Copyright
James Hastings.

Dictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) online

. (page 58 of 234)
Online LibraryJames HastingsDictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) → online text (page 58 of 234)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


Josephus describes a voyage of Herod the Great
in the opposite direction. ' When he had sailed
by Rhodes and Cos, he touched at Lesbos, as think-
ing he should have overtaken Agrippa there ; but
he was taken short here by a north wind, which
hindered his ship from going to the shore, so he
remained many days at Chios. . . . And when
the high winds were laid he sailed to Mitylene,
and thence to Byzantium' (Ant. xvi. ii. 2).

LITERATURE. Conybeare-Howson, St. Paul, new ed.,
London, 1877, ii. 262 f. ; W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul, do. 1895, p.
292 f. ; T. Bent, in Eng. Hut. Review, iv. [1889] pp. 467-480 ;
Murray's Guide to Asia Minor. JAMES STRAHAN.

GHLOE. St. Paul was told of the factions in
Corinth mb rlav XXdijs, 'by them of Chloe' (1 Co I 11 ).
It is not said that she was a Christian, nor is it clear
whether she lived in Corinth or in Ephesus. Pro-
bably she was an Ephesian Christian lady, whose
'people' (i.e. her Christian slaves, or companions,
or even children) had brought back disquieting
news after visiting Corinth. Her name is an
epithet of a goddess and was often given to slaves ;
hence it has been conjectured that she was a
freedwoman of property.

LITERATURE. Artt. in BOB on 'Chloe' and on 'I. Cor-
inthians,' p. 487; Comm. on 1 Cor. by Findlay (EOT, 1904), pp.
736, 763, and by Godet (1889), i. 21, 64. C. v. Weizsacker
discusses the situation in Corinth, and takes a different view
about Chloe : see his Apostolic Age, i. 2 , London, 1897, pp. 305,
318, 326, 335. J. E. KOBERTS.

CHRIST, CHRISTOLOGY. In studying 'Chris-
tology' the object is to ascertain what were the
opinions, convictions, or dogmas regarding the
Person of Christ which were held by particular
authorities or by the Christian Church as a whole
at any particular time. In the period now under
review ' dogmas ' do not enter into considera-
tion, seeing that the Apostolic Age does not
furnish any instance of common opinion enforced
by authority, which is what ' dogma ' consists in.
On the other hand, the limits of our period are
set not by the ' Age of the Apostles ' strictly
understood, but by tne documents which form our
NT, even though some of them may be held to
proceed from a generation subsequent to that of
the apostles.

It has been usual to divide the subject into
pre-Pauline and Pauline (with ^ost-Pauline) Chris-
tology ; and the division only Cxoes justice to the
great place occupied by St. Paul to the interpreta-
tion of Christian experience and the correlation of
Christian thought. But the classification is open
to a two-fold objection. In the first place, it tends
unduly to depreciate the importance, indeed the
normative value, of Christian experience and re-
flexion anterior to St. Paul ; and, in the second
place, by grouping the other forms of Christology
as ' post-Pauline ' or ' sub- Pauline,' it assumes or
alleges a relation of dependence between them and
the Christology of the Apostle ; whereas the fact
of this relation and the measure of it are parts of
the whole problem, and call for careful investiga-
tion. It is preferable, therefore, to consider first
primitive Christology, and then sub-primitive Chris-
tology, without assuming any continuous line of
development.

I. THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE PRIMITIVE COM-
MUNITY. 1. Sources. The material for the study
of this period is far from copious, and its value
has been much disputed. Yet its importance is so
great that it demands careful examination. The
possible sources may be classified under three heads :
(1) the Acts of the Apostles, especially the earlier
half ; (2) certain statements and allusions in St.
Paul's Epistles as to views held in common by him-
self and the primitive Christian community ; and
(3) certain elements in the Synoptic Gospels, in
VOL. i. 12



which, it has been suggested, we find reflected the
Christological idea of a later generation. We shall
take these in the reverse order.

(1) The Synoptic Gospels. Here it is not proposed
to make any use of what some claim to recognize
as 'secondary' material in the Synoptic Gospels.
Firstly, even if the presence of such material be
admitted as a possibility, there is the greatest un-
certainty as to its amount and its distribution.
While there has undoubtedly been a tendency in
some critical writers to exaggerate the influence of
later theology on the Synoptic record, it is also
quite possible that the criteria to which they appeal
may need to be revised. Neither the absolute nor
the relative dates of the NT documents have been
ascertained with sufficient certainty, nor yet has
the inner history of the period been realized with
sufficient precision, to make the discrimination of
such material anything but very precarious. But,
secondly, even if there were much more certainty
than there is as to the Synoptic material which is
really secondary in character, it would be of little
use for our purpose, seeing that the criterion by
which it is distinguished is precisely its harmony
with the views of a later period ; and on that ac-
count it cannot be expected to yield any new and
positive information as to the opinion held in the
period to which ox hypothesi it belongs.

