Names and Titles of Jesus

Some of the names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament are:

• Almighty
• Alpha and Omega
• Amen
• Apostle
• Bishop
• Bridegroom
• Captain of Salvation
• Chief Shepherd
• Christ
• Dayspring
• Door
• Emmanuel
• Faithful Witness
• Firstborn
• God
• Good Shepherd
• Governor
• Great Shepherd
• High Priest
• I am
• Image of God
• Jesus
• King of the Jews
• King of Kings
• Lamb of God
• Light of the World
• Life
• Lion of the tribe of Juda
• Lord
• Lord of Lords
• Master
• Messias
• Nazarene
• Only Begotten Son
• Passover
• Potentate (Blessed and Only)
• Rabboni and Rabbi
• Redeemer
• Resurrection (The) and the Life
• Rock
• Root of David / Root and Offspring of David
• Saviour
• Second Adam / Last Adam
• Shepherd
• Son of David
• Son of God
• Son of Man
• Son of the Highest
• Teacher
• True Vine
• Truth
• Way
• Witness
• Word / Logos

What would you add? Subtract?

Credential Creep, Credentialism, and False Credentials

Top Southern Baptist Convention news this past week probably is the resignation of Willie McLaurin from interim president and CEO of the SBC Executive Committee. I first read about it at Baptist News Global, a liberal news and opinion site that gleefully reports any foibles of the convention and skewers them for it.

McLaurin, interim president and considered most likely to be hired for the permanent post, resigned August 17th. He resigned because of the finding that he had falsified information on his resumé. His resumé included earned degrees from North Carolina Central University, Duke University Divinity School, and Hood Theological Seminary – all of which were false (as well as a claim of military service).

Previously, McLaurin had served 15 years on the staff of the Tennessee Baptist Mission Board, as well as a pastor at Greater Missionary Baptist Church in Clarksville, Tennessee, and pastor Greater Hope Baptist Church in Union City, Tennessee. He was elected to serve on the SBC Executive Committee staff in 2020. In 2022, after the departure of EC president Ronnie Floyd, he became the interim president of the Executive Committee.

All this lengthy introduction to make a few related points.

From what I have read about Willie McLaurin, he is a hard-working, personable man – a really nice guy that people like. Many Southern Baptists thought he was doing a great job as EC interim president, and were rooting for him to be elected to the permanent post. Nevertheless, he chose a false way to rise to the top. He lied. He falsified records. “Moreover, it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful.”

I think we all can agree that falsifying a resumé is wrong. (Even most who have done so inherently know it is wrong.) Most folks want their resumés to look their best, but to create information out of thin air cannot be justified. I have not noticed anyone mention or report what credentials/education Willie McLaurin actually has. Regardless, he apparently believed his actual education would either disqualify him or not be good enough qualifications. So, he lied. This raises a question to me, “Why would pastors, preachers, and Christian workers falsify a resumé?” What pressure do they feel that makes it seem necessary or beneficial? 

I believe the answer is “Credentialism” – or as one respondent at SBC Voices called it, “credential creep.” That writer, Nathan Petty, pointed out how that historically Baptists had grown in the United States mostly without the benefit of seminary trained preachers. Then they progressed in formal education. As this progress moved forward in the 20th and 21st centuries, the amount of degrees offered and education expected grew exponentially. According to Petty, the counsel of many would be for a man to get seven years of formal education (DMin) in order to be “really” be qualified to serve a local SBC congregation.[i]

This is not only an SBC issue. Many Baptists feel this pressure for credentials – or perhaps simply lust for the glory of the title. Our Baptist congregation is not affiliated with the SBC, neither any organized association, convention, or fellowship. Because of that, apparently, we received a lot of unsolicited “independent fundamental” correspondence. I have noticed in these circles a tendency for every Tom, Dick, and Harry – no matter how ignorant or uneducated – to be “Dr. So and So.” Whether they have legitimate degrees or bought one from the pawn shop, they tout their status. Every speaker at a conference is a “Dr.” What’s the deal? No doubt some of it is base human pride. I believe the other factor is “Credentialism.” We have unfortunately created communities of Christians who cannot “search the Scriptures” whether things are so, but need to be told it is so by “Dr. So and So.” If Paul’s Apostleship was not good enough for the Bereans, your “Doctorate” is not good enough for me!!

