose is the reason why the healing is performed. It thus stands frequently with pistis, "faith," and its cognates, and with psyche, "soul."
Soter is used of Hellenistic deities and of the Emperors3 but what is in the background of Christian usage is the Old Testament usage, where it is used of God (Isa. 43:3,11; Jer. 14:8). It is also used of God in Luke 1:47. According to Luke it is really God who is responsible for salvation (Luke 12:30,31), and Jesus becomes Savior only through the action of God (Acts 5:31; 13:23). With this con-
1Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 805f.
2Moulton and Geden, A Concordance to the Greek Testament, has been used throughout this study.
3W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos, pp. 240-246; R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, p. 79; Oscar Cullmann, Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments, p. 249, thinks that we can look to the Hellenistic ruler cult as a secondary source of the title.
115
tact with the Old Testament, the introduction of Jesus as Savior therefore sets the general tone for the Gospel and Acts.
The messianic strain is also introduced in the Annunciation when Mary is told that he would he the Davidic king and called the Son of the Most High (Luke l:32ff.; cf. Isa. 9:6f.; Ps. 2:7). The holy child who was to be horn (to gennomenon hagion) would he called huios theou, "Son of God" (Luke 1:35). Huios theou is therefore not a messianic title grounded on Jesus' work, as those hold who accept the adoptionistic view, but is grounded on his origin.4 Luke cannot be accused of "heightening the Christology" here. He is writing to Greeks, and is describing Messiahship in terms that would be meaningful to thema Christology "of status in metaphysical terms of . . . divine origin."5 The other instance in the Gospel where Jesus is called hagios, "holy," is in keeping with this. In Luke 4: 33ff. the man with an unclean demon shouts out that he knows Jesus is the hagios tou theou. It is more than a messianic title here. The man with the unclean spirit is opposed by Jesus, who has the Holy Spirit, and recognizes him as the one who is ushering in the dispensation of the Spirit, which marks the overthrow of the demons.
Luke sets out, then, to sketch the life of Jesus as the Savior and the Messiah. As he shows the progression of Jesus' ministry, beginning in Galilee and continuing through Samaria to Judea, he gradually unfolds the nature of Jesus through his use of the titles that are applied to and by the Lord. Finally, as he brings his second book to a close, he looks to Jesus as Savior and Messiah (Acts 28: 23ff.) just as he had done at the beginning of his first book.
Christological Titles
Son of God
Jesus' baptism marks the beginning of his ministry (Luke 3:23). As he takes up his ministry he is declared God's "Beloved Son" when the Spirit descends upon him (Luke 3:22). The title huios theou, "Son of God," was a well-known title in the Graeco-Roman world at the beginning of the first century. Dalman quotes instances where it was used of Hellenistic rulers.6 Inscriptions also reveal that the kings of Egypt were supposed to have been descendants of the god
4 O. Proksch, Theologisches Woerterbuch, I, p. 102. Cf. also Lk. 3:22, where the Spirit is present at the baptism, and the declaration on Jesus' sonship.
5Gregory Dix, Jew and Greek, p. 79f, ". . . if one studies non-Christian Jewish messianism, it is quite plain that it would be utterly impossible to 'heighten Christology' of 'Messiahship' in any way, once the evidence is read in Jewish terms. . . It yields . . . a Christology of function in history."
6 G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, p. 273.
116
Ra, and that they used this honorific title in describing themselves.7 "Son of God" in the Jewish background had reference to the people of God, or to the king as head of the people.8 It is possible that the important quotation of Psalm 2:7, "You are my Son, today I have begotten thee," was used messianically in Judaism, as Mark 12:35-37 and 14:61 suggest. The failure to find explicit messianic interpretations of it in Judaism could be ascribed to reaction by the Rabbis against Christian usage of it in application to Jesus.9
The Hebrew use of "Son" with a noun in the genitive expressed a very close relationship between the son and the person indicated by the noun. This construction is Hebraistic.10 In this manner men are called huoi anthropon instead of simply anthropoi, not merely as a periphrasis, but because the expression shows more clearly man's origin and nature than does the simple anthropoi.11 "Son of God" thus meant a member of the genus God.l2 That this was the connotation that Jesus' use of "Son" had, is clear from John 5:18 and 10:29-33.
