All this phraseology is unique in the New Testament. Nowhere else except Rev 19¹³ is Jesus Christ called the Word (1¹,¹,¹,¹⁴ only, with the possible exceptions of ‘1 Jno 1¹, Heb 4¹²). Nowhere else, ex cept Jno 3¹,¹⁸, 1 Ino 4⁹, is He called the Only Begotten.” Yet the general sense intended to be conveyed is perfectly clear. John wishes to declare Jesus Christ God; but not God in such a sense that there is no other God but He. Therefore he calls Him the Word, —‘ the Word who is indeed God but also alongside of God, that is to say, God as Revealer: and he adds that He is ‘ God only begotten,’ the idea conveyed by which is not derivation of essence, but uniqueness of relation, so that what is declared is that beside Jesus Christ there is no other,—He is the sole complete representation of God on earth.³ In harmony with these designations he calls Him also in this prologue the Light (1⁴⁷,⁸,⁹)—a designation more fully developed by our Lord Himself in His discourses. The effect of the whole is to emphasize in the strongest manner at the inception of the Gospel the divine nature of the Jesus Christ who is to be the subject of its narrative: and thus to set forth the aspect in which His life and work are here to be depicted.

The key-note of the Gospel having been thus set, however, John, so soon as the prologue is over and he takes up the narrative proper, leaves ¹ these high designations behind him and prosecutes his narrative, like the other evangelists, by means of the simple designation Jesus.’ As truly to John as to the Synoptists, thus, the narrative name of our Lord is the simple ‘ Jesus,” which occurs nearly 250 times. It is varied in the narrative only by a very occasional use of the Lord in jis stead (4¹ 6²³ 17² 20²⁰ 21⁷,¹²7), No other desig nation is employed by John himself outside the prologue, except in the closing verse of the narrative proper (20³¹), where he declares that he has written to the end that it might be believed that ‘ Jesus ‘—the ‘ Jesus’ of whom he had so currently spoken—is ‘ the Christ, the Son of God.’ It is possible, no doubt, to take the ‘ Jesus Christ of 17³ as a parenthetical insertion from his hand, and to assign to him the paragraph 3¹⁶,¹, in which Jesus is spoken of as the Son,” God’s ‘ only begotten Son,” the only begotten Son of God.” But these exceptions, even if they be all allowed, only slightly break in upon the habitual usage by which John speaks of our Lord simply as Jesus,’ varied occasionally to the Lord.” They would merely bear witness to the fact that the high reverence to the person of our Lord manifested in the designations of the prologue continues to condition the thought of the writer throughout, and occasionally manifests itself in the appearance of similarly lofty designations in the narrative. As in the other evangelists, further, the simple

Jesus’ is reserved for the narrative name, and is placed on the lips of no one of the speak- + ers who appear in its course. It is made clear, however, that it was by this name that our Lord was known to His contemporaries, and He is accordingly distinguished by those who speak of Him as the man that is called Jesus” (9¹¹), Jesus, the Son of Joseph” (6⁴²), “Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Joseph” (1⁴⁵), or the simple “Jesus of Nazareth” (18⁵,⁷ 19¹⁹). In the reports of remarks about Him the simple demonstrative pronoun indeed is sometimes made to do duty as the only designation needed, occasionally, possibly, with an accent of contempt (6⁴²,⁴²,⁵² 7¹⁵,³⁵ 1¹⁶,²⁴1 18³⁰) but ordinarily merely designatorily (1²,³⁰,³³0 Chi hii: 614:⁴6,[50,58] ZEB Re AT H0:1:45 0³³ 11³⁷,³⁷,⁴⁷). And sometimes He is represented as spoken of merely as this man” (ἄνθρωπος, g¹⁶,²⁴ 11⁴⁷ 18¹⁷,²⁹) or indeed simply as a man (dp, 1³ only; ἄνθρωπος, 4²⁹ gle rite [8⁴⁰ GRAS 10³³] 1 147,50 1 14:17,29 16).

