His Name Is Christ - Essay Example

At first reading, I had trouble distinguishing between the two – Jesus the anointed and the anointed Jesus.  Christ Jesus speaks on a higher level, we may say, about His life, His death, and His purpose for coming to earth.  Prefixing Jesus with Christ is more than naming him it’s telling us who He is, better still, what He encompasses, His whole being – the Messiah.

            I had seen the reference to Paul’s writings in Romans and read the passage. “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ became, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.” (Romans 9:5) I read the passage three times before I saw it.  Paul refers to Christ as Christ repeatedly throughout his writings.  Christ the name, not Christ the entity for lack of a better phrase.  In this one passage, Paul is speaking not of the man Christ.  He clearly states that he is not speaking of the earthly body when he refers to the flesh.  Rather, Paul is speaking when he uses the word Christ in this instance to speak of the sovereignty of Christ and the special unbreakable bond expressed in the lineage of Isaac – the seed.  He is to that seed the anointed one.  He is the one through whom all the children of the seed must go to the bridge to the Father. Paul, in his understated eloquence of words which often sound very simple, holds so much that in one verse he conveyed such truth.

             It is also, in my mind, significant that in this one instance, Paul used this form to refer to Him.   Paul never knew Christ the man, having already been crucified and ascended before Paul was called.  Paul, however, at this moment chose to use Christ here to show the sovereignty of Christ.  Paul himself was called not because he was a Jew, not because of the promise, but because he was called to bring the seed of the promise to Him. This passage demanded that he speak of Christ as the anointed.  If I may make a personal aside, I have noted since the beginning of this essay, Paul, throughout his writings, refers to Christ as Christ in many instances.  I see the closeness of Paul to Christ and such a deep understanding of Him expressed in all of Paul’s writings.  It is difficult to remember at times that they never walked together, at least on the earthly plane, in the flesh.  Yet, Paul has, in my opinion, a much deeper understanding and closeness to Christ than, perhaps, those with whom Jesus had, in physical form, walked.

            The second point on which I would like to comment is found on page 81 where reference is made to how John defines the uniqueness of Christ’s relationship with God. “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God.” (John 20:17)  The Second Article states that it is this passage which shows the uniqueness of Christ’s relationship with God and “clearly distances the kind of relationship Jesus had with the Father from that of other humans.”  (1993)  Undisputable is the fact that, indeed, Christ had a unique relationship with the Father.  He is the Father.  However, that debate is for another time.  That being said, the passage in John which was quoted as evidence of Jesus distancing His relationship with God from that of His believers is not accurate.  Looking at the passage in context, Christ appeared before Mary after He was raised from the dead, but not yet ascended.  He had paid for mankind’s sins with his own life.  He was not distancing or diminishing man’s relationship with God.  He was, rather, elevating it.  He had with His own life bridged the distance between mankind and the Father.  Christ was in this passage emphasizing the fact that man’s equal relationship with the Father was now possible.  This was achieved not through man’s work or will, but through Christ’s sacrifice.  I also would like to note that he referred not just to God but also Father in the same nature in this passage.  This was not repetitive but was done for a specific reason.  I have discussed Man’s relationship with God, but in also comparing the Father, Christ was, in effect, legitimizing those chosen.  Through His death, they now had a Father, perhaps not with the same uniqueness as Christ did, but certainly not at a greater distance.  Hence, as opposed to what Marthaler says, Christ died to ensure man's renewed bond with God, a bond that through his sacrifice may be as special and close as the one he shares with the Father himself.