When we turn to the Bible discussions of qualifications (1 Corinthians 4:2; 1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9), a clear case can be made for honesty and integrity. Level of formal education is nowhere to be found. Yes, apt to teach. No Doctor of Ministry. I have no fondness for ignorance. Nevertheless, the Bible is our rule of faith and practice. Throw away those practical qualifications your church or ministry has created. Go back to the Bible. The qualifications there are inspired by God.

My intent is not to beat up on Willie McLaurin. We all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. However, may this incident be a teaching moment.

• Let us look to the Bible for the qualifying credentials of the ministry.
• Let us see the church founded by Jesus Christ is the primary biblical educational institution.
• Let us commit to telling the truth, regardless of the consequences.[iii] 

---

[i] For example, the Duke Divinity School Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.) program is normally completed in three years. They require a prior Master of Divinity (M.Div.) or comparable master’s degree before enrolling in the program. Therefore, in this case, the DMin takes about six or seven years. (Duke also requires at least five years in full-time ministry before entering the program.)
[ii] While working on this, at the top of the Word Doc I had something else on which I was working — the hymn/poem “The Church’s Desolation.” The second verse (and others) seemed to have some correlation. “Her pastors love to live at ease, They covet wealth and honor; And while they seek such things as these, They bring reproach upon her. Such worthless objects they pursue, Warmly and undiverted; The church they lead and ruin, too— Her glory is departed.”
[iii] Mark Terry writes, “If we cannot depend on pastors and church workers to tell the truth, then we’re in bad shape.”

Should χριστός be translated Messiah?

Since new translations are not a major blip on my radar, I often miss new directions to which the translation world in turning. In their update “Improvements to the Christian Standard Bible,” the CSB website mentions the translation of χριστός as “Messiah.”[i]

In a few instances, due to helpful feedback from Mark Strauss, we changed “Christ” to “Messiah.”

There is no further information or explanation regarding which verses were changed or why. However, we might guess – because of the involvement of Strauss, Vice-Chair of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation – that the verses may correspond to verses translated that way in the NIV 2011. In another place, Strauss tells us:

While the 1984 NIV used “Christ” throughout,14 the 2011 revision introduced “Messiah” whenever the term carried a titular sense (66 times). The HCSB similarly followed this pattern, introducing “Messiah” for χριστός 112 times in the NT,15 while retaining “Christ” 419 times.

The CSB retains this policy, but reduces the number significantly, using “Messiah” only 55 times for χριστός.

The apparent main argument for translating χριστός as “Messiah,” per Strauss, is to recognize the “titular sense” – that is, used as a title, relating to, or denoted by a title. The trend suggests transliterating names but not titles.[ii]

The rendering “Messiah” for Greek χριστός when the latter is used in a titular sense

An example of the difference is found in the translation of Matthew 16:16.

• CSB:  Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
• NIV:  Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
• KJV:  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
• NASB: Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Strauss describes this as a decision between either translating or transliterating.

Deciding whether to translate or transliterate Greek χριστός is a challenge.

This is an unnecessary “challenge,” as well an inaccurate statement of the “problem.” First, both “Christ” and “Messiah” were brought into the English language as transliterations. Christ was a transliteration of the word most commonly used in the Greek manuscripts, Christos, χριστός. Messiah is a transliteration of a word used twice in the Greek manuscripts, Messiah, μεσσίας. Second, describing words that have been part of the English language a thousand years or more is anachronistic at best. When we discuss the “egg” (other than for pedantic purposes) we do not describe it as a transliteration of the Old Norse word egg (though it is). When we eat a bagel we do not worry about it being a transliteration of the Yiddish word beygl or the German word böugel (though it is). Rather, what the words mean to us in English receive first place. The English words Christ and Messiah both mean “anointed” or “anointed one.”[iii] They have been part of the English language so long that their use in modern translations should not be regarded as transliteration.