In the narrative of John our Lord is represented as customarily addressed by His followers, as He Him-oa self informs us (13¹³,¹⁴), as ‘ Teacher Add ons (διδάσκαλε) and Lord (κύριε), the correlatives of which are disciples’ (μαθηταέ passim) and servants,’ that is ‘ slaves’ (δούλοε, 13¹⁶ 15¹⁻²⁰). The actual formula Teacher, however, occurs very rarely (1³⁸ 20¹⁶ in 11²⁸ it is an appellative, implying its use in address; cf. 3² 13¹³,¹⁴), although its place is in part supplied by the comparatively frequent Aramaic form ‘ Rabbi (1³⁸,⁴⁹ 3² 4³¹ 6⁵ 9² 11⁸; used of John the Baptist, 3²⁶), varied on one occasion to ‘ Rabboni (20¹⁶). The most common honorific form of address is Lord (4¹¹,¹⁵,¹⁹,⁴⁹ 7⁷ 45⁴,⁶⁸5 50:28 I 15:12,:21,27,32,34,39 1 30:8²m,00,57 I hi² [207] g 152021, of Philip, 12²¹). Of course, seeing that He was currently addressed as Teacher,” ‘ Lord,” He could not but be spoken of by these titles, used appellatively: the Teacher (11²⁸, f. 13¹³,¹⁴ 3²) rarely, and con paratively frequently the Lord (20²,¹³,¹⁸,²⁵ 31⁷). The latter usage the evangelist himself adopts in his own person (4¹ 6²³ 11² 20²⁰ 21⁷,¹²). It is noteworthy that the title ‘ the Lord is in this Gospel confined to Jesus, never occuring of God the Father except in a very few citations from the Old Testament (12¹³,³⁸3, cf. 1²³). It is an odd circumstance that the appellative use of Lord of Jesus occurs, however, only after His resurrection. We say this is an odd circumstance, because our Lord is represented as Himself telling us that it was applied to Him during His life (13¹³,¹⁴), as indeed it could not fail to be from the currency of the corresponding formula of address with respect to Him. This circumstance must be set down, therefore, as merely an accident of the record.

From the substance of the passages in which it is employed, we get very little guidance to the significance of the Lord as thus applied to Jesus. It is only obvious that it is used with reverential recognition of His authority. Only in the great passage (20²⁸) where Thomas’ doubt breaks down at the sight of his risen Master and he cries to Him, “My Lord and my God,” do we catch an unmistakable suggestion of its highest meaning. That this exclamation was addressed to Christ is expressly stated: “ Thomas answered and said to Him.” The strong emotion with which it was spoken is obvious. It is not so clear, however, what precise connotation is to be ascribed to the term my Lord in it. There may be a climax in the progress from my Lord to my God.” But it seems impossible to doubt that in this collocation ‘ Lord can fall little short of ‘ God in significance; else the conjunction of the two would be incongruous. Possibly both terms should be taken as asserting deity, the former with the emphasis upon the subjection, and the latter with the emphasis on the awe, due to deity. In any event in combination the two terms express as strongly as could be expressed the deity of Jesus; and the conjoint ascription is expressly accepted and commended by Jesus. It must rank, therefore, as an item of selftestimony on our Lord’s part to His Godhead.⁴

The ascription to our Lord of prophetic character is, as in the other evangelists, cursorily noted (4¹⁹ G¹⁴ eel aity ng is also our Lords the Christ> OWn acceptance of the réle (4⁴⁴). But in John, too, it is particularly the specifically Messianic titles which attract attention. The simple designation the Christ is not, indeed, frequently applied directly to our Lord, although it is made clear that He announced Himself as the Christ,’ and was accepted as such by His followers, and therefore raised continual questionings in the minds of outsiders whether He were indeed ‘ the Christ.” John the Baptist is represented as frankly confessing that he was not himself the Christ,” but His forerunner (1²⁰,²⁵ 3²⁸, pointing not obscurely to Jesus as the Messiah. And accordingly John’s disciples following their master’s suggestion find in Jesus ‘ the Messiah (1⁴¹), which the evangelist interprets to us as the Christ.” When the woman of Samaria confesses her knowledge that Mes-siah’ (who, adds the evangelist again, is called “Christ’) is to come, our Lord majestically declares Himself to be Him (4²⁵,²⁶). The speculation of the people over His Messianic character finds repeated mention (4²⁹ a¹,⁴¹,⁴¹,⁴ Gc 10²⁴ 127⁴). Jesus Himself is represented as calling out from Martha the full confession, in which the current Messianic titles are accumulated with unwonted richness: Yea, Lord: I have believed that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God, He that cometh into the world” (11²⁷). And the evangelist himself, with some similar repetition of titles, explains that the purpose he had in view in writing his Gospel was that it might be believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (20³¹), and announces as the full name of the subject of his narrative, at its inception and possibly at one point in its course where explicit identification seemed to him useful, Jesus Christ (1¹⁷, cf. 17). We must not pass over this list of passages without noting that on two occasions the Aramaic term Messiah occurs (1⁴¹, 4²⁵), the only instances of its occurrence in the New Testament.