It has already been pointed out that the sonship of the human Jesus is by virtue of the work of the Spirit (Luke 1:35), and that this statement is made by the angel Gabriel at the Annunciation. The next statement of sonship is made by the voice from heaven at Jesus' baptism, where the Spirit is again present (Luke 3:22). Although there is a strong textual variant, the better reading is eudokesa, "I am well pleased," which would eliminate the use of Ps. 2:7, contained in the other variant,13 and would establish Isa. 42:1 as setting the tone for Jesus' ministry. As the Son of God, he is also the Servant of the Lord (Isa. 42:1), who begins to fulfill his mission.l4 In the Temptation the sonship again comes to the foreground. The temptation is for Jesus to misuse his position as Son (Luke 4:3,9). Here also, the Spirit plays an important part. The Spirit leads him into the wilderness to be tempted, and after he has overcome every temptation, he returns in the power of the Spirit to Galilee.
7A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 346ff. Cf. also J. Bieneck, Sohn Gottes als Christusbezeichnung der Synoptiker, p. 27ff.
8Bieneck, op. cit., pp. 12-26.
9V. Taylor, The Names of Jesus, p. 54. IV Ezra 7:28f.; 13:32,37, 52; 14:9 have Son of God, but B. Violet, Die Apokalypsen des Esra und des Buch Baruch in deutscher Gestalt, p. 397, has shown that the original here is pais.
10 Blass-Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, par. 162.
11H. Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, p. 558.
12 G. Wetter, Der Sohn Gottes, p. 182.
13Supported by D it Ju Cl Or.
14See Cullmann, op. cit., pp. 50-81 for the development of this.
117
While Jesus works in Galilee, the demons recognize him as the Son of God, and know that he is the Christ (Luke 4:41). That the titles are significant for Luke here is clear from the fact that neither Matthew nor Mark contains them in the parallels.15 The Gerasene demoniac also calls him the "Son of the Most High God" (Luke 8:28). At the Transfiguration (Luke 9:35), the further revelation of his sonship falls into the pattern that has so far been set. The voice from heaven calls him ho huios mou ho eklelegmenos, "my chosen Son," a messianic reference (cf. Isa. 42:1).16 Upon the return of the Seventy, they report that even the demons were subject to his name, and Jesus replies that he had seen Satan falling from heaven (Luke 10:17-20). Then follows the saying that only the Son knows the Father, and the Father the Son (Luke 10:21,22). The keynote of the passage is the hiddenness of the Son, and the subjection of the demons to him.
The first explicit connection between the Son and suffering is made when Jesus obliquely refers to himself as the Son in the parable of the vineyard, which he tells in the temple (Luke 20:9-18). To prove that the "beloved son" will be rejected, he quotes Ps. 118, "The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the cornerstone," a psalm that Jeremias has shown to have been interpreted messianically.17 Luke is interested in this phase of the ministry of Jesus, as his work draws to a close, to connect the title Son of God to the Passion, and he therefore does not mention the use of the title in a context that would not contribute to this picture. In the discussion of the time of the Parousia (Luke 21:32ff.), therefore, he omits the statement that not even the Son knows the time, which is in both Matthew (24:36) and Mark (13:32). The Son of God does not enter into the eschatological discussion with him.
The questioning during the trial reveals more about Luke's concept of the Son. Luke (22:67ff.) gives a fuller account of the interrogation of Jesus as to whether he is the Christ, the Son of God, than Matthew (26:63) or Mark (14:61). He expands the one question into two, so that the one has to do with his sonship, and the other with his messiahship. The question of his messiahship, whether he is the Christ, is regarded as political by his hearers. Luke does not give the outright affirmative answer, such as Mark does, and which must ultimately have been made by Jesus. He rather records Jesus' reply that his accusers lack faith in his true messiahship, and that
15Huck-Lietzmann, Synopse der Drei ersten Evangelien, is the synopsis used for study of the parallels.
16 Luke's use of the perfect participle eklelegmenos, instead of eklektos, as in the original, Isa. 42:1, or of agapetos, as in the Matthean and Marcan parallels, could be significant in the light of the adoptionistic view. For Luke the act which was determinative for Jesus' sonship had taken place in the past, and He was then only acting as the result of that act.
