Distinction between Christ and Jesus in Paul

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 6497
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Distinction between Christ and Jesus in Paul

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:47 am

Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, uses the term "Christ" instead of "Jesus":

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.


...while, when he refers to what Jesus had done before the death, he uses only the term "Jesus" instead of "Christ":

The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread

(1 Corinthians 11:23)

Is there a pattern to be seen?

"Christ" appears when there is mention of the Risen while "Jesus" appears when there is mention of what the Son did before the death.

In the hymn to Philippians, “Jesus Christ” appears in the precise moment where the Victim and the Risen coincide in the same figure:

Philippians 2:5-11
In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:...
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11
and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

And obviously, the exception confirming the rule is:
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles

...where he would have had to say : "Jesus crucified", being "Jesus" the name that has to be used for the victim. But in that particular case, the intention of Paul was to raise deliberately the paradox of a Christ crucified. Evidently, the assumption is that the Christ couldn't suffer.


But Jesus could.

Is Paul separationist, then? Jesus is the man possessed by the Christ, who is crucified only insofar he is in the his recipient Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply