Biblical meaning of "Christ"

Longfellow

Longfellow

Well-Known Member
Messages
273
Reaction score
85
Points
28
Location
here and there around the world
I'm not sure that everyone knows that "Christ" is from a Greek word meaning "anointed," that in the Old Testament "anointed one, Son of God" means a king of Israel, and that Jesus approved of Peter calling Him the anointed one, the Son of God. In my understanding, what made that important to Peter and to Jesus was the recognition of His authority from God, a person to serve and obey above all others. It's only in an Old Testament context that being an anointed one and the Son of God gives Him that authority, but in my understanding He has that authority, whether a person believes in the Old Testament or not. He is appointed by the God of Abraham as a person for us to serve and obey above all others. That's what I think it means in the Bible to call Him "Lord."

I don't know where I'm going with this. It just feels important to me, and grievously neglected by people calling Him Christ and Lord.
 
I forgot a change I wanted to make in that post before sending it. It's only in an Old Testament context that being an anointed one and the Son of God gives Jesus all the authority and power of God, but in my understanding He does have that authority over all people, not only over Israel.

Luke 6:46 (KJV) - And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
 
"The intelligible names are not things, no longer have reference to objectively and independently existing entities, but are instead windows opening onto the sense – and reality – of God present in his powers or energies" (Alexander Golitzin, Mystagogy, p.100).
 
Thomas said:
"The intelligible names are not things, no longer have reference to objectively and independently existing entities, but are instead windows opening onto the sense – and reality – of God present in his powers or energies" (Alexander Golitzin, Mystagogy, p.100).
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I'm getting the point, but if I am, it's something that dawned on me in a conversation with an AI assistant. Paul transformed the title "Christ," meaning a promised king of Israel, to a name that didn't have that association for anyone but the people of Israel and people familiar with their beliefs. But another way of looking at it is that maybe he invented a new Greek word for the unique kind of person that Jesus was. Either way, it no longer had the association that it had for Peter, but it still had the association of divine authority and power that Paul attached to it, authority and power over all people including the people of Israel.

(later) Maybe when Jesus praised Peter, it was not for recognizing Him as a promised king, but for seeing the power and authority of God in Jesus that made Him that king. Maybe Peter saw that power and authority in Jesus, and the best words that he knew for that were "the Anointed One, the Son of the Living God."
 
Last edited:
"For all the Divine properties, even those revealed to us, are known by the participations alone; and themselves, such as they are in their own source and abode, are above mind and all essence and knowledge. For instance, if we have named the superessential Hiddenness, 'God', or 'Life', or 'Essence', or 'Light', or 'Word' (logos), we have no other thought than that the powers brought to us from It are deifying, or essentiating, or life-bearing, or wisdom-imparting; but to Itself we approach during the cessation of all the intellectual energies, seeing no deification, or life, or essence whatever, such as is strictly like the Cause pre-eminently elevated above all." (St Denys/Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite Divine Names II.7)

I was just posting this as you replied ...
 
Thomas said:
"For all the Divine properties, even those revealed to us, are known by the participations alone; and themselves, such as they are in their own source and abode, are above mind and all essence and knowledge. For instance, if we have named the superessential Hiddenness, 'God', or 'Life', or 'Essence', or 'Light', or 'Word' (logos), we have no other thought than that the powers brought to us from It are deifying, or essentiating, or life-bearing, or wisdom-imparting; but to Itself we approach during the cessation of all the intellectual energies, seeing no deification, or life, or essence whatever, such as is strictly like the Cause pre-eminently elevated above all." (St Denys/Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite Divine Names II.7)

I was just posting this as you replied ...
Click to expand...
That looks to me like the "operations" of the Cappadocian fathers.
 
His influences were many, Christian and non-Christian alike. as for himself, he claimed to be following the tradition, rather than any originality.
 
Longfellow said:
Maybe when Jesus praised Peter, it was not for recognizing Him as a promised king, but for seeing the power and authority of God in Jesus that made Him that king. Maybe Peter saw that power and authority in Jesus, and the best words that he knew for that were "the Anointed One, the Son of the Living God."
Click to expand...
The best words perhaps because they are the most apt...
 
Thomas said:
The best words perhaps because they are the most apt...
Click to expand...
The most apt for people who know the Old Testament, but not for people who know nothing about it. For them, "Son of God" has a very different meaning, and even if they know or are told the meaning of "anointed one," "king of Israel" does not signify power and authority over them.
 
Longfellow said:
The most apt for people who know the Old Testament, but not for people who know nothing about it.of God" has a very different meaning, and even if they know or are told the meaning of "anointed one," "king of Israel" does not signify power and authority over them.
Click to expand...
OK, but the sacred scribes were writing to an audience who knew what the term meant – being primarily Jews – and clearly within that, arguing the case that Jesus is more than 'just another prophet' and that 'Son of God' was not just an honorific.

In the same way, the term kyrios simply means 'lord' and is an all-purpose honorific, but in the case of John 20:28 "Ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou" (My Lord and my God), Thomas uses ho kyrios, the honorific article, being the Greek rendering of the Hebrew Adonai, the accepted textual circumlocution for God’s unutterable name, the tetragrammaton (YHWH).

I'd say in the discussions here, the understanding of 'Christos' in the modernist mind is often a long country mile from 'Christos' as Paul and the Evangelists understood and experienced it.

(Or am I missing the point of your post entirely?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top