Latest / Reformed Thinking / Χριστός (Christos): The Anointed King and Savior

Transcript

Χριστός (Christos): The Anointed King and Savior · Reformed Thinking

0:00
If I told you that the cosmic title for the Savior of the
0:02
Universe started out as a word ancient Greek construction
0:06
workers used when smearing plaster on a brick wall, you
0:10
would probably think I was joking.
0:11
Or maybe that you were misreading a dictionary?
0:13
Right. But that is, well, that is
0:15
precisely what the historical data shows.
0:18
So welcome to reformed thinking. We are so glad you decided to
0:21
sit down with us today. Yeah, consider yourself the
0:23
third person right here at this table with us today.
0:26
We are taking a massive deep dive into the linguistic history
0:30
of a single Greek word, and that word is Christos.
0:34
Which is spelled with an X in Greek, but we pronounce it
0:37
Christos. Yes, Christos, and our mission
0:40
today is to unpack how a very common Greek adjective, like one
0:44
associated with physical medicine and literal building
0:46
materials, somehow became the absolute sovereign title for the
0:50
Son of God. We are going to trace its
0:52
progression from a mundane physical action to a royal title
0:57
and then eventually to a proper name.
0:58
And I am just so excited about this.
1:00
When I was looking through the historical grammar texts this
1:03
morning, it's just blew my mind. Looking at the raw grammatical
1:08
data of a single word completely changes how you read the text.
1:12
It is always a joy to look at the raw data of language.
1:15
I mean the mechanics of human language act as the mechanism
1:17
through which God reveals objective reality to us.
1:21
Oh, absolutely. We are not dealing with abstract
1:24
suggestions floating in the ether.
1:25
We are looking at the precise mechanism of revelation.
1:28
OK, so let us unpack this, because before we get to the
1:31
massive theological weight of the word, we really have to look
1:34
at its earliest, most literal linguistic roots.
1:37
Right in secular Greek culture. Yes, the etymology of Christos
1:41
is. It is a verbal adjective.
1:44
It derives from the Greek verb Crete.
1:45
And the root meaning of crease is simply to be rubbed on.
1:48
To be rubbed on, I mean. That is just so ordinary.
1:51
It is the earliest secular uses in literature have absolutely
1:54
nothing to do with kings or theology or anything divine at
1:57
all. Really, nothing at all.
1:59
No, nothing. If you look at the ancient Greek
2:01
tragedians, writers like Aeschylus and Euripides, they
2:06
used the phrase pharmacokrista. Pharmacokrista.
2:09
Precisely, which translates to medical salves or ointments.
2:13
Oh wow. Think about the physical reality
2:15
of ancient medicine for a second.
2:17
They did not have, you know, swallowed pills for most
2:21
ailments. Healing was a very tactile
2:24
process. Like you cannot just run to the
2:25
pharmacy and get a blister pack. Right.
2:27
A physician would take a thick, heavy substance like a salve
2:31
mixed with herbs and oils and physically rub it onto a wound
2:34
or an infection on the skin. So it is very tactile.
2:37
It is entirely tactile. It requires physical contact.
2:41
The pharmacokrista is the substance that gets smeared onto
2:43
the patient. And it gets even more mundane
2:45
than that when you read ancient historians, guys like Theodora
2:49
Siculus or the Roman historian Abbean, they use it in
2:52
construction contexts. Yes, the building trades.
2:55
Right, they use the compound word neo Christos, and neo
2:58
Christos translates to newly plastered.
3:00
Like a wall. Yes, as in a laborer grabbing a
3:04
heavy trowel and smearing wet plaster onto a stone or brick
3:07
wall to seal it. So you have the medical
3:09
application of Saab on a wound and the industrial application
3:12
of plaster on a wall, right? And the common denominator there
3:15
is a physical substance being spread, rubbed or smeared onto a
3:19
surface by an external force. Well, here's where it gets.
3:22
It's really interesting to me. You have this surprisingly
3:25
ordinary physical origin of the word rubbing medicine,
3:29