Nor should we leave unnoticed the somewhat diff cult question whether jesus Christ in 17³ is intended as a word of our Lord’s or is to be understood as a parenthetical explanation of the evangelist’s. No doubt it is easiest to take it as an insertion of the evangelist’s. The term Jesus Christ occurs elsewhere in the Gospels only as a form of the evangelists’ own, employed in the rarest manner as the most ceremonious and solemn of all direct designations of Jesus (Mt 1¹⁸ [16¹], Mk 1¹, Jno 1¹⁷); and there seems something incongruous in placing this full name on the lips of Jesus Himself, implying as it does that ‘ Christ had already for Him acquired the quality of a proper name, and indeed that the compound Jesus EL Christ had become, though of course not with the loss of its Messianic implications, yet very much itself a proper name. Nevertheless the structure of the sentence is not favorable to its assignment to the evangelist. Our Lord, speaking in these opening verses of His great prayer in the third person ( Thy Son,” Thy Son,” to Him,” to Him,” verses 1 and 2), declares that eternal life consists in knowing the Father and Him whom the Father has sent (verse 3). To each of these persons, thus formally mentioned, then, a fuller designation is descriptively added: the words run: ‘ That they may know Thee, ‘ the only true God,” and Him whom Thou didst send, Jesus Christ.” “The balance of the clauses seem to imply that they stand together, and that accordingly if Jesus Christ is to be taken as an explanatory addition, so must also the only true God.” Dr. Westcott accordingly makes this supposition, and urges in its support that ‘ the only true God is in John’s manner (cf. 1 Jno 5²⁰) and not in our Lord’s: and that it is in no way derogatory to John’s truthfulness as a reporter that he should thus insert brief explanations, no doubt the compressed representation of much of our Lord’s teaching. On the other hand, it may be urged that it is very easy to exaggerate the difficulty of supposing our Lord to have used the phrase in question. He is certainly speaking of Himself: He has just designated Himself the Son (verse 2); and now designates Himself by the phrase, “Whom Thou didst send.” Why, continuing the use of the third person, should He not solemnly designate Himself by name, and, doing so, why should He not employ the full ceremonious name of Jesus Christ’? This, of course, would imply that ‘ Christ,” in its constant application to Him, had already become, in our Lord’s life-time, at least a quasi-proper name. We have seen already, however, that this was very much the case (Mk 9⁴¹, Mt 24⁵ 27¹⁷²²); and if Jesus could speak of Himself as Christ,’ there seems no compelling reason why He should not speak of Himself as Jesus Christ.’ No doubt even this difficulty might be avoided by taking Christ here predicatively: That they may know Thee the only true God and Him whom Thou didst send, Jesus, as the Christ.” The structure of the sentence again, however, is not favorable to this construction, which would break the parallelism of the clauses. It seems more natural on the whole, therefore, to take ‘ Jesus Christ together as Jesus’ own self-designation of Himself; though if any feel a difficulty in assuming that He already used Christ in this combination completely as a proper name, there seems no reason why it should not be understood as appellative: “Him whom Thou didst send, even Jesus the Messiah.” It must be recognized, indeed, that this appellative connotation is in any event not entirely lost, but throughout the whole use of the name Jesus Christ in the Apostolic Church retains its force. In this passage we have only the earliest instance of the combination of the two names ‘ Jesus,” as the personal, and ‘ Christ,” as the official designation, into one quasiproper name: and the solemn employment of it thus by Jesus gives us the point of departure for its Apostolic use from Pentecost on (Acts 2³⁸ 3⁶ 4¹⁰ 8¹²,³⁷, etc.) whenever great solemnity demanded the employment of this ceremonious name. This fixed Apostolic usage from the first days of the infant Church finds its best explanation in such a solemn employment of it by our Lord as we have here recorded for us by John.⁵

We ought not to pass finally from this passage without fairly facing the apparent contrast which is drawn in it between Jesus Christ as the Sent ¹⁰of God and the God who sent Him, described here as the only true God,” that is to say, Him to whom alone belongs the reality of the idea of God.⁹ From this contrast it has often been rashly inferred that Jesus Christ is here by implication affirmed not to be God; at least not in the highest and truest sense. This, however, it is obvious, would throw the declarations in this Gospel of the relation of Christ to the Father into the greatest confusion. He who has explained that He and the Father are One (10³⁰, cf. 5¹⁸), and that to have seen Him is to have seen the Father (14⁹, cf. 8¹⁹ 10¹⁵ 14⁷), and who commended the confession of Him by His follower as “his Lord and his God” (20²⁸), can scarcely be supposed here so pointedly to deny Himself incidentally to be the God He so frequently affirms Himself to be. It is quite clear, indeed, that the relation of our Lord to the Father is not represented by John, whether in his own person or in the words he reports from the lips of Jesus, as a perfectly simple one. Its complexity is already apparent in the puzzling opening words of the Gospel, where the evangelist is not content to declare Him merely to have been from eternity with God, or merely to have been from eternity God, but unites the two statements as if only by their union could the whole truth be enunciated. We may legitimately say that this double way of speaking of Christ confuses us; and that we cannot fully understand it. We are not entitled to say that it is the index of confusion in the mind of the evangelist—or in the mind of the greater Speaker whose words the evangelist reports, —unless it is perfectly clear that there is no conception of the relation to the Father of Him whom the evangelist calls by predilection the ‘ Son of God,’ even the ‘ Only begotten Son or indeed ‘ God only begotten,’ on the supposition of which as lying in his mind the double mode of speaking of Him which we find confusing may be reduced to a real harmony. And it is undeniable that on the supposition of that conception which has come in the Church to be called the doctrine of the Trinity,—especially as supplemented by those other two conceptions known as the doctrines of the Two Natures of Christ and of the Eternal Covenant of Redemption,—as forming the background of the evangelist’s varied modes of speaking of Christ, and of our Lord’s own varied mode of speaking of Himself as reported by John, all appearance of disharmony between these declarations disappears. To say this, however, is to say that these great doctrines are taught by John and by our Lord as reported by Him: for surely there is no more effective way of teaching doctrines than always to speak on their presupposition, and in a manner which is confusing and apparently self-contradictory except they be presupposed. Whatever we may ourselves find of mystery in these doctrines, it is only fair to recognize that they express part of the fundamental basis of the religious thought of the Gospel of John and of the great Teacher whose words that Gospel so richly reports to us.¹⁰

