How great an illusion it is to look upon John as reflecting a new phase of teaching, which had grown up wi only in the course: of years, in speaking of Jesus plainly as God, may be illustrated by attending to the designations employed of our Lord in the Book of Acts and in the letters of Paul. ( The Book of Acts and the Epistles of Paul both bring us testimony to how Jesus was _ thought and spoken of in Christian circles at the time, and indeed before the time, when the Synoptics were composed. The Book of Acts was not only written by the author of one of the Synoptic Gospels,1 but purports to record conversations and discourses by the actors in the great drama of the founding of the Christian Church; and indeed could not have seriously misrepresented them,—seeing that it was published in their lifetime,—without having been at once corrected. We may learn from it, therefore, how Jesus was esteemed by His first followers, including those who had enjoyed
His daily companionship throughout His ministry. The Epistles of Paul are none of them of later date, and many of them are of earlier date, than the Synoptic Gospels, and bring us, therefore, testimony to the estimation in which Christ was held in the Christian community at about the time when the Synoptic Gospels, or the sources on which they depend, were written. The conception of Jesus given expression alike in the Synoptics, in Acts and in Paul’s Epistles, it cannot be doubted, was aboriginal in the Church.2 But this conception is distinctly that expressed in its own way in the Gospel of John.
The narrative of Acts does not concern the acts of Jesus during the period of His earthly life, but those of the exalted Jesus through His servants the Apostles (1¹: “began’). It is natural, therefore, that the simple designation Jesus’ should occur less frequently in its pages than in the Gospel narrative; and that even when Jesus is spoken of, which is of course comparatively infre- “quently, He should be spoken of by a designation more expressive of the relation existing between Him and His followers, whose acts it is proximately the business of this book to describe. Accordingly in Acts the reverential the Lord becomes the ruling designation of Jesus, and the simple ‘ Jesus’ takes a subordinate place, both as the narrative designation and in the reports of the remarks of our Lord’s followers incorporated in the narrative. Nevertheless it is employed by Luke himself with sufficient frequency to show that it suggested itself on all natural occasions. Thus, for example, Luke uses it in the first chapter where he is himself narrating what Jesus did before His ascension (1¹,¹⁴), and elsewhere currently in such phrases as “preaching Jesus” (5⁴² 8³⁵ 9²⁷ 17¹⁸), “proving that Jesus is the Christ”’ (9²⁰ 18⁵,²⁸ 28³), and the like (4²,¹³,¹⁸ 5⁴⁰ 7⁵⁵ 2²⁷ 18²⁵) And he records it as employed in a natural way by the two chief spokesmen in Acts, Peter in the earlier portion (1¹⁶ 2³,³⁶ [3¹,²⁰] 5³⁰, lof i 4²⁷,³⁰), and Paul in the later portion ([9⁵,²⁰] 13²³,³³ 17³ 19⁴,¹³), as well as occasionally by other actors in the historical drama (4¹⁸203 40 IT1201 17⁷ 1gl815 51¹⁹) including the angel explaining the ascension (1¹¹) and Jesus Himself revealing Himself to Paul (9⁵ 26¹).
The fuller form, Jesus of Nazareth (10³⁸), or more frequently, ‘ Jesus the Nazarene (2²² 6¹⁴ 22⁸ HN ae⁹) (also occurs, not as ‘a locutioniof Luke’s own, indeed, but upon the lips of Peter (2²² 10³⁸), and Paul (22⁸ 26⁹), and in one case as a description of Jesus by Himself (22⁸); and also on the lips of the inimical Jews describing with some contempt the great claims made by, His followers for this Jesus the Nazarene (6¹⁴. Twice, indeed, the full name ‘ Jesus Christ the Naza-rene’ is employed, as a solemn designation throwing up for observation His entire personality in all its grandeur (3⁶ 4¹⁰).
From these two last-named instances we may learn, what otherwise is sufficiently illustrated, that the full sacred name Jesus Christ was in easy use by our Lord’s first followers, whenever they wished to speak of Him with special solemnity. Luke himself so employs it in his narrative (8¹²), and he quotes it from Peter (2³⁸ 9³⁴ 10³⁶,⁴⁸) and Paul (16¹⁸)—in each instance as employed in circumstances of great ceremoniousness, in demanding faith or in working cures by this great Name. It is in similar conditions that the even more complete designation Jesus Christ the Nazarene (3⁶ 4¹⁰) occurs; and that a designation which occurs very frequently in the Epistles, ‘ the Lord Jesus Christ (11¹⁷ 28³¹) or our Lord Jesus Christ (15²⁶ 20²¹), appears as in use by the Apostles,—Peter (11¹⁷), Paul (20²¹, and the whole Apostolic body (15²⁶),—as well as by Luke himself (28³¹). In all these instances it seems clear that the compound name Jesus Christ is treated as a proper name, but of course not with any loss of the high significance of the element Christ.” Perhaps it would not be too much to say that the compound name is dealt with as the royal name of our Lord, the name which is given Him when He is to be designated with special ceremony and solemnity.