17 Jeremias, Theologisches Woerterbuch, IV, p. 276f.
118
they also lack the willingness of discuss it (vv. 67,68). In contrast to the political connotation that "Christ" must have had on their lips,18 Jesus replies that "from now on" they would see the Son of Man sizing on the right hand of God. The Passion has begun, and his glorification has therefore also begun. By the use of the self-designation "Son of Man,"19 Jesus arrogates more-than-human rank to himself when he says that he will be occupying the place of honor next to God. His judges therefore ask him whether he is laying claim to being the Son of God. Again Jesus does not answer directly, but his reply is nevertheless interpreted by them as being in the affirmative, and as constituting blasphemy. It is clear from the trial, then, that Luke is interested in the two designations as they are incorporated in the charges, and that he gives a fuller report than that of Matthew and Mark in order to develop the use of the titles. In Luke the titles Son of God and Christ are parallel in the ministry of Jesus, and in the Passion, as Jesus fulfills his mission as the Son of God, the title Christ comes to take over. The Son of God looks to the Cross and the Resurrection, and it is there that he becomes the Christ in the full meaning of the term. Luke tells us that it was God who made Jesus the Christ in the resurrection (Acts 2:36; 13:33), and he represents Jesus as teaching his disciples after the resurrection that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer (Luke 24:26,46). The only disciple who uses the title Son of God is Paul (Acts 9:20), and it is noteworthy that he proclaims as Son of God the Jesus who confronted him on the Damascus road, "the Jesus whom you are persecuting." With this development from "Son of God" to "Christ" in mind, then, it is clear why Luke separates the two titles in his account of the trial.
In summary, it has been seen that the term Son of God is used by Luke to describe Jesus as he derives his being from the Holy Spirit. Before his birth, the title is used by an angel, and during his life by God and by demons. These are all beings that have a deeper understanding than man. His sonship is hidden to the world since it involved suffering and death. On his way to Jerusalem the hiddenness in suffering is emphasized, and it is only during his trial in his statement, "You say that I am" (the Son of God), that his sonship comes to the foreground, and that the term is almost placed in his mouth. The closer that he comes to fulfilling his ministry as the Son, the more he is referred to as the Christ.
Christ
Christos, "Christ," is the verbal adjective used to translate maschiah, "anointed," in the Septuagint. The title is messianic, and was used in the Old Testament pre-eminently to denote the Son of
18See below, pp. 10, II.
19See below, p. 13ff.
119
David, through whom God would deliver and rule his people.20 Luke uses it messianically, but it is clear that his meaning differs from that of the populace. The title is never placed in the mouth of Jesus with reference to himself.
In the birth narrative, the shepherds are told that in the city of David a "Savior, who is Christ the Lord," is born (Luke 2:11). It is said of Simeon that he would see the Lord's Christ (Luke 2:26).
Near the beginning of the Galilean ministry, the demons cry out that Jesus is the Son of God (Luke 4:41). Jesus rebukes them, and does not permit them to speak, and Luke gives the reason for this, that they knew he was the Christ, a statement not found in the parallels. As in the case of "Son," then, the supernatural powers recognize his true nature, and this is hidden from the world. Toward the close of the Galilean period, when Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ of God, the title Son of Man is introduced to counteract the popular connotation that the term had for Peter (Luke 9:18-22), and the disciples are admonished to tell this to no one. The necessity of suffering and the rejection by the elders and chief priests and scribes is then introduced.
There is no mention at all of the term in the Samaritan period. It is as Jesus and the disciples draw closer to Jerusalem that the nationalistic messianic discussions begin anew, and the meaning of "Christ" for Luke comes to the foreground. In a more simplified form than Mark, Luke shows the inadequacy of the Jewish concept of "Christ" (Luke 20:41-44). In discussion with the scribes, Jesus shows that their statement of Christ's descent from David is in tension with David's own statement in Psalm 110, that the Messiah is his Lord.21 Jesus thus raises the view of Christ beyond the political. For Luke, to be Christ is not only a matter of lineage, but is the result of God's action in the resurrection (Acts 2:36). Jesus is not the Christ by virtue of what he does, but because of God's action through him.
Luke's account of the trial further illustrates his understanding of the term. The discussion of this subject under the title "Son of God" makes this clear. Luke does not have Jesus admit to messiahship, for his messiahship is only fully realized in the resurrection, but he also does not admit to being the Christ because of the false views that the Jews had concerning the Messiah. Although Jesus' final statement is evasive, they interpret it as being affirmative (Luke 22:71), and continue to use the title in the political manner. Jesus is accused before Pilate of making the claim that "he himself
20Taylor, op. cit., p. 18.