It is only another way of calling Jesus the Christ to call Him the ‘ King of Israel.” This Nathanael does when Jesus manifested to him His superhuman knowledge of his heart, exclaiming: Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King of Israel” (1⁴⁹)—where the order of the titles used is perhaps due to the primary impression being that of the possession of supernatural powers, from which the Messianic office is inferred. It is as King,’ too, that Jesus was acclaimed as He made His triumphal entrance into Jerusalem: ‘ Hosanna: Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel” (12¹³, cf. 6¹⁵)—in which acclamation the evangelist sees the fulfillment of the prophecy of Zech ⁹ of the coming of the King of Zion riding on the ass (12¹⁵). At His trial, again, Pilate demanded of Him whether He was the ‘ King of the Jews,” using the natural heathen phraseology (18³³), and received a reply which, while accepting the ascription, was directed to undeceive Pilate with respect to the character of His Kingship: it is not of this world (18³⁷). In that understanding of it (18³⁷) Jesus has no hesitation in claiming the title (18³⁷). The subsequent ascription of this title to Him was mockery and part of His humiliation (13³⁹ 19³,¹²,¹⁴,¹⁵,¹⁵,¹⁹,²¹y yt af the same time part of the testimony that He lived and died as the Messianic King.

We should not pass finally away from the passages in which Jesus is called ‘ Christ and ‘ King without noting somewhat more particularly the accumulation of Messianic designations in such passages as 20³¹, where the evangelist says he has written in order to create faith in Jesus as “the Christ, the Son ‘of God,” and 1⁴⁹, where Nathanael declares Him ‘ the Son of God, the King of Israel,” and especially at 11²⁷, where Martha declares her faith in Him as “ the Christ, the Son of God, Him that cometh into the world.” The use of the term ‘ Son of God in these passages as a general synonym of Christ,” but yet not necessarily a synonym of no higher suggestion, we reserve for later discussion. The designation ‘ He that cometh,” more fully defined here by the addition of ‘” into the world,” we have already met with in Matthew (11³) and Luke (7¹⁹,²⁰). A couse in Jno 6¹⁴, This is of a truth the prophet that cometh into the world,” may suggest that the epithet was associated in the popular mind with the Messianic interpretation of Deuteronomy 18¹⁵⁻¹⁸: and we have seen that our Lord associated it with the great passage in Isa 61¹ seq. In itself, however, it appears to conceive the Messiah fundamentally simply as the promised one (cf. 4²), and to emphasize with reference to Him chiefly that He is to come into the world upon a mission. As such it is supported even more copiously in John than in the other evangelists by a pervasive self-testimony of Jesus laying stress on His ‘ coming or His having been sent,” which keeps His work sharply before us as the performance of a task which had been committed to Him and constitutes John’s Gospel above all the rest the Gospel of the Mission. In the repeated assertions made by our Lord that He came “into the world, obviously with ima plications of voluntariness of action (cf. a { [91.11,[15], [271,30] 311] 4125-25] i 614 7 271,31] 9³⁹ To pa IRL ISY iy oy 55⁷) some dare explicit as to the point whence He came, which is defined as heaven (3³¹,³¹), or the Person from whom He eame, who is named as God (7²⁸ seq. J¹⁴⁻¹⁶⁴² 14²⁸ 15⁸); while others declare plainly the object of His coming, , which is not to judge but to save the world (12⁴⁶,⁴⁷). The correlation of the coming from the Father and being sent by the Father is express in passages like 17⁸, and the sending is most copiously testified to, sometimes in the use of the simple verb πέμπω (4³⁴ 5²³,²⁴,³⁰,³⁷ 635-3944 Zins 16,18,26,29 gt 1 2444549 13²⁰ 1.² 153 16 20²¹) and sometimes rather in the use of the more specific ἀποστέλλω, which emphasizes the specialness of the mission, and is most commonly cast in the aorist tense with a reference to the actual fact of the mission (3¹⁷,³⁴ 38 GST 4 Qi2 136 [yi [81820²³,⁵) thouoh sometimes in the perfect tense with a reference to the abiding effect of it (5³⁶ 20²¹).¹¹ The eflect of this whole body of passages is to throw over the whole of our Lord’s self-testimony in this Gospel the most intense sense of His engagement upon a definite mission, for _, the performance of which He, sent by the Father in A His love, has come forth from God, or, more locally expressed, from heaven, into the world. They supply a most compelling mass of evidence, therefore, taken in the large, to His preéxistence, and to His superhuman dignity to which His earthly career stands re- 4 lated as a humiliation to be accounted for only by its \ being also a mission of love (12⁴⁶,⁴⁷).