(2) The Epistles of St. Paul. These provide at
least valuable confirmation of what may be other-
wise ascertained as to the opinion held by the
primitive community, partly through direct state-
ment by the Apostle as to what was the gospel he
had ' received,' and partly through inference which
may be made from his own views, as to that out
of which they had developed. But beyond this we
cannot go. The Epistle of James, even if its date
be early, would add nothing to our knowledge of
the primitive Christology. The First Epistle of
Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apoca-
lypse all represent a stage in some degree in
advance of the common basis from which they
started ; and the Johannine Gospel and Epistles
embody the results of still longer experience and
deeper analysis.

(3) The Acts of the Apostles. There remains, as
the chief source of material for constructing the
pre-Pauline Christology, the Book of Acts, more
especially the first eleven chapters. Not many
years ago it would have been difficult to justify at
the bar of scholarly opinion the use of this docu-
ment as a trustworthy source. No book was so
seriously discredited as a historical source by the
representatives of the ' Tubingen theory.' Now,
however, that the governing historical principle of
that theory has been shown to be untenable, and
the conclusions based upon it have been either aban-
doned or seriously modified, the way has been opened
for a reconsideration of the Acts aa to both its date
and its historical value. In the opinion of most
competent scholars, the authorship may now be
restored to St. Luke and the date placed within
the first century, some assigning it to the nineties,
some to the eighties. Quite recently a strong case
has been made out by Harnack for the still older
view that it was written in the sixties before the
death of St. Paul.

But what is more important for our purpose than
the possible revision of the date is tne abandon-
ment of the charge of history-making for party (or
eirenical) purposes, and the recognition that St.
Luke was not simply an echo of St. Paul (see
Julicher, Introd. to NT, Eng. tr., 1904, p. 437 ; J.
Moftatt, LNT, 1911, p. 301). In particular there is
an increasing disposition to acknowledge that in
the speeches of the earlier chapters we have the
thought of the primitive community preserved and
reproduced with singular fidelity. The admission



178 CHRIST, CHRISTOLOGY



CHRIST, CHRISTOLOGY



of Schmiedel in his art. on the Acts (EBi i. 48) is
significant :

' A representation of Jesus so simple, and in such exact agree-
ment with the impression left by the most genuine passages of
the first three gospels, is nowhere else to be found in the whole
NT. It is hardly possible not to believe that this Ohristology of
the speeches of Peter must have come from a primitive source.'

In the Acts of the Apostles most of the material
is contained in the five speeches of Peter and the
speech of Stephen, those of Peter being (a) on the
day of Pentecost (2 14ff -) ; (b) in Solomon's portico
(3 1- - ff -) ; (c) the first before the Sanhedrin (4 8 *-) ; (d)
the second before the Sanhedrin (5 >J9a ) ; and (e) the
short speech at Joppa (Id 345 -)- When we proceed
to collect and classify the relevant statements in
this part of the Acts, we find that they point to
the following conclusions, (i.) The Christians of
the early days identified Jesus with the Messiah,
(ii.) They appealed for confirmation of this convic-
tion to the fact that God had ' raised him from the
dead'; and also that He had been 'exalted' by,
and to, the right hand of God, the Resurrection
and Exaltation marking a decisive moment in the
Messiahship. (iii. ) At the same time they referred
back behind the Resurrection to facts and charac-
teristics of His earthly ministry, (iv.) In spite of
the dignity and authority to which they believed
Him raised, they consistently referred to Him in
terms of humanity, as to one who had been, while
upon earth, a man among men. (v. ) They promptly
began to attach to Him certain OT titles and types,
some of which had already been recognized as
Messianic, others possibly not ; e.g. ' Son of Man,'
' Servant of God,' ' Leader of Salvation,' ' Saviour,'
'Judge,' and 'Lord.' (vi.) They connected the death
of Jesus, on the one hand, very definitely with the
determined purpose of God ; and, on the other,
with the blotting out of sin. And for these reasons
this Jesus was the subject of the ' good news' (S 42 ),
the object of faith (O 42 II 17 ), and the cause of faith
in men (3 16 ).

