There yet remains a certain amount of corroborative evidence for the conclusions which we have reached, borne by a series of letters which have been preserved to us, purporting to be the compositions of primitive followers of our Lord. We use the term ‘ purporting” not because we have any doubt that they are all that they profess to be, but because their descriptions of themselves have not been accepted as valid in all critical circles, and because we do not consider it necessary to pause to vindicate their authenticity here. If their testimony were substantially different from that of the more extended documents which we have already passed in review, it might be required of us to validate their claim to give testimony to the primitive conception of Christ, before admitting their witness. As, however, they yield only corroborative testimony, we may be content to present it for what it seems to each individual to be worth. In any event it helps to make clear to us the absolute harmony of early Christianity taken in a wide sense in its lofty conception of its Lord’s person, and thus adds weight to what we have learned, from the more important documents, of the conception current in the first age. And just in proportion as we recognize these letters, too, as a legacy of the first age, reflecting the belief of the first generation of
Christians, their corroborative evidence will become more and more significant to us. If, as in our own judgment they ought to be, they are accepted at their face value, their testimony becomes of primary importance, and would suffice of itself to assure us of the attitude of mind our Lord’s followers cherished towards Him from the beginning. We shall present their testimony then frankly from this our own point of view, without stopping to argue our right to do so. It will thus at least be made apparent that the whole body of writings gathered into what we call the New Testament unite in commending to us one lofty view of Christ’s person. For in all these letters, too, as in those which have already claimed our attention, Jesus appears fundamentally as the divine object of the reverential service of Christians.
Among these letters a special interest attaches to the Epistles of James and Jude, because of their authorship by kinsmen of our Lord accordal ing to the flesh, who moreover did not believe in Him during His earthly man- - ifestation (Jno 7⁵): to which is added in the case of the Epistle of James, its exceedingly early date (A.D. 45),—a date antecedent to that of any other of the canonical books. Not only does not the simple Jesus’ occur in either of these Epistles or even the simple ‘ Christ,” but our Lord is uniformly spoken of by designations expressive of marked reverence. Both writers A describe themselves simply as servants’—that is, >‘ bond-servants,” ‘ slaves,”’1—James ‘” of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1¹), and Jude with striking directness simply of Jesus Christ” (1). The acknowledgment of Jesus as their ‘ Lord implied in this self-designation is emphasized in both Epistles by the constant employment of this title in speaking of Jesus.
James speaks of our Lord by name only twice, and on both occasions he gives Him the full title of reverence: the (or our) Lord Jesus Christ (1¹ 2¹)— coupling Him in the one case on equal terms with Godand in the other adding further epithets of divine dignity. Elsewhere he speaks of Him simply as the Lord (5⁷,⁸ ¹⁴,¹⁵)2 in contexts which greatly enhance the significance of the term. The pregnant use of the Name,’ absolutely, which we found current among the early Christians as reported in the Acts, recurs here; and James advises in the case of sick people that they be prayed over, while they are anointed with oil inthe Name” (5¹⁴). The “Name” intended iis clearly that of Jesus, which is thus in Christian usage substituted for that of Jehovah. A unique epithet, equally implying the deity of the Lord, is applied to Him in the exhortation, ‘ My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory, with respect of persons” (2¹). ‘The Glory’ seems to stand here in apposition to the name, our Lord Jesus Christ,” further defining Him in His majesty. There is here something more than merely the association of our Lord with glory, as when we are told that He had glory with God before the world was (Jno 17⁵), and after His humiliation on earth (though even on earth He manifested His glory to seeing eyes, Jno 1¹⁴ 2¹¹ 17²²) entered again into His glory (Lk 24²⁶, Jno 17²⁴, 1 Tim 3¹⁶, Heb 8⁹ ef. Mt 10²⁸ 25³¹, IME 16³⁷]), and is to come again mithis slory (Vt 16²⁷ 24³⁰ 25³¹, Mk 3³⁸ 13²⁶, Tk 9²⁶ 21²⁷ Titus 2¹³, 1’P 4¹³). “We come nearer to what is implied when we read of Jesus being the Lord of Glory (1 Cor 2⁸), that is He to whom glory belongs as His characterizing quality; or when He is described to us as “the effulgence of the glory of God” (Heb 1³). The thought of the writer seems to be fixed on those Old Testament passages in which Jehovah is described as the Glory”: e. g., For I, saith Jehovah, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and I will be the Glory in the midst of her” (Zech 2⁵). In the Lord Jesus Christ, James sees the fulfillment of these promises: He is Jehovah come to be with His people; and, as He has tabernacled among them, they have seen His glory. He is, in a word, the Glory of God, the Shekinah: God manifest to men. It is thus that James thought and spoke of his own brother who died a violent and shameful death while still in His first youth! Surely there is a phenomenon here which may well waken inquiry.