A secondary reason for translating χριστός as “Messiah” is found where Scot McKnight, in Not “Christ” but “Messiah”: NT Wright on Translating Christos, sees a problem. Some regard “Christ,” McKnight writes, as part of Jesus’s name. He finds in this a reason to use “Messiah” instead.

One of the more interesting features of NT scholarship is a widespread (radical) minimization of “Christ” meaning “Messiah.” Instead of a direct royal perception this term is understood by many scholars to mean a second/last/family name, that is Jesus Christ is little more than Jesus’ name.

In other words, McKnight thinks “Messiah” is better understood as a title, while “Christ” is often mistaken for a name. Therefore, the lesser-known, less used term might help. Quoting from N. T. Wright’s book, he cites Matthew V. Novenson:

“For a start, there is the linguistic evidence, set out recently by Matthew Novenson, that Christos is in fact neither a proper name (with denotation but no necessary connotation) nor a ‘title’ as such (with connotation but flexible denotation, as when ‘the King of Spain’ goes on meaning the same thing when one king dies and another succeeds him). It is, rather, an honorific, which shares some features of a ‘title’ but works differently.”[iv]

The view of McKnight, Novenson, and Wright, then, vies for the use of “Messiah.” However, their view may be distinguished from Strauss and others who hold that “Messiah” is (sometimes) a title – while they view it as an honorific.”[v]

Thirdly, translating χριστός as “Messiah” may be related to a desire to return the church to some of its Hebrew roots, and/or to highlight her Jewish connection. David Bivin of Jerusalem Perspective agrees with McKnight about the surname issue, but adds another dimension. He writes:

I think “Messiah” more accurately conveys in English what the Greek authors of the New Testament meant to convey with the Greek “christos.” See my article, “Messiah” (Jerusalem Perspective 26 [May/June 1990]: 6). See also my “Messianic Claims” (Jerusalem Perspective 27 [July/August 1990]: 11), where I wrote: “Many Christians seem to think that ‘Christ’ was Jesus’ surname, while non-Christians often use it as a swear word. ‘Christ’ is an English transliteration of a Greek translation of an original Hebrew word—a good example of the influence of Greek language and culture on our culture. It also is an example of the Church’s loss of its Hebraic and Jewish roots.”[vi]

The use of “Christ” and “Messiah” as explained in the Introduction to the Holman Christian Standard Bible adds a fourth reason given for translating χριστός as “Messiah” – that of pairing the word to the context (or perceived context).

The Holman CSB translates the Greek word Christos (“anointed one”) as either “Christ” or “Messiah” based on its use in different NT contexts. Where the NT emphasizes Christos as a name of our Lord or has a Gentile context, “Christ” is used (Eph 1:1 “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus...”). Where the NT Christos has a Jewish context, the title “Messiah” is used (Eph 1:12 ...we who had already put our hope in the Messiah). The first use of “Messiah” in each chapter is also marked with a bullet referring readers to the Bullet Note at the back of most editions.

The HCSB explanation is somewhat related to Strauss’s title concept and Bivin’s return to Jewish roots. On the other hand, contra Bivin and McKnight, the editors of the HCSB seem to accept that “Christ” is sometimes used as a name in the New Testament (“Where the NT emphasizes Christos as a name…”).