21Jesus' use of Ps. 110 probably indicates that it was generally used in a messianic sense. The failure of the Rabbis to use it in this way can be ascribed to polemical interests. Thus Strack-Billerbeck, IV, p. 45, 458f. For an opposite view, cf. A. Vis, "Is Ps. 110 een Messiaanse Psalm?", Vox Theologica, 1944, p. 93.
120
is Christ the king" (Luke 23:2). Luke differs from the parallels in that he emphasizes that the Jews press the political charge before Pilate. The crowd (Luke 23:25) and the robber on the Cross (Luke 23:39) use the title in this way to denote the messianic deliverer. The resurrected Jesus emphasizes a totally different aspect of messiahship, namely that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer, as had been prophesied (Luke 24:26,46).
In Acts, the title is always used in a formula22 or in a messianic sense,23 except in two cases (9:34; 10:36), in which it is used as a name. All the instances in which the title is used with a messianic connotation are used in connection with Jews, except 8:5, which tells of Philip in Samaria. The title would not be significant to a Gentile. Where something is said of the nature or work of Christ in these messianic passages, it is said that he was raised from the dead (Acts 2:31,36), and that it was necessary for him to suffer (Acts 3:18, 20; 17:3; 26:23).
In summary, then, it is clear that the use of Christ parallels that of Son of God, and that it continues in the church as the title which describes Jesus after he has finished his ministry as the Son of God. Like Son of God, the title is announced before his birth, is uttered by supernatural beings, and, since it is connected with sayings on suffering, its true meaning remains hidden. The title indeed comes into clearer focus during the Passion, and is explained after the resurrection, which overcomes the problem of Jesus' suffering. Its use was so common in the life of the church that it came to be used as a proper name, and in many formulas.
Son of Man
A similar development can be seen in Luke's use of the title Son of Man. It is important to notice the construction of the title before entering into the discussion of its usage. The title always appears in the form ho huios tou anthropou, with two articles, and always with the singular anthropou. The Old Testament construction, huios anthropou, as it appears frequently in the Psalms and Ezekiel, and in Dan. 7:13, is not parallel, since it merely describes man. Thus Daniel has hos huios anthropou, "like a man." The construction of the New Testament title is unique, but it does not need to push one to Lietzmann's skepticism, "Jesus did not personally use the title 'Son of Man' because it did not exist in Aramaic and on philological grounds could not exist.24 The term is intelligible from a purely philological point of view. The use of the genitive with huios, to de-note who shares in this thing, or who stands in close relationship
22 Acts 2:38; 3:6; 4:10; 8:12; 10:48; 11:17; 15:26; 16:18; 20:21; 24:24; 28:31.
23Acts 2:31,36; 3:18,20; 4:26; 5:42; 8:5; 9:22; 17:3; 18:5; 18: 28; 26:23.
24H. Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn, p. 85.
121
with it, is a Hebraism.25 In our title tou anthropou is generic; not descended from some man, but having the nature of man, a son of mankind. This is the basic meaning of Son of Man in Luke. The Aramaic barnascha, which is said to underlie ho huios tou anthropou, means "man," and this is the primary meaning in the Gospels. Jesus used this title of himself to indicate his great humanity and humility in the face of the political aspirations of the Jews. The messianic connotation that came to be attached to the title came about because of its use to emphasize Jesus' view of his messiahship in opposition to that of the Jews.
The question of the origin and background of the title has been a hotly discussed subject. A widely held view is that the title was a common messianic designation in the time of Jesus.26 The basis for this view is that the title is found in I Enoch. Whole chapters of I Enoch are said to prove beyond doubt that "Son of Man" was a regular messianic title before the time of Christ.27 The theory is also held that Jesus did not use the title of himself, but that it was an innovation of the disciples. The relationship between the use of Son of Man in I Enoch and its appearance in the Gospels can be discussed in connection with the question whether Jesus himself used the title. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the view that he did. In more than eighty appearances of the title in the Gospels, it is always placed in the mouth of Jesus.28 Stephen (Acts 7:56) is the only other man who uses the title, and this occurrence is significant, as will later appear. If the title were an invention of the evangelists, the question immediately arises, Why was it not used by others? The same question also confronts the assertion that the title was a common messianic one. The logical explanation why the title was not used by Christians in referring to Jesus applies also to Servant of the Lord, which was also not common. These titles expressed the humanity of Jesus too strongly, and presented a figure of him as suffering. The tendency was rather to use titles like Lord, or Christ, which expressed the victory over suffering and death.