The fact of this mission is also, no doubt, implicated in the designation ‘ the Holy One of God (6⁶⁹), which is elicited on one occasion as a confession from His followers; that is to say, no doubt, the One whom the Father has set apart for a given work and consecrated ¹¹ See the long and careful note of Westcott, John, p. 298.

to its performance (6²⁷ 10³⁶). It would also be the implication of the designation the Chosen One of God,’ if that were the correct reading in 1³⁴, where the Baptist bears his witness really, however, to His divine Sonship. Another designation given to Him exclusively by the Baptist throws, however, a most illuminating light on the nature of His mission. ‘ Behold,” John is reported as crying, as he saw Jesus coming towards him after His baptism, “ Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world’: and again on the next day, as he saw Him walking by, “” Behold the Lamb of God” (1²⁹,³⁶).⁶ That this was in intention and effect a Messianic title is made clear from the sequel. Disciples of John, following Jesus on this suggestion, report to their friends that they have found the Messiah (which is being interpreted, Christ)” (1⁴¹). The source of the phrase is, of course, the fiftythird chapter of Isaiah, through which, however, a further reference is made to the whole sacrificial system, culminating in the Passover. By it the mission of Jesus is described as including an expiatory sacrifice of Himself for the salvation of the world: it, therefore, only gives point to and explains the modus of what is more generally declared by our Lord Himself in such

A “passage as ‘12⁴⁷: “1 came. ’.. to save the world.” The Messianic character of this saving work is thrown up in a clear light by the confession of the Samaritans who, having been invited to come and see whether Jesus were not the Christ (4²⁹), when they heard Jesus concluded for themselves that He was “indeed the Saviour of the world” (4⁴².

Quite a series of designations, mostly figurative in character, expressive of the same general conception, are applied by our Lord to Himself. Thus He calls Himself the Light of the world (8¹² 93 12338646 of, 3192021 1 9.10) which is explained as the “light of life” (8¹²), even as the evangelist himself had with the same reference to “life” called Him the Light of Men (1⁴,⁵,⁷,⁸⁹), _ The ultimate source of this designation is no doubt to be. found in such passages in the Old Testament as Is 9¹,², which is quoted and applied to Jesus by both Matthew (4¹⁶) and Luke (2³²). Similarly He calls Himself “the Door by entering through which alone can salvation be had (10⁷,⁹); the Bread of God or of Life,” by eating which alone can life be obtained (6³³; “6³⁵,⁴¹,⁴⁹ 4⁴¹) ofthe Good Shepherd who gives His life for the sheep (10¹¹,¹⁴, cf. 10>¹⁶); and without figure definitely the Resurrection and the Life,” believing in whom the dead shall live and the living never die (11²⁵). Perhaps to the same general circle of ideas belongs the title ‘ Paraclete (14¹⁶) or ‘ Advocate,¹³ which seems to imply that our Lord conceives Himself under this designation as coming to the help of the ¹³ Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, p. 215, connects the Paraclete with “Menachem “employed in the later Judaism as a Messianic title. That would imply that we should take Paraclete in the sense of Comforter.

needy. And we should probably think of the designation ‘ Bridegroom (3²⁹) in the same light: but in this Gospel our Lord’s application to Himself of this designation with a reference to His death, familiar to us from the Synoptics, is not recorded: there is only an employment of it of our Lord by the Baptist with no reference to the days to come when the Bridegroom should be taken away.