The International Standard Version Bible pulls out all stops, using only the English word “Messiah” and never “Christ.” Their website explains:

In the ISV New Testament, the word Christos (itself a Greek language translation of the Hebrew word moshiach) is translated as “Messiah”. For example, the ISV renders the name and title traditionally rendered as Jesus Christ as Jesus the Messiah in order to emphasize the unique claim made by the New Testament writers that the things about which they wrote pertained to Jesus as the claimed fulfillment of the hope of Israel’s Messiah. The alternate rendering “Christ” appears in footnotes. The rarely utilized NT Greek transliteration messias of the Hebrew language moshiach is rendered in the ISV NT as “Anointed One”. [That is, John 1:41 and John 4:25, rlv.] [vii]

The argument to change “Christ” to “Messiah” must be weighed and found wanting – whether as a change in certain contexts (CSB, HCSB, NIV) or a thoroughgoing change for the entire New Testament (ISV, TLV).

“When used in the titular sense”

This creates an artificial standard, one that exists in the minds of certain translators rather than in the mind of God. The words “Christ” and “Messiah” both have the same meaning. From that standpoint, one is neither better nor worse than the other. The stress on changing “Christ” to “Messiah” constitutes changing the primary and consistent word of choice of the inspired New Testament writers – therefore the word of choice of the Holy Spirit who inspired them. Christ is a current English word. Messiah is a current English word. Messiah is based on μεσσίας, and is a nearer transliteration of the Hebrew word משיח (mashiach). Nevertheless, the word written in the New Testament, being translated or transliterated – whichever one chooses to call it – is not μεσσίας or mashiach, but χριστός! If God inspired the New Testament writers to use χριστός  rather than μεσσίας (and he did), then why should we prefer μεσσίας over χριστός?[viii]

“Jesus Christ is little more than Jesus’ name”

The reasoning is substantially “the provocation of the lesser-known” – that is, the use of lesser-known terminology will call attention to and work toward fixing the problem. Yet, this builds on a false narrative. It is likely that some biblically illiterate folks think that “Christ” is Jesus’s last name. Despite McKnight’s portrayal of the problem concerning Christ and Jesus’s name as “widespread” and understood that way “by many scholars,” I cannot confirm that such is true. Most Bible scholars and Bible students of whom I am aware know the difference. Still, we can take the corrective suggestion and apply when needed, without taking the suggested translation. If someone states or implies that Christ is simply the surname of Jesus, then we should correct that. This can be done in preaching, teaching, and writing. A new translation is not needed.

“Loss of Hebraic and Jewish roots”

This is an unnecessary requirement. The church is rooted in its “Jewishness;” that thread runs throughout the Bible. Those who miss it will not likely find it by us throwing in the word “Messiah.” On the other hand, we must remember the church, as Christ’s assembly, is neither Jew nor Gentile (1 Corinthians 10:32). Our guideline is not to imagine how we might need to return to our Jewish roots, but to stand in the distinct culture of the church of God – a culture that can grasp the promise of the Jewish Messiah and describe him faithfully in Greek words!

“A Gentile context, a Jewish context”

Using χριστός in “a Gentile context” and μεσσίας in “a Jewish context” creates another artificial standard. Though it seems sane in the minds of some translators, such “matching the context” was not used by the New Testament writers, who were led to use χριστός consistently throughout their writings.[ix] The Greek language was the lingua franca of the day. The writers did not drop back into a so-called Jewish context and use μεσσίας indiscriminately. John used it in two places and gave a proper explanation for any readers who might not understand. Determining what context is used and choosing which word to use is simply toying with the Bible in a way that is not present in the text itself.

In addition to these considerations, the Messiah-instead-of-Christ philosophy rejects biblical orthopraxy. In the churches the Spirit places teachers to help us understand the word of God. Seeing that the reader understands the nuances of words like Christos is the calling of teachers, not translators. Translators often desire to stray from their jobs as translators and insert themselves as teachers in the churches.

The long-standing translation practice of rendering χριστός as Christ in English is not improved upon by the new passion for rendering it Messiah instead.

---

[i] This is not the first time this has been done. I never paid much attention to it. This practice (translating χριστός as Messiah) may have originated in “mainstream” Bibles with the NASB. The NASB in four places in the gospel of Matthew translates χριστός as Messiah, Matthew 1:1; 1:16-17; 2:4.  Other “mainstream” translations may have done it prior to the NASB doing so, but I have yet to find any.