The usage of the Gospels is not dependent on I Enoch. The Enoch Parables (I Enoch 37-71), in which the title is found, may have
25Blass-Debrunner, op. cit., par. 162. Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 166ff. holds that the construction could have been used by a Greek who wanted to use impressive style. Sanday, in A. E. J. Rawlinson, The New Testament Doctrine of the Christ, p. 244, suggests that, since Jesus spoke Greek, the Greek form might have been coined by Him.
26 E.g. Ian L. Sanders, "The Origin and Significance of the Title 'Son of Man' as Used in the Gospels," Scripture, April, 1958.
27J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, London, 1947, p. 256f.
28In Jno. 12:34 the title is used by the crowd, but only as attributing it to Jesus.
122
been written in the first century B.C.,29 but it is significant that the Parables have not been found in the Enoch manuscripts discovered at Qumran.30 The passages in which the term appears are interpolations. The title in I Enoch could be an interpolation by an unknown Christian copyist,31 but more probably the author of the particular section of Enoch was influenced by the Gospels. In the light of the Qumran findings, it will be well to re-evaluate the approach made by von Hoffmann, Philippi, and especially Weisse, who thought that Enoch had been influenced by the Gospels.32 The points of contact between Son of Man in Enoch and in the Gospels have been emphasized, and the differences have been neglected. In Enoch there is no emphasis on the humanity of the Son of Man at all, while this is one of the main characteristics, if not indeed the main one, in the Gospels. It is more readily understandable that an over-emphasis on the eschatological element of the Son of Man in the Gospels could lead to apocalyptic view of Enoch, than that the picture of the lowly Son of Man could be derived from the Enoch Parables. Enoch, furthermore, looks forward to the coming of the Son of Man, whereas in Jesus he has already come.
The title is original with Jesus. The attempt to find the basis of the title in the ancient Iranian myth of Primal Man,33 is interesting as an example of the religionsgeschichtliche approach, but it also points out the weakness of that method. In the absence of any demonstrated connection between the two concepts, the most that can be said is that such dependence is possible, but not probable. The idea that Jesus used the title with Dan. 7:13 in the background of his thinking34 is also fraught with difficulty. The title in Daniel describes a heavenly figure in the form of a man, and not "the Son of Man." The contact between the thinking of Jesus and the Danielic passage seems to be the Kingdom of God, and not the Son of Man.35
29J. Bonsirven, La Bible Apocryphe, Paris, 1953, p. 46. Cf. J. Frey in Dictionnaire de la Bible (Supplement), I, p. 360ff. for a more complete treatment.
30Cf. F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies, New York, 1958, p. 150n.
31J. Campbell, "The Origin and Meaning of the term 'Son of Man'," Journal of Theological Studies, XLVIII (1947), pp. 145-155.
32 J. C. K. Hoffmann, Ueber die Entstehungszeit des Buches Henoch; H. Weisse, Die Evangelienfrage, 1856, pp. 214-244; F. Philippi, Das Buch Henoch, 1868. Cf. also E. Sjoeberg, Der Menschensohn im aethiopischen Henochbuch, Lund, 1946.
33 C. Kraeling, Anthropos and the Son of Man, 1927, p. 145ff.; S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, New York, 1956.
34W. Manson, Jesus the Messiah, p. 117,120; C. J. Cadoux, The Historic Mission of Jesus, p. 99f.
35See V. Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice, London, 1955, p. 22, for the discussion whether Dan. 7:13-14 is to be understood in a collective or individual sense, and whether it could be applied to Jesus.
123
This view is usually held in conjunction with the view of Daniel as being representative of Jewish apocalypticism of the second century B.C. Jesus is therefore supposed to have used a current messianic title. The late date for Daniel still has to be proved, however, and the only other works in which the title appear, the Parables in I Enoch and 2 Esdras, are both late. The eschatological setting of the title has been over-emphasized in every theory which advocates a pre-Christian usage. In reality, the title is used primarily in the Gospels to illustrate the humanity of Jesus, and the eschatological usage appears to be an extension of this.