(i. ) The first point hardly requires to be illustrated.
Not only the speeches but the narrative as a whole
bear witness to the fact that the ' disciples,' to use
St. Luke's word, identified Jesus who had died but
risen again with the Messiah of Jewish expectation.
This was indeed the one point which at the outset
distinguished them from the other Jews in Jeru-
salem. Other grounds of distinction, ultimately
leading to separation, were doubtless latent in their
minds recollections of the Master's teaching, of
His attitude to the Law and the ritual of the
Temple. But in the meantime ' the disciples ' are
found haunting the Temple and observing the for-
mal hours of prayer ; St. Peter proudly claims that
no unclean or forbidden food has passed his lips
(10 14 ), and, thirty years later, St. James can assure
St. Paul that all the thousands of Jewish Christians
in Jerusalem are ' zealous of the law ' (21 20 ). But
with an enthusiasm which no scorn could quench,
a determination which neither threats nor imprison-
ment could weaken, they proclaimed to high and
low their conviction that the Jesus they had known
was the Messiah. It is one of the water-marks of
the primitive character of St. Luke's narrative that
he everywhere shows his consciousness that this is
the meaning of xP LffT ^- He never employs it as a
proper name. His name for our Saviour is either
' Jesus ' or ' the Lord ' ; and xpioris when it stands
alone always means 'Messiah.' This is specially
significant in passages where ' Christ ' and ' Jesus '
occur together, in apposition ; e.g. 3 20 , ' that he may
send the Messiah who has been before appointed
Jesus' ; S 42 17* 18 5 18 28 , 'shewing by the scriptures
that Jesus was the Messiah.' The completeness
with which this fact is attested must not Wind us,
however, to two uncertainties, which immediately
arise. The first may be stated thus : What did



the disciples understand by the Messiah? What
character, r61e, or function did they assign to Him ?
And the second thus : At what point did they
understand Him to have entered on His Messiah-
ship ? They identified Jesus with the Messiah of
Jewish expectation ; but did that mean that He
had been (and was still, and was to return as)
Messiah, or that the Messiahship was a dignity
conferred on Him after death and at the Resurrec-
tion? The answer to these questions follows on
the examination of the other elements in the primi-
tive conviction.

(ii. ) That conviction rested upon, and appealed
to, the Resurrection as the conclusive proof of the
Messiahship of Jesus. But the Resurrection was
uniformly connected with the Exaltation to the
right hand of God, or with its equivalent the par-
ticipation of Jesus in the Divine ' glory.' In each
of St. Peter's recorded speeches these two factors
are significantly combined (2 32 - 3 18 7 M 10 40 - ).
The Resurrection is thus regarded as the exter-
nally visible side of a great transaction which has
its true significance in the Exaltation of Jesus to
Messianic rank and honour in heaven ; it was a
public declaration of His station ; the man whom
they had seen crucified now occupied the place of
dignity and authority which prophecy and apoca-
lyptic had assigned to the Messiah. God had now
' made him both Lord and Christ ' (2 s6 ). The word
' Lord ' (Ktipios), like ' Christ,' is probably used as
an official title ; but in any case the phrase wit-
nesses to the belief that the Resurrection and
Exaltation had marked a decisive moment in the
Messiahship of Jesus.

(iii.) At the same time, St. Peter is careful to
emphasize on more than one occasion the ministry
which had preceded the Crucifixion and Resurrec-
tion. He marks the limits of that ministry (I 21 - K )
in accordance with those set by the Gospels. In
his first speech (2 22ff -) he describes its character
'Jesus the Nazarsean (cf. 3 6 4 10 6 14 22 s 24 5 and 26"),
a man approved of God unto you by mighty works
and signs and wonders, which God did by him in
the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know.'
And specially in the address preceding the baptism
of Cornelius (lO 36 ^), St. Peter, having begun with
words which make echoes of Messianic passages in
Isaiah (52? ; cf. Nah I 15 ), proceeds to remind his
hearers of something already familiar to them the
ministry of ' Jesus the one from Nazareth,' which
began from Galilee after the baptism proclaimed
by John. Him God had anointed with the Holy
Spirit, and He had gone about doing deeds of kind-
ness and healing all who were tyrannized by the
devil. Of all that He had done also in Judaea and
Jerusalem (as well as of the Resurrection) St.
Peter and his comrades were appointed to bear
witness. The only epithets applied to Jesus
which might throw light on the impression He had
made are ' holy ' and ' righteous ' (3 14 4 OT [cf. 4 30 ] 7 s2
[cf. 22 14 ]). The ascription of the characteristic
' righteous ' is probably due to a reminiscence of a
description already traditional for the Messiah (cf.
En. 38 2 46 s 53 6 ), and the collocation of ' holy ' and
' servant ' may have a similar origin ; but in 3 14 ,
where both epithets are applied to the historical
Jesus, the contrast drawn in the following para-
graph with the 'murderer' for whom the Jews
had asked suggests that the words at the same
time connote the consciousness that they fitly
describe the character of Jesus.

