Messiah or Christ: What's in a Name, But It Isn't a Name...or Is It?

Among scholar, pastors, and students it’s all the rage to speak of Messiah with reference to Jesus rather than the biblical expression "Jesus Christ." Granted, these two terms have the same meaning. Heck, you can even get yourself a couple Bible translations that include Messiah here and there. It's guided by seemingly good intentions. Scholars and pastors want to rattle the pew-sitters' cages, waking them to the fact that "Christ" isn't Jesus the Nazarene's last name, like Stevenson is mine. No, Christ is Jesus' title; he's God's Christ (Greek), his Messiah (Hebrew), both of which mean God’s anointed One. In the OT, only the offices (prophet, priest, king) enjoyed the special anointing of God's Spirit. Jesus, then, is God's CHRIST, the final Prophet, Priest, and King! Christ is not a name but a title, it is stressed. However, this shouldn't be stressed without qualification. There are times when the NT explicitly treats Christos as his name. E.g., in Matt 24:5 it says, "For many shall come in my NAME, saying, 'I am CHRIST'; and shall deceive many." Here is just one instance when Jesus himself seems to suggest that Christ is his name in some sense, since it is so bound up in his personal identity. So, we should be careful in both the hearing and speaking about any absolute claim that Christ is not his name in any way.

In Yeshua, YHWH Saves

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS:[1] for (γαρ; grounds clause) he [himself][2] shall save his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21 KJV).

Here are some gleanings from my message prep for the Second Sunday in Epiphany (which is also Sanctity of Human Life Sunday).

Matt. 1:21 is the fulfillment of the promise of Is. 49:1d, “From the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.” So, naturally, it has weighed in on my studies.

I’ve always found this verse to be one of the strongest indirect proofs for Jesus’ deity, similar to Matt. 11:27, St. Matthew’s so-called logion. And there is a transparent word play intended in Jesus’ name in Matt. 1:21 (see fn. 1).

The command to name the Messiah Jesus (Arm. Yesuah or Joshua) is premised or grounded on the fact that “he himself will save his people from their sins” (1:21b). I’ve always struggled to put Jesus’ deity from indirect texts into a sound and valid syllogism. For instance, consider the synthesis of the following verses.

St. John 1:9 calls Jesus “the true Light.” Likewise, in 1 Jn. 1:5 we learn that “God is light.” It seems that these two could be brought into a meaningful deductive relation.

1. Jesus is the true Light;

2. God is Light;

3. Therefore, Jesus is God.

The apparent problem with this is that it creates a formal fallacy, the undistributed middle. No manner of arrangement has proven to be free of either logical or theological fallacies, as far as I can tell. It is clearer when we use other subjects.

1. My Jeep is blue;

2. The sky is blue;

3. Therefore, my jeep is the sky.

Despite these past blunders in trying to create a cogent argument from indirect biblical data, a discussion with Beaner this morning revealed that Matt. 1:21 provides just such a possibility.

            1. Yeshua is Savior of Israel (Matt. 1:21)

            2. The only Savior of Israel is YHWH (Is. 43:11; 45:15, 21, etc.)

            3. Therefore, Yeshua is YHWH.

As far as I can see, this argument is both sound and valid; it is free from logical fallacies. Additionally, it is perfectly consistent with the NT authors’ regular attribution of kurios to Jesus, which are in their OT contexts attributed to YHWH.

---

[1] NAS text note: Jesus is the Gk form of the Hb name “Joshua,” which = “The Lord saves” or “Yahweh saves.”

[2] NAS text note: Lit. He Himself.  

Lutherans' Consubstantiation: Trampling Under Foot All Reason, Sense, and Understanding

Martin Luther once stated “Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.” He might as well have included biblical truth and sound doctrine in this list. This is precisely what he and his successors did in their formulation of their understanding of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, the doctrine commonly called consubstantiation.

Lutherans’ confessional commitment to consubstantiation, their view of the Eucharist, must be considered heresy in that it contradicts the orthodox formulation of Christology as prescribed in the Creed of Chalcedon, which reads, “One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly...” This clause was in response to the original heresy of Eutyches, which was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451.

How, though, does the Lutheran confessional stance on the Eucharist confuse Christ’s two natures?

The Epitome, one of the central Lutheran confessional documents, contains a blatant contradiction, which leads to the contradicting of the Chalcedonian Christology. In chapter eight, “The Person of Christ,” the Epitome affirms the following.