Luke has five occurrences of the title Son of Man in contexts in which it does not appear in the Matthean and Marcan parallels (Luke 17:22; 18:8; 19:10; 21:36; 24:7), plus Acts 7:56. The usage of Son of Man falls into place with the development that has been observed in the use of Son of God and Christ.
In the Galilean ministry there is very little of the messianic use of Son of Man. Jesus, invested with divine authority, and as the Son of Man who partakes of human nature, has power to forgive sins on earth (Luke 5:24; cf. John 5:26f.). The Son of Man is also lord of the Sabbath (Luke 6:1-5). The Son of Man does not live in the unusual manner of John the Baptist, and is accused of being a glutton and a drunkard (Luke 7:34). As the Galilean period draws to a close, and he is confessed to be the Christ of God (Luke 9:18-22), he bids his disciples be silent, and introduces the theme of the necessity of the Son of Man's suffering, and his resurrection on the third day. The title is here probably used to counteract the political connotation that "Christ" had. The title does appear in an eschatological sense in Luke 9:26. The Son of Man will be ashamed of those who are ashamed of him. Even here, though, the title is used in a context of humility. After the Transfiguration, he again mentions that the Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of men (Luke 9:44). Luke then brings the Galilean period to a close by stating that the disciples did not understand this, and they were afraid to ask him. He is here preparing for Luke 24:6, where, after the resurrection, the two visionary beings explain the necessity of suffering, referring to the period of ignorance in Galilee.
In the Samaritan section the title is used in the early part to denote the hiddenness of Jesus' work, and his humility. The Son of Man does not have anyv/here to lay his head (Luke 9:58). As Jonah had been a sign to Nineveh, so the Son of Man will acknowledge those who acknowledge him, and everyone who speaks against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but he who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven (Luke 12:8-10). Jesus is using the title here for the first personal pronoun (Matt. 10:32f., parallel, has "I" instead of Son of Man). Three of the occurrences peculiar to Luke appear towards the close of the Samaritan section. They are all eschatological. As the nationalistic messianic emphasis by the Jews increases, and the Kingdom is discussed, Luke records those statements
124
of Jesus which maintain his true nature as the Son of Man. The hiddenness is thus increased. When he is asked by the Pharisees concerning the Kingdom, Jesus says that it is among them in his person, and that there are no cataclysmic events involved in this. The days will come, however, when they will want to see one of the days of the Son of Man (D: "these days"), but then the cataclysmic events will take place (Luke 18:1-8). As the emphasis grows, Jesus turns his attention to Jerusalem, when he says that everything that the prophets had written of the Son of Man will be accomplished there, and that he would suffer and be raised on the third day. Nobody, however, understands these things. Except for Luke 19:10, where Son of Man can mean "I," this is the last usage before the entry into Jerusalem. As Luke had closed the Galilean period with the disciples not knowing about the Passion, or the place of the Son of Man in it, so he also closes the Samaritan section.
In Jerusalem, the title is used in an eschatological context twice (Luke 21:27; cf. Dan. 7:13; Luke 21:36), in connection with his Passion twice (Luke 22:22; 24:7), for "I" once, and as a description of his messiahship in contrast to the conception of Christ as held by the Jews (Luke 22:69).
It is evident that the term represents to Luke the figure in which he thinks of Jesus as suffering. In the Gospel, every time that pascho, "I suffer," is used in connection with the person of Jesus, it is used with Son of Man (Luke 9:22; 17:25; 22:15), except Luke 24:26,46, where Christ is used. The relationship between Christ and Son of Man in the trial has already been discussed. The two titles are still further drawn together by Luke 24:26,46 and 24:7. The parallel between Son of God and Son of Man is obvious here. Both terms are used during the ministry of Jesus' suffering, and are terms which therefore hide his real nature and work to men. Both of these terms find their culmination in the Passion, and the resurrected Christ thenceforth stands for the suffering that Jesus endured as the completion of his mission.
Only Acts 7:56 needs to be discussed in connection with Son of Man. At the end of his defense, Stephen says that he sees the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. Some of the Jews had already accused him of blasphemy (Acts 6:11), and now when he claims that Jesus' words at his trial had not been blasphemous, but were true, and had received their vindication and fulfillment from God, he meets treatment similar to that of the Lord.