(iv.) This Jesus, whether He be referred to in
the days of His flesh or in His present Exaltation
at the right hand of God, is consistently repre-
sented in terms of humanity. It cannot be said
that any special stress is laid on His human
nature. The time had not yet come when it was
necessary to emphasize His true manhood ovei



CHEIST, CHE1STOLOGY



CHK1ST, CHKISTOLOGY 179



against Docetic or Gnostic tendencies. If some
slight emphasis is to be detected, it is due rather
to wonder that One to whom so much honour is
assigned, through whom so much is expected, was
One with whom the disciples had been on familiar
terms. This is suggested by the frequency with
which the simple name ' Jesus ' is used (three
.times as often as the title 'Christ'), by the re-
iterated designation ' Jesus the Nazarsean,' and
by the emphatic demonstration which occurs more
than once ' This Jesus did God raise up ' (2 s2 ; cf.
2 s6 ). It is 'Jesus' whom Stephen sees standing
at the right hand of God (T 55 ), and 'Jesus' who
speaks to Saul from heaven. It was in the fact
that St. Peter and St. John had been companions
of ' Jesus ' that the members of the Sanhedrin
found some explanation of their boldness and
powers of speecli (4 13 ). It was in the name of
' Jesus ' that they taught (4 18 ), and in the same
name that they wrought miracles. The miracles
of Jesus Himself were not ascribed to His in-
dependent initiative ; they were wonders which
' God did by him ' (2 22 ) ; and the explanation of
His power which is given elsewhere (10 38 ) is that
God had anointed Him with the Holy Ghost, and
that God 'was with him' (10 38 ). For God had
' raised him up ' in the sense in which He ' raised
up ' prophets of old, and ' sent him to bless ' His
people in turning away eveiy one of them from
their iniquities (S 26 ). In all this we see the tokens
of a very early form of Christology ; one, moreover,
which would be very difficult to account for either
as the invention or as the recollection of a later
generation.

(v.) But this is not a complete account of
the Christological phenomena of these chapters.
There are numerous indications that from the
very outset the minds of some at least of the
disciples were at work on the material provided
for them by (a) their recollection of what Jesus
had been, said, and done ; (6) the facts of His
Crucifixion and Resurrection ; and (c) the promises
and predictions of the OT, together possibly with
some of the language of the apocalypses. The re-
sult of this reflexion is seen in the ascription to
Jesus as Messiah of certain important titles and
functions which indicate more precisely the relation
in which He stands towards God or the function
He discharges towards men. In his speech on the
day of Pentecost St. Peter was ready with a quota-
tion from Ps 16, and an exegetical interpretation
of it which was sufficiently in accord with con-
temporary methods of exegesis to commend it to
his hearers. Not long after, we find him making
the definite general statement that God had ful-
filled the things which He foreshowed ' by the
mouth of all his prophets that his Christ should
suffer ' (3 18 ; cf. also S 24 10 43 ). We are justified,
therefore, in looking to the writings of the prophets
for the sources of phrases and ideas now connected
with Jesus as the risen Messiah.

(a) The Servant of God. That is undoubtedly
the source of the striking description, rbv iraida ai/roO
(sc. 0fov), which occurs twice in St. Peter's second
speech (3 13 - 26 ) and twice (rbv Hyiov ircudd <rov) in the
prayer of thanksgiving (4 271 M ). The rendering
familiar to English ears through the AV trans-
lates TrtuSa by ' Son ' in the first two passages, by
' child ' in the last two. But according to the
view now generally held it is the alternative
meaning of Trots which is here intended, viz. ' ser-
vant ' ; and we have in the phrase a deliberate
echo of the language of Deutero-Isaiah concern-
ing the ' Servant of the Lord.' Such a usage, in
the first place, is a further indication of the primi-
tive character of St. Luke's material. It is found
elsewhere only in Clement, the Didache, and the
Martyrdom of Polycarp. It is an early Messianic



title for our Lord which is not repeated in the
later books of the NT (see further A. Harnack,
Date of Acts and Synoptic Gospels, Eng. tr., 1911,
p. 106 ; History of Dogma, Eng. tr., i. [1894] 185,
note 4).