VIII. The Person of Christ: Affirmative Theses

[6] 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the divine and human natures are not mingled into one substance, nor the one changed into the other, but that each retains its own essential properties, which [can] never become the properties of the other nature.

[7] 3. The properties of the divine nature are: to be almighty, eternal, infinite (that is, boundless and without spatial limitation [KS]), and to be, according to the property of its nature and its natural essence, of itself, everywhere present, to know everything, etc.; which never become properties of the human nature.

[8] 4. The properties of the human nature are: to be a corporeal creature, to be flesh and blood, to be finite and circumscribed, to suffer, to die, to ascend and descend, to move from one place to another, to suffer hunger, thirst, cold, heat, and the like; which never become properties of the divine nature.

Here are some clear points that may be adduced from these theses.

1. The divine and human natures do not comingle; each nature retains its own properties, which are never communicated to the other nature (from [6]2).

2.  Omnipresence and infinity are properties of the divine nature, and never become properties of the human nature (from [7]3).

3. Flesh and blood and finitude are properties of the human nature (from [8]4).

These are some of the most basic doctrines of Christology and are worthy of full acknowledgement and confession by any claiming to be faithful Christians. So, from these three general propositions, one can make the following synthesis.

C1. The flesh and blood of Christ (human nature) can never possess the properties of omnipresence and infinity (of the divine nature, being “everywhere present”).

This seems to be a necessary implication of the three theses from the Epitome, chapter 8, on the Person of Christ. This then is a foundational belief for a faithful Christology, according to both the Chalcedonian Creed and the Epitome-Concord; and, I’d argue, the scriptures. Concluding this, we have a good starting point to go back one chapter in the Epitome, chapter 7, and consider its theses on the Eucharist.

For clarity’s sake, I’ll use just a few theses from the Negativa, namely [32]11—[34]13. First, though, I’ll include this section’s prefatory remarks. The preface reads,

[21] On the other hand, we unanimously reject and condemn all the following erroneous articles, which are opposed and contrary to the doctrine presented above, the simple faith, and the [pure] confession concerning the Lord's Supper...

The following articles read as follow.

[32] 11. That the body of Christ is so enclosed in heaven that it can in no way be at once and at one time in many or all places upon earth where His Holy Supper is celebrated.

[33] 12. That Christ has not promised, neither could have effected, the essential presence of His body and blood in the Holy Supper, because the nature and property of His assumed human nature cannot suffer nor permit it.

[34] 13. That God, according to [even by] all His omnipotence (which is dreadful to hear), is not able to cause His body to be essentially present in more than one place at one time.

Of course, as part of the Negativa, these theses, as the preface makes clear, are those that are denied by Lutherans. Again, a positive statement of synthesis necessarily follows from the above theses.

C2. The body (i.e., flesh and blood; human nature) of Christ can be omnipresent, “at one time in many or all places upon the earth” (divine nature).

Now, let’s put these two propositions together, one a conclusion from chapter 8 and the other a conclusion from chapter 7, and see if they can be maintained in any sort of meaningful relationship.

C1. The flesh and blood of Christ (human nature) can never possess the properties of omnipresence and infinity (of the divine nature, being “everywhere present”).

And,

C2. The flesh and blood of Christ (human nature) can be omnipresent, everywhere present (divine nature).

Coming now to these two conclusions, which I believe are very fair inferences from the Epitome’s theses, there are only a couple of options available to us.

Option 1. We allow the more basic, foundational doctrine of Christology (C1) to cause us to reevaluate and reformulate as necessary the doctrine of the Eucharist (C2). Granting that we are over 500 years removed from formulation and confession of the formula of the doctrine of the Eucharist, this doesn’t seem likely.

Option 2. We maintain the two doctrines of the Concord stand in clear contradiction. If we were to try to synthesize C1 and C2, it would look something like this.

C3. It is the case that Christ’s human nature cannot possess the divine property of omnipresence; and, it is also that case that Christ’s human nature can possess the divine property of omnipresence.  

This is a particular violation of the general statement of the law of non-contradiction, a most basic law of logic: Something cannot be both A and not-A at the same time in the same sense. Or, to put it in our context: Christ’s human nature cannot be both omnipresent and not-omnipresent. However, that is what I understand, as illustrated above, the Formula of Concord to be saying. This is utter nonsense!

To invoke the miraculous nature of the Supper doesn’t help resolve this. In fact, I don’t question for one second the supernatural or miraculous nature of the Supper; it is nothing less! What I have trouble with, in fact must reject, is the idea that Christ’s institution would entail such a brazen contradiction as this does.