In this Gospel, however, as in the Synoptists, the title ‘ Son of Man comes forward as one of our Lord’s favorite self-designations; and it is Son of Man charged here, too, with the implication ’=>of a mission, involving suffering and death but issuing in triumph. If we seek the guidance here, as we did in the case of the Synoptist use of the title, of the substance of the passages in which it occurs, we shall learn that the Son of Man is no earthly being. He came down from heaven whither He shall ultimately return (6⁶²). His sojourn on earth is due to a task which He has undertaken, and to which He is “sealed” (6⁷). This task is to give eternal life to men (6²⁷); and He accomplishes this by giving them His flesh to eat and His blood to drink, whence they obtain life in themselves (6⁵³, cf. 6⁷). Of course this is symbolical language for dying for men. Accordingly our Lord declares that it is necessary that the “Son of Man be “lifted up,” that whosoever believes in Him may have eternal life (3¹⁵), and He announces it as His precise mission, received of the Father, to be thus “lifted up” (8²⁸ 12³⁴). Nevertheless, it is only that He may enter His glory that He dies (12²³ 13³¹), and it is given to Him to exercise judgment also (5²⁷). Here there is open proclamation of His preéxistence, of His humiliation for an end, and of His passage through this humiliation to His primitive glory.

The culminating Messianic designation in John, however, is ‘ the Son of God,” which comes fully to its , rights in this Gospel. This designation Son of God occurs not only, as in the other evangelists, in the more technical form of the Son of God (1³⁴ 1⁴⁹ 5²⁵ 9³⁵:10³⁶ 11⁴,²⁷ 19⁷ 20³¹), and the simple absolute the Son (3¹⁷³⁵,³⁶³⁶ 5¹⁹,¹⁹,²⁰,²¹,²², ²³,²³,²⁶ 6⁴⁰ 8³⁶ 14¹³ 17¹),⁷ but also in a form peculiar to John, the only begotten Son,” or simply (3¹⁶,¹⁷) the only begotten (1¹⁴, cf. 1¹⁸ God only begotten’). That the title Son of God is a Messianic title is clear from such passages as 1⁴⁹ 11²⁷ 20³¹, in which it is used side by side with ‘ the Christ,” ‘ the King of Israel,’ the Coming One,’ as their synonym, although not necessarily as a synonym of no higher connotation. There is no reason to doubt that here, too, as in the other evangelists, Son of God carries with it the implication of supernatural origin and thus designates the Messiah from a point of view which recognized that He was more than man What is noteworthy is that (in John the Son of God becomes very distinctly a self-designation of Jesus’ own (5²⁵ 9⁵ 10³⁶ 11⁴): and it is noteworthy that in connection with this designation He claims for Himself not only miraculous powers (9⁵ 11⁴), but the divine prerogative of judgment (5²⁵, cf. ²⁷); and that He was understood, in employing it of Himself, to “make Himself equal with God,” and therefore to blaspheme (10³³,³⁶).

It is, however, in the use of the simple the Son (3¹⁷,³⁶³ p¹⁹,²²g (9³⁶) often set In direct correlation with the Father (3³⁵ glo20:212232 Son 14¹³ 17¹), that the deepest suggestion of the filial relation in which our Lord felt Himself to stand to the Father comes out. And these passages must be considered in conjunction with the very numerous passages in which He who never speaks of God as our Father,” putting Himself in the same category with others who would then share with Him the filial relation,¹⁵ speaks of God either as the Father,” or appropriatingly as My Father There are over eighty passages of the former kind,¹ and nearly thirty of the latter.¹⁷ The uniqueness of the relation indicated is brought out by the connection of the simple the Son with the emphatically unique only begotten Son of God (3¹⁶,¹⁷). Although, of course, the passage in which this is most pointedly done may be the evangelist’s and not our Lord’s, the phrase Only begotten Son or even the term Only begot beg y beg ten applied to Christ, occurs nowhere else, except in John’s own words (1¹⁴,¹⁸, 1 Jno 4⁹ cf. Heb 11¹⁷), and that affords a reason for assigning the paragraph 3¹⁶⁻²¹ to him. Such a passage as 5¹⁸, however, makes perfectly clear the high connotation which was attached to the constant claim of Jesus to be in a peculiar sense God’s Son,’ entitled to speak of Him in an appropriating way as His Father.” The Jews sought to kill Him, remarks the evangelist, because of this mode of speech: “He called God His own Father (πατέρα ἔδεον ), making Himself equal (door) with God.” And indeed He leaves no prerogative to the Father which He does not claim as ‘ Son to share. There has been given Him authority over all flesh (17²), and the destinies of men are determined by Him (3¹⁷ 6⁴⁰); He quickens whom He will (5²¹) and executes judgment on whom He will (5²²). Whatever the Father does He knows, and indeed all that the Father does He does (5¹⁹). He even has received of the Father to have life in Himself (5²⁶). Though He declares indeed that the Father is greater than He (14²⁸), this must be consistent with an essential oneness with the Father, because He explicitly asserts that He and the Father are one (10³⁰), that He is in the Father and the Father in Him (10³⁸), and that to have seen Him was to have seen the Father (14⁹). It may be that some mysterious subordination of God the Son to God the Father is suggested in the declaration that the Father is greater than He (14²⁸), and many certainly have so interpreted it, constructing their doctrine of God upon that view. But it seems more likely that our Lord is speaking on this occasion of His earthly state in which He is not only acting as the Delegate of the

Father and hence as His subordinate—the ‘ sent” of the Father; but also in His dual nature as the God-man, is of Himself in His humanity, of a lower grade of being than God, without derogation to His equality with the Father in His higher, truly divine nature. If this be what He means, there is no contradiction between the strong affirmations of His not merely equality (5¹⁸) with God, but His oneness with Him (10³⁰), His interpenetration with Him (10³⁸) as sharer in all His knowledge and deeds (14⁹), and His equally strong affirmation of His inferiority to Him (14²⁸), illustrated as it is by numerous assertions of dependence on Him and of an attitude of obedience to Him.