[ii] This distinction is somewhat hard to comprehend, since Christos is not a proper name, but rather a title of position.

[iii] The words simply have different origins. “Christ” is from the Greek χριστός (or Latin Christus) and “Messiah” is from the Greek μεσσίας (or Latin Messias) – which is in turn a transliteration of the Hebrew word משיח (mashiach).

[iv] N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013, p. 824.

[v] A word of status or respect.

[vi] There is no evidence that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew.

[vii] Translation Principles of the ISV Bible, No. 4 under the heading “Textual Aspects of Translation.”

[viii] John 1:41 and John 4:25 use both μεσσίας and χριστός. A cursory look at the verses explains why.

[ix] If the word Messiah (mashiach) were used frequently in the Old Testament, it might provide more support for this argument. Further, it appears that many or most Jews in New Testament times knew the Messiah by the Septuagint translation’s term χριστός.

Be Called D.D.??

IT IS A SIN TO CALL OR BE CALLED D.D.
by Ira Copeland, Hillsboro, TX

Jude, verses 3 and 4, said, Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul said, Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil. I Thess. 5:21-22.

I now call attention to only one innovation that has taken deep root since the 16th century: the title of D.D. among our ministry.

It is a sin to call a man doctor in the sense of Divinity or for a man to suffer himself so called. Sin is transgression of God’s law and God’s law is any of His effective commandments. Jesus Christ is His Son clothed with equal authority. D.D., doctor, means teacher of authority, Rabbi, Master, Father, pope, etc. Jesus said, But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your Father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called Masters: for one is your Master, even Christ Matt. 23:8-10. This is as much the law of God as any other command of God, and therefore a sin to call or be called D.D. The title is Romish and Judaistic. Do not they who seek authority over men and brethren love the title? Matt 23:1-7. No school has Bible right to confer it.

This is not intended as a personal slap or reflection on any one, but gentle reproof and an earnest contention for this part of the faith once delivered to the saints, and to avoid modern innovations, and to get in and stay in the old paths.

From The Baptist Progress, March 5, 1936 as reprinted in The Baptist Waymark

More D. D.

“Education has ruined preachers. Doctors of divinity abound in our day, but we have no prophets. I know that saying this gets me in trouble with the religious elite, but it must be said clearly and loudly. I am of the old school, not the new. And I have the fondest memory of an uneducated preacher here in north Georgia, Brother Rance Cain, whom I was blessed to hear in the 1960s. He could preach circles around any educated preacher of his day or ours. He spit out a little tobacco on you when he preached, but who cared! He was uncouth and country, but how he could declare God’s Word in power, truly confounding the educated!” -- From The Sheepherder of Tekoa by Brother W. F. Bell of Canton, GA

“For you see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yes, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.” -- 1 Corinthians 1:26-29

About the title Reverend

ABOUT THE TITLE REVEREND
by J. F. Manning

"When Methodists want to justify infant baptism, they say the Bible does not forbid it. Such logic is common to Methodists, who would have thought Baptists would resort to it.

"We should not use the title “reverend” in addressing our ministers. Reverence for one another is a virtue to be cultivated. But we are nowhere, by precept or example, warranted in God’s word in calling anyone “reverend” as a title, or for any other purpose. (Some) say we are not forbidden to use it. The Methodists say we are not forbidden to sprinkle infants. Some use exactly the same logic as the Methodists.

"The New Testament clearly teaches that the preachers were called elders. If we want to follow the New Testament, we must discard the old Romish and Pedobaptist practice of calling our preachers “reverend” and call them elders.

"If others want to call them “reverend,” “the right reverend,” “the most reverend,” “holy papa,” “holy father,” or whatever man-made title they choose, they have a legal right to do so. But please excuse me. We do not have to use such titles to show reverence."

From The Baptist Progress, July 21, 1938 as reprinted in The Baptist Waymark, Vol. II No. 7 March-April 1992