Historically speaking, most of the Creeds were written because of differences in how we understand the person of Jesus. How was he born? Was he God? Was he a man? Was he an angel? Was he part man and part God? What did his life mean? Consequently, over half of posts in this Creeds series will have to do with Jesus and what the different parts of the creed claim about Him. I guess that makes sense, since we’re called “Christ-ians” after all.
There’s a lot to digest here, and I’m trying to keep these posts fairly short, so for today, we’ll just look at the first part: I believe in Jesus Christ.
WHAT’S IN A NAME?
“Jesus” was a common name in Palestine in the first century. It’s the Greek form (Iesous (Ἰησοῦς)) of Yeshua, which you will see sometimes as YehoShua, Y’Shua, Yesua, or other variations. It was pronounced something like “yehōshu’a,” though of course there are variations on pronunciation. It’s related to “Joshua,” one of the great heroes from the Old Testament, so it’s not surprising that it was still popular in Jesus’ time (and still today). The meaning is “The LORD saves,” or “He saves.” Around the world, you will hear different translations of this name: Isoos, ZseZse, Isa, among others. Our English version comes from Greek translated to Latin translated to English.
Warning: Tangent Ahead. There seems to be a big push in certain circles in American Christianity to refer to Jesus as Yeshua, with the implication that “I’m using his REAL name.” First of all, as someone who mildly speaks another language, I think this is making a big deal out of nothing. Names are changed all the time going from one language to another, and the word itself isn’t all that important. And unless you grew up speaking Hebrew (which I’m 99% sure you didn’t if you’re reading this), you’re almost certainly pronouncing it wrong anyway, so why put so much emphasis on it? Plus, in my opinion, I think it gives off this air of pretentiousness that is not overly helpful. Everybody who speaks English knows who you mean by “Jesus.” My recommendation is just to stick with that.
Christ is not his last name; it’s a title meaning “anointed one.” It’s the Greek translation of the word “Messiah,” so you will sometimes see it as “Jesus the Christ” or “Christ Jesus” or “Jesus the Messiah.” In all cases it means “Jesus the Anointed One.” The anointing refers to the ceremony used to inaugurate a king in Old Testament Israel, as when Samuel anointed David as the successor to Saul. After the Israelite nations fell, the title came to symbolize the hope of the Jewish people for a new King that would follow in David’s footsteps and restore their kingdom. For a people that believed they had been deprived of their homeland by conquerors, it became a powerful symbol of a coming fight for freedom.
So when the Creeds say “I believe in Jesus Christ,” we are saying “I believe that this person Jesus was the Messiah/Christ; I believe that he is the fulfillment of that hope for a new King in David’s line.” This was basically what Paul did in his initial missionary work. He would go to Jewish synagogues and try to convince them that Jesus had fulfilled that role they had all been waiting for. Obviously he was arguing that the “freedom” Jesus achieved was over sin/death, not the conquering Romans, so he had a lot of convincing to do.
I NEVER MYTH
Importantly, this statement in the Creed also implies that we believe Jesus was an historical figure, not a legend or a symbolic “person” created to build a religion around. We believe he was physically born, lived in an historical era along other historical figures such as the Herods and Pilate, and actually taught people. He is as real as Napoleon or George Washington.
You will sometimes hear people claim that Jesus was just a myth or creation of the early church. There is a lot of scholarship regarding the “historical Jesus,” and without going into all the details, the conclusion of nearly all New Testament scholars, whether they are Christians or not, is that there was an historical Jewish rabbi named Jesus who lived in the first century in Palestine. Even Bart Erhman, obviously no friend of Christianity, wrote, “He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees.” His miracles and resurrection are up for a lot of debate, and the records of what he actually said and did are challenged, but the existence of Jesus is fairly well established.
LOOKS AREN’T EVERYTHING
As a sidenote, another current debate concerns what Jesus actually looked like. The picture attached to this post is from a BBC production by anthropologist Richard Neave, based on a skull found in the region. Now, no one is claiming this is exactly what Jesus looked like, but the truth is we don’t know, and this might be as close as we can get.
(Yes, I’m aware of the theory that Luke painted Jesus and that’s what all the Byzantine art is based on. I’m not convinced. )
The main point here is to be careful of representations of Jesus as a European/Scandinavian with blond hair, blue eyes, and that ubiquitous blue sash. That tends to subtly tell people that “Jesus is like me, a white person” when in reality Jesus was like Jesus, a Palestinian man of the first century. We need to be careful about combining our personal culture with the real historical Jesus, to avoid adding to the Gospel in a way that might push others away. (Though I do think the depictions of Jesus in various cultures in interesting. Worth a google.)
That said, the real question for us isn’t the reality of Jesus or what he looked like, but what His life and death (and life again) mean to me and you. We’ll get into more of that in the next post.