Basic HTML Version
299
templetax. It is especially in this sense that modern liberal theology ascribes the name to Jesus.
It finds that the sonship of Jesus is only an ethico-religious sonship, somewhat heightened
indeed, but not essentially different from that of His disciples.
5. THE NAME LORD (Kurios).
The name “Lord” is applied to God in the Septuagint, (a) as the
equivalent of Jehovah; (b) as the rendering of Adonai; and (c) as the translation of a human
honorific title applied to God (chiefly Adon), Josh. 3:11; Ps. 97:5. In the New Testament we find
a somewhat similar threefold application of the name to Christ, (a) as a polite and respectful
form of address, Matt. 8:2; 20:33; (b) as expressive of ownership and authority, without
implying anything as to Christ’s divine character and authority, Matt. 21:3; 24:42; and (c) with
the highest connotation of authority, expressive of an exalted character, and in fact practically
equivalent to the name “God,” Mark 12:36,37; Luke 2:11; 3:4; Acts 2:36; I Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11.
In some cases it is hard to determine the exact connotation of the title. Undoubtedly, after the
exaltation of Christ, the name was generally applied to Him in the most exalted sense. But there
are instances of its use even before the resurrection, where the specifically divine import of the
title has evidently already been reached, as in Matt. 7:22; Luke 5:8; John 20:28. There is a great
difference of opinion among scholars respecting the origin and development of this title as
applied to Jesus. In spite of all that has been advanced to the contrary, there is no reason to
doubt that the use of the name, as applied to Jesus, is rooted in the Old Testament. There is
one constant element in the history of the conception, and that is the element of authoritative
ownership. The Epistles of Paul suggest the additional idea that it is an authority and ownership
resting on antecedently acquired rights. It is doubtful, whether this element is already present
in the Gospels.
B. THE NATURES OF CHRIST.
From the earliest times, and more particularly since the Council of Chalcedon, the Church
confessed the doctrine of the two natures of Christ. The Council did not solve the problem
presented by a person who was at once human and divine, but only sought to ward off some of
the solutions which were offered and were clearly recognized as erroneous. And the Church
accepted the doctrine of the two natures in one person, not because it had a complete
understanding of the mystery, but because it clearly saw in it a mystery revealed by the Word
of God. It was and remained ever since for the Church an article of faith, far beyond human
comprehension. Rationalistic attacks on the doctrine were not entirely wanting, but the Church
remained firm in the confession of this truth, in spite of the fact that it was once and again
declared to be contrary to reason. In this confession Roman Catholics and Protestants stand
shoulder to shoulder. But from the last part of the eighteenth century on this doctrine was
made the butt of persistent attacks. The Age of Reason set in, and it was declared to be