Thus, so clear and pervasive is the assertion of deity through the medium of His designation of Himself as pu Son and the use of this term of Him by the evangelist⁸ that the chief point of interest in the term rises above this assertion and concerns a deeper matter. Does the Sonship asserted belong to our Lord in His earthly manifestation merely; or does it set forth a relation existing between Him as a preéxistent person and God conceived even in eternity as His Father? In other words, is the term Son a term of economical or of ontological relation? The question is not an easy one to determine. But, on the whole, it seems that it should be answered in the latter sense. The force of a passage like 3¹⁶ (cf. 3³⁵ 52) — God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son ”’—seems to turn on the intimacy of the relation expressed by the term “ only begotten Son “having been already existent before the giving: otherwise how is the greatness of the love expressed in the giving to be measured? Similarly in a passage like 3¹⁷ there seems an implication of the Sonship as underlying the mission: He was sent on this mission because He was Son,—He did not become Son by being sent. In like manner the remarkable phrase God only begotten” in Jno 1¹⁸ appears to be most readily explained by supposing that it was as God that He was the unique Son: and, if so, it seems easiest to understand “ the glory of an Only Begotten of the Father,” which men saw in the incarnate Christ (1¹⁴) as the glory brought with Him from heaven. In this case, it is obvious, John goes far toward outlining the foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity for us: and it is a mistake not to see in his doctrine of the Logos and of the Only Begotten God and of the Divine Son, the elements of that doctrine.

With this high doctrine of the divine Sonship in ccnnection with Jesus the way is prepared for the express assertion that He is God. This, as has already been incidentally pointed out, is done in express words in this Gospel. The evangelist declares that that Word,” which, on becoming flesh, is identified with Jesus Christ, was in the beginning with God and was God (1¹), and calls Him in distinction from the Father, God only begotten (1¹⁸). And Thomas, his doubts of the me hath seen the Father’? We need not stop to pick out other expressions that admit of no lower interpretations, because the evangelist has made it clear by his Prologue what construction he himself put upon his own narrative.”

resurrection removed, greets Him with the great cry, “My Lord and my God” (20²⁸): and more to the point, our Lord Himself, who had elsewhere declared Himself one with God (10³), and had asserted that He and the Father interpenetrated one another (10³⁸, and that to have seen Him was to have seen the Father (14), expressly commended Thomas for this great confession and thereby bore His own testimony to His proper deity (20²⁹). The deity of Jesus which in the Synoptists is in every way implied is, therefore, in John expressly asserted, and that in the use of the most direct terminology the Greek language afforded. To - this extent, itis to be allowed that John’s Gospel is in advance of the Synoptists.

This advance is commonly represented as the index of the development that had taken place between the a ime when the Synoptics were written and the much later time when John was written. John, coming from a period almost a generation later than the Synoptics, it is said, naturally reflects a later point of view. Of course John’s Gospel was written thirty or thirty-five years after the Synoptics. But it is an illusion to suppose that it therefore sets forth a later or more developed point of view than that embedded in the Synoptics. The Synoptics present a divine Christ, as we have seen, and are written out of a point of view which is simply saturated with reverence for Christ as divine. John is written from no higher point of view, and records nothing from the life of Jesus which more profoundly reveals His consciousness of oneness with the Father than the great utterance of Mt 11²⁷, or which more clearly announces the fundamental idea of what we call the

Trinity than the great utterance of Mt 28¹⁹. There is no advance in conception in John over the Synoptics: there is only a difference in the phraseology employed to express the same conception. The Synoptics present Jesus Christ as God; only they do not happen to say “God when speaking of Him: they say Son of Man,’ Son of God,’ Sharer in the Name.” It did not, however, require thirty years for men who thoroughly believed Jesus to be divine to learn to express it by calling Him God. In a word, it is in the mere accident of literary expression, not in the substance of doctrine, that the Synoptics and John differ in their assertion of the deity of Christ. Accidents of literary expression are not products of time, and differences in modes of expression do not argue intervals of time.