To be clear, I am not promoting rationalism. I don’t understand logic to be something extraneous to the Godhead, to which he is subject. Rather, logic is an expression of the divine nature itself, which was “declared” (exēgeomaito) to us in the incarnation of the Word, the eternal Logos (Jn. 1:18). Being part of the essential nature of God, he cannot contradict himself, or as St. Paul put it, “he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself,” thus, “he cannot lie” (2 Tim. 2:13; Tit. 1:2). And being created in his image, to reflect his glory, we also cannot violate logic, especially in our thoughts concerning his nature and this holy Supper, wherein he is present.

In chapter 8 of the Epitome, [13]5 of the Affirmative Theses rightly states, “That God's Word is not false, and does not deceive.” Elsewhere, the Formula confidently states that the doctrine of the Eucharist is based solely on the words of Christ, “according to the letter,” and the literal sense. However, if, as I’ve shown above, this doctrine entails a contradiction, then it is false by definition, not to mention deceptive. Moreover, if these doctrines are assuredly good and necessary deductions from the clear teaching of Scripture, then Scripture too must contain at least one contradiction, which would have obvious implications for our bibliology, namely the doctrines of infallibility and inerrancy.

The good Dr. Luther, in spite of the huge debt of gratitude all Protestants owe him, and the mighty ways that God used him and his brilliant mind to contribute to the Reformation, saving the church from her Babylonian Captivity to Rome,  risks being condemned by his own words, when it comes to the doctrine of the Eucharist.

“You conduct yourself like one drunk or asleep, belching out between your snores, ‘Yes, No.’” –Martin Luther (The Bondage of the Will, Vol. 33 of Luther's Works, pp. 113).

Jesus', the New-True Adam's, Wilderness Probation

As the heading suggests, I’m cautious of the title “the temptation” for its restrictive connotations. The ‘the’, in ‘the temptation’, seems to indicate that the whole of Jesus’ cosmic level struggle against Satan, sin, and the wicked world system in its defiant rebellion toward God is summed up in the forty days and nights in the wilderness. We know, however, that this is not the case. There are, perhaps, even greater problems if we are to place the accent on the ‘temptation’ of ‘the temptation’, as it averts attention away from the event’s divine purpose in God’s redemptive program and poises our focus on merely a single perspective and design for the event, namely Satan’s. In so viewing it, from the vantage of Satan’s schematic purposes, we are bound to be deprived of much of the critical theological content and the particularly messianic nature of the trial.

Probation is, I believe, the best designation for this inaugural event in Jesus’ Messiahship, for it better represents the Father’s design, the Son’s dealings, and the Holy Spirit’s “driving” (Mk 1:12). And it is these that form the intention or purpose underlying the entire experience. Moreover, probation resonates with the allusive OT paradigms the gospel writers were both assuming and including: Adam’s probation in the Garden (per Lk, and maybe in Mk as “he was with the wild beasts...[harmoniously perhaps?]” 1:13; cf. Is 11:6—9; 32:14—20; 65:25; Hos 2:18), and Israel’s first exodus in all three of accounts, which is obvious from Jesus’ citations from Deut 6 and 8. Thus, the weight and results from the failings of both Adam and Israel, as ‘sons of God’ who were created to accomplish all God’s will on earth, were coming to bear on the only Son of God, the second Adam, the true Israel. His obedient submission to the Father throughout this probative period would thus test and prove what kind of Messiah he would be, therefore, determining the entire course of redemption. The meaning of the wilderness experience of Jesus was the means of demonstrating and defining the Father’s purposes for the Son’s Messiahship, being conferred upon Jesus at the baptism through the Holy Spirit’s anointing and the Father’s declarative pronouncement (“My Son...well pleased”). The Son, upon successfully passing this probative period through submission and suffering (Deut 8:2), would enter into the Father’s messianic mission as Victor in the full power of the Spirit.

The broader context of the passage in all three gospels is, in general, identical: (1) the baptism/Father’s pronouncement; (2) the 40 days in the wilderness; and (3) Jesus’ victorious return onto the public scene, “in the power of the Holy Spirit,” to begin his messianic mission. This consistency is coupled with language in every account that clearly connects the baptism to the probation. The authors, then, intend the two to be treated as a unit; the latter can only be understood in light of the former.