Servant of the Lord, Lord
The whole ministry of Jesus can be viewed as his fulfilling of his mission as the Servant of the Lord.36 The early sermons in Acts 3 and 4 show us how important the theme of Christ's suffering was to the early church.
Although there is not an abundance of material, it has been estab-
36Cullmann, op. cit., pp. 51-80.
125
lished that the title pais theou, "Servant of God," was used messianically in late Judaism.37 In the New Testament it occurs only in Matt. 12:18; Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30. The occurrences in Acts show examples of Palestinian preaching. The title and the idea were retained in Christian liturgy, but, due to its picture of the lowliness of Christ, were never popular in Gentile churches. The title combines in Acts 2 and 3 with other titles from the Servant passages of Isaiah, to indicate his vicarious suffering.
In Acts 3:14; 4:27-30 the subject is the Servant of God of Isaiah. Jesus himself looked ahead to the fulfillment of his work as the Servant (Luke 4:16ff.; 22:37). The Servant of Isaiah is a messianic figure, for he is anointed with the Spirit of God (Isa. 42:1:62:10), and he fulfills his messianic mission as a vicarious sacrifice for others (Isa. 53:10). The suffering of the Holy and Righteous One (Acts 3:14; 4:27) points to the same direction.38 Jesus was the Righteous Servant (Isa. 53:llb) because of his complete fulfillment of God's will (cf. Acts 7:52; 22:14).
The title that did become popular in the early church was kyrios, "Lord." This title is important, for it does not go back directly to Jesus, but reflects the most common view of the church of Jesus. It expresses the conviction of the resurrection of Christ. It states that Jesus has arisen, and that there is no chasm between the resurrection and the parousia, but that Jesus is now ruling over this intermediate time.
The study of this title was stimulated by Bousset's Kyrios Christos. He raised the question of whether the title was carried over from the Hellenistic background with its religious associations, or whether it arose spontaneously in the Christian communities. The history of the discussion will not be traced here. Foerster's article in Kittel's Woerterbuch 39 is an apt introduction to the subject. Cullmann states the matter well, when he says that it is certain that the Hellenistic use of kyrios in the Emperor cult, and above all, the use of the Septuagint of the word as a name for God, have contributed to the acceptance of kyrios as a title for Jesus. But this development would not have been possible if the primitive community had not already looked to him as Lord. The kyrios title does go back to the worship, but the primitive Christian worship.40
The use of Lord in the Gospels shows that it was not used by Jesus himself. The title was applied to Jesus subsequent to his resurrection. (The vocative can be left out of the discussion, since it only carries the meaning of "sir"). The extensive use begins with Luke. What the early Christians meant by the title is to be seen from the use of Psalm 110. In Luke 20:41-44 the psalm is used
37W. Zimmerli and J. Jeremias, The Servant of God, pp. 1-78.
38 O. Proksch, Theologisches Woerterbuch, I, p. 103.
39Volume III, pp. 284-293.
40Cullmann, op. cit., pp. 41-42.
126
to prove the higher nature of the Messiah. This is also clear from Acts 2:34-36, where the psalm proves to Peter that the resurrection made Jesus Lord and Christ (cf. Luk 24:34). With the resurrection at the center of the Christian faith, it was natural for Lord to become the most common narrative title. It was also the title that took over from the messianic titles when they became inadequate to express the new dimension. It expresses the conquering by Jesus of the weaknesses of humanity, and pre-eminently describes him in his victory over death.
Conclusion
It has been observed that Luke has a definite plan in presenting the life of Jesus, and that this plan can be clarified by a study of his use of Christological titles. Jesus' role as the suffering Messiah was a problem for his disciples during his ministry, and the prominent part that the theme of suffering played can be seen in Luke's recording of the Christological titles. The so-called "Messianic mystery" is to be viewed in the light of this. The Gentile church was also concerned with the problem of suffering, and this also influenced Luke's selection of his material in recounting the life and ministry of Jesus.
In investigating the titles, it has been seen that there is a consistent ignorance of Jesus' true nature during his ministry on the part of his disciples and hearers, and this is related to a wrong understanding of the names applied to him. The true nature of his Messiahship, and so the problem of his suffering, is revealed in the resurrection, and this new insight is reflected in the church's use of the Christological titles.
126