---

← The Jesus of the Synoptists the Primitive Jesus · Contents · The Designations of Our Lord in Acts and Their Significance →

Footnotes

1. Criticism of N. T.: St. Margaret’s Lectures, 1902, by a company of scholars, p. 17. Cf. his early work, The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel, 1872, p. 109, where he speaks of Mt 112⁷ as containing “the essence of the Johannine theology,” and as leaving “nothing in the Johannine christology” which it does not cover. 2 Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 1905, pp. 218-19. 3 [Was wissen air von Jesus? 1904, p. 54: cf. Schmiedel, Encyclopedia Biblica, 1872. ↩

2. Das Messiasgeheimnis, etc. ⁵ The Messianic Hope in the N. T., p. 61. ↩

3. Cf. Westcott on 1¹⁴ (p. 126): “The thought is centered in the personal Being of the Son, and not in His generation. Christ is the One only Son.” Meyer on 1¹⁴ (p. 92): “Movoy. designates the Logos as the only Son besides whom the Father has none.” The same essential sense is conveyed by the ἀγαπητός employed in the Synoptists, possibly of God’s witness to His Son at His baptism and transfiguration, and certainly in the parable of Mk 12⁶, Lk 20¹³3, ↩

4. Cf. Westcott, in loc.: “The words are beyond question addressed to Christ (saith unto Him), and cannot but be understood as a confession of belief as to His Person… expressed in the form of an impassioned address… His sublime confession, won from doubt, closes historically the progress of faith which St. John traces. At first (ch. 1¹) the evangelist declared his own faith: at the end he shows that this faith was gained in the actual intercourse of the disciples with Christ… The words which follow show that the Lord accepted the declaration of His Divinity as the true expression of faith,” ↩

5. Luthardt on the passage; also Godet, Ebrard, and Stier (Reden Jesu, ed. 3, 1873, Vv. 397). ⁹ Cf. Westcott, in loc.: “To regard the juxtaposition of Thee, the only true God, and Him whom Thou didst send, as in any way impairing the true divinity of Christ, by contrast with the Father, is totally to misunderstand the passage. It is really so framed as to meet the two cardinal errors as to religious truth which arise at all times, the one which finds expression in various forms of polytheism, and the one which treats that which is preparatory in revelation as final. On the one side men make for themselves objects of worship many and imperfect. On the other side they fail to recognize Christ when He comes.” Accordingly the knowledge of God which is life is represented as twofold: “a knowledge of God in His sole, supreme Majesty, and a knowledge of the revelation which He has made in its final consummation in the mission of Christ.” “The contents of the knowledge,” says Meyer with his usual point, “are stated with the precision of a Confession—a summary of faith in opposition to the polytheistic T. μόνον ἀληθ. θεόν (cf. 5⁴⁴, Deut 6⁴, 1 Cor 8⁵, 1 Thess 1⁹), and the Jewish κόσμος, the latter of which rejected Jesus as Messiah, although in Him there was given, notwithstanding, the very highest revelation of the only true God.” Our Lord, in other words, is not contrasting God and Jesus Christ ontologically, but declaring that to have eternal life we must know not only the only true God—for there is but one true God; but also the only Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ—who, however, may Himself very well be, and in the teaching of our Lord is, Himself the true God. How He can be the true God and yet the sent of God raises the deeper questions of the Trinity and the Covenant and the T’wo Natures which are alluded to in the text. ↩

6. Jesus is called ἀμνός Lamb,’ Jno 1²⁹,³⁶, Acts 8³², 1 P 1¹⁹ only in the N. T. The reference is to the suffering Messiah of Is 53. In Rev. ἀρνίον is used of Christ some 29 times: and though the term has changed, the Lamb is the same—the Lamb that had been slain and in whose blood is salvation. The ἀρνίον is always thus the slain lamb. Neither ἀμνός nor ἀρνίον occurs in N. T. of anyone else but Christ—except that the plural of ἀρνίον occurs in Jno 21¹⁵ of Christ’s followers. In Lk 10³ ἀρήν is used. On the use of the diminutive ἀρνίον of Jesus in Scripture, see A. B. Grosart, Expository Times, 11. 57. ↩

7. Dr. Sanday, Hastings’ D. B., iv., 571 b., writes: “We should not form an adequate conception of the title Son of God if we should confine ourselves to the use of that title alone. It is true that it occurs in some central passages [of the N. T.], and true that in these passages the phrase is invested with great depth of meaning. But we should not adequately appreciate this depth, and still less should we understand the mass and volume of N. T. teaching on this head, if we did not directly connect with the explicit references to the Son of God that other long series of references to God as preéminently the Father and to Christ as preéminently the Son.’ These two lines of usage are really convergent.” ↩

8. Cf. Sanday, Hastings’ B. D., v. 576 b.: “We may say with confidence that a sonship such as is described in the Fourth Gospel would carry with it this conclusion. How could any inferior being either enter so perfectly into the mind of the Father, or reflect it so perfectly to man? Of what created beine could it be said. ‘ He that hath seen ↩