The voice of the Father at the baptism not only declared Jesus’ Sonship, but also defined it. The words: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” brings together to critical strands of messianic expectation from the OT. “This is my beloved Son...” is surely drawn from Ps 2:7, which describes Yahweh’s coming Anointed One, the hope and fulfillment of the everlasting Davidic covenant. It is more than mere coincidence that the very next verse of this Psalm (v. 8) speaks of the Father’s promise to the Son, “Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.” Thus, it should not surprise us that Satan’s final assault (per Mt) came in a similar form to the very same promise. It is not as though Satan’s offering Jesus the same thing (Mt 4:8—9) as the Father, “the nations...their glory,” was tempting in itself. Consider the weight of this dilemma—seemingly same promise, one from the Father of Light, the other from the father of lies. It appears the there would be little, if any, struggle in the rational mind when faced with such a choice. But Matthew treats this as the climax of the battle; the very point on which redemption swings. But how can this be?

This question draws us back again to the Father’s voice at the baptism, namely to the second clause: “...with whom I am well pleased.” This allusion points back to Is 42:1ff, a passage that Matthew cites directly in 12:18—21, as does Luke, twice (1:79; 2:32; with allusions in Acts 3:26; 4:27). The opening pericope of this chapter (Is 42:1—9) begins a section of Isaiah known as the suffering Servant songs. Here Yahweh’s Servant is identified with a role of suffering, meekness, and humiliation, one that finally ends in the disgraceful death in Ch. 53, an end administered by none other than the Servant’s “well pleased” Father. This depiction of the hoped for anointed Messiah, although an accepted vein within 1st century messianism, seems to stand in stark contrast, if not out right contradiction, to the exalted, victorious anointed Davidic King of Ps 2! These two streams of messianic hope—humiliation-Servant/exaltation-King—converging in the same figure were formerly inconceivable in Jewish eschatology. However, it is precisely this paradox that informs a right understanding of the wilderness phase of Jesus’ Messiahship and answers the question above regarding Matthew’s final temptation. Concerning the question, the weightiness of Satan’s offer of the glory of the nations was to seemingly grant Jesus his rightful exaltation as the Messiah, thus attaining, at least in part, the end goal of his messianic work while altogether avoiding the demanded humiliation, suffering, and death that were part and parcel of the Father’s plan for his Son/Messiah. Thus, the questions facing Jesus at every point in the wilderness probation were, what kind and, whose Messiah would he be?

This, I believe, explains best the perspective and burden of Jesus in the crisis. The perspective of the Father, as this would be, for his Son, a time of testing, trial, that is, probation. Even Satan’s perspective is best illuminated from this angle. Satan’s primary objective was not to bring uncertainty directly upon Jesus’ Sonship or even his sinlessness; but, at first subtle then in sudden desperation, an attempt to derail or, better, abort the Father’s plan to establish his Messianic King, his kingdom, and consequently destroy the very works of the Devil himself (I Jn 3:8). Satan’s awareness of the ultimate doom he would face as a result of Jesus’ success, which began principally at the end of the wilderness probation, is also revealed in his citation of Ps 91:11—12. While Satan rightly observes the promise of special providence for the trusting One of Ps 91, he must too have been fully aware of the promise of v. 13 as well, “...the serpent you will trample underfoot!” (cf. Lk 10:19; Mk 16:18; Gen 3:15).

Unlike Adam, who failed in a state of perfection; Jesus, cloaked in humiliation, came out unscathed from his struggle on a sin torn battlefield! More than that, Adam’s success would have kept him from suffering loss; Jesus’ success first recovered Adam’s loss, and then gained the Messiah’s mantle. Hence, in the desert wilderness Jesus proved what was in his heart—humble, absolute trust in the Father’s promises—the kind of submissive obedience God requires of all people, yet never given by a person before, was offered up by Jesus in the harshest of conditions, thus gaining his Messiahship and our much needed righteousness! Our True Joshua, leading us in to conquer the Promise Land (II Cor 2:14)!

W. H. Griffith-Thomas on Faith

Trust is the only adequate answer to God’s revelation.  Just as the absence of faith makes it impossible for human beings to have any dealings with each other, so the absence of faith in God makes it wholly impossible for us to have any association with Him.  “He that cometh to God must believe” (Heb. 11:6).  Trust is thus the correlative of truth.  Faith in man answers to grace in God.  As such it affects the whole of man’s nature...

Faith is not blind, but intelligent, since it rests on the conviction of the authority of Christ as Teacher, Savior, and Lord.  The three-fold Revelation of Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King, revealing, redeeming, and ruling, is met by the response of the whole life, intellect, emotion, and will.

The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles, xx—xxi.