Further, the application of this title to Jesus is
very significant, whether it is traced to inde-
pendent reflexion on the part of the apostles, or
whether it be due to appreciation on their part
of the same factor in the consciousness and in the
utterances of Jesus. Its effect was to link on to
the traditional conception of the Messiah a series
of ideas of quite a different character, including
humility, submission, vicarious suffering and death.
The importance of this identification is illustrated
by the exposition of Is 53 7 given by Philip to the
Ethiopian eunuch (S 35 ' beginning from this scrip-
ture he preached unto him Jesus ') ; and the same
interpretation probably underlies St. Paul's state-
ment, ' Christ . . . died for our sins according to
the scriptures.'

() Prince and Saviour. The same OT context
is probably the source of another striking desig-
nation, apxyyov KCLI fftarijpa. ' Him did God exalt
unto his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour '
(5 31 ; cf. 3 15 ' ye slew the Prince of life ' ; and He
2 10 'the author 'prince, or captain) of their sal-
vation' ; also J5* Author and finisher' [Westcott,
' leader and cons,ammator ']). The variety in the
renderings reflects an ambiguity in the word dpx~n-
yos. It describes one who both inaugurates and
controls ; and the apxT/fo TV* <"}* at once inaugu-
rates and controls the Messianic experience of sal-
vation here described as fan?. There is thus a
close parallelism between the two phrases ' Prince
of life ' and ' Prince and Saviour ' ; and when they
are taken together, and weighed with the context
in which the first is found, their connexion with
the language of Isaiah becomes plain, e.g. Is 60' 6
e-yd) Ktfyuos 6 ffufav ere, and 55* iSoi) fjuiprvptov iv ZOveaiv
f-5(i}Ka avrbv, Apxovra Kal Trpoffrda'crovTa. rots Zdveaiv. The
' sufferings of the Christ ' had been foretold ' by the
mouth of all the prophets ' ; and the same pro-
phecies, to the study of which the apostles had
been led by His death, supplied forms for the ex-
pression of their faith in Him.

(7) Son of Man. This title for Jesus occurs once
only in the account of the martyrdom of Stephen
(1 s5 ). Stephen ' looked up stedfastly to heaven and
saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the
right hand of God ; and he said, Behold, I see the
heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at
the right hand of God.' Two things are clear :
the name ' Jesus ' and the title ' Son of Man ' are
already felt to be interchangeable, and the title
belongs to Jesus as the Messiah. There is no
other instance of the phrase in the NT outside the
Gospels, Rev I 13 being no exception. It provides,
as Bartlett says (ad loc.), 'a water-mark of the
originality of this utterance,' and even the most
cautious critics admit that this speech of Stephen
reached St. Luke from a very early source. These
two facts the early date to which the phrase
must be assigned and its uniqueness outside the
Gospels point to its being a reminiscence of what
is attested by the Gospels our Lord's custom of
describing Himself by this title, and describing
Himself with a veiled allusion to His Messiahship.
But even if the primitive community was itself re-
sponsible for this identification, and did not take
it over from our Lord Himself, that would not
diminish the significance of the phrase for the
primitive Christology. ' This identification of the
historical Jesus with the ' ' Son of Man " of Daniel
and Enoch is very significant, because directly it
is accomplished, the further thought can no longer
be resisted, that Jesus of Nazareth is not simply a
man, who in the future is to be exalted to heavenly



180 CHRIST, CHRISTOLOGY



CHRIST, CHRISTOLOGY



glory, but an original heavenly being, who came
down to accomplish this work of his on earth ' (J.
Weiss, Christ, Eng. tr., 1911, p. 59 f.). The com-
munity, for which this was a just and intelligible
description of Jesus, was preparing and prepared
for any interpretation of His oeing which is con-
tained in the NT.

(5) The phrase Son of God is also used, but only
once in 9 20 . St. Paul ' preached Jesus, that he is
the Son of God.' But the title is used in its
Messianic and official sense, founded on Ps 2 7 (cf.
Mt 16 16 , Jn I 49 ) ; and the sentence implies no more
than the closing words of v. 22 ' proving that this is
the Christ.' A later generation failed to recognize
this, and the consequence is seen in the TR of 9 20 ,
where ' Christ ' has been substituted for ' Jesus '
a useful illustration of the way in which the copy-
ists felt the lack of the word ' Christ ' as a name,
and therefore introduced or substituted it (some
nine times in all in Acts).

(e) The Lord. Xpwros, TCUS Geov, dpxTrybs rfjs
crttmjplas, dpxT/ds *al ffur^p, vldj TOU dv9pdnrov these
are elements out of which a rich Christology might
rapidly develop. And there is still one to add,
which is probably the most pregnant of all the
title 6 Ktfpioj. The Synoptic Gospels witness to the
habit of addressing the Master, or speaking of



Online LibraryJames HastingsDictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) → online text (page 58 of 234)