plastering a wall. It is messy.
3:31
It is. It requires getting your hands
3:33
dirty, and I just cannot help but see an analogy here to the
3:37
concept of the incarnation itself.
3:39
I see where you're going with that.
3:40
Think about it. The divine entering the
3:42
ordinary, tactile, physical world, the word that eventually
3:45
describes the Savior of humanity, starts as a word used
3:48
by Masons and ancient doctors. It is the divine stepping down
3:51
into the dust and the mud of human existence.
3:53
Yes. The Savior is not described by
3:56
some ethereal, floating, abstract philosophical concept.
4:00
The word is grounded in the physical dirt and the physical
4:03
healing of the human condition. And if we connect this to the
4:07
bigger picture of reformed theology, the linguistic origin
4:10
also demands we recognize the necessity of an external agent.
4:15
Wait, how so? Well, plaster does not throw
4:17
itself onto a wall, true, and a medical salve does not
4:21
independently unscrew the jar and apply itself to a lesion.
4:25
The verb cry requires someone doing the applying.
4:29
It requires an actor. Oh, I see.
4:31
Therefore, being Christos, being the one rubbed or smeared, is
4:35
not an inherent trait that the object generates from within
4:37
itself. It is an action performed upon
4:40
someone or something. Oh wait, that means it is
4:43
inherently passive. Yes, from a confessional
4:45
perspective, this is vital. It speaks to the absolute
4:48
sovereignty of God in the process of salvation and
4:51
calling. Because the anointing comes from
4:53
outside. Precisely the condition of being
4:55
anointed is applied from the outside.
4:57
The individual receiving the anointing is the recipient of an
5:00
action initiated and completed by a superior external force.
5:04
So from the physical act of rubbing plaster ointment, how in
5:07
the world do we get to a religious title?
5:09
That is where the historical data shows a massive collision
5:12
of cultures. Right, because the Greek
5:14
language had to find a way to accommodate a very specific
5:19
Hebrew cultural practice. Which was not easy, no.
5:23
Centuries before the New Testament, Jewish scholars in
5:26
Alexandria translated the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek,
5:30
creating what we call the Septuagint.
5:32
And they had a massive problem. They needed a Greek word to
5:35
capture the Hebrew word Messiah. Which we pronounce in English as
5:40
Messiah. Right, and Messiah is so
5:42
specific to Israel's history and I was thinking why didn't the
5:46
translators just use a pre-existing Greek word for king
5:49
or royalty? Because there are plenty of
5:51
those. Exactly.
5:52
I mean, yes, the Greek language had plenty of words for leaders,
5:54
so why choose a word associated with mortar and medicine?
5:57
Because the Hebrew concept of the Messiah is not simply about
6:00
sitting on a throne or holding political office.
6:03
It is specifically about the method of appointment.
6:06
The method. Yes, the role refers to the
6:09
expected King of Israel, specifically an individual
6:13
appointed by God as his vice adjurant.
6:15
OK, stop right there. Vice E Janet.
6:18
That is a heavy term. Break that down for.
6:20
Sure, a vice Bejan is basically an administrative deputy.
6:25
It is someone appointed by a sovereign ruler to act in their
6:28
place, wielding their full authority.
6:30
Like a proxy almost. Yes, but with total authority.
6:34
To understand why the Septuagint translators chose Christos, you
6:38
have to look at the historical anointing of the Kings of
6:40
Israel. Which passages specifically?
6:42
Well, passages like First Samuel chapter 10 verse one and chapter
6:46
12 verse 3 or chapter 15 verse one.
6:49
Right, the anointing of Saul and David.
6:51
When God selected a king for Israel, the prophet Samuel did
6:54
not just hand the man a crown or a scepter.
6:56
He use oil. He took a horn of oil and poured
6:59
it over the man's head. The physical rubbing of the oil,
7:02
the Christos action, was the outward sign of a massive
7:05
objective shift in reality. The oiler is the tactile
7:09
evidence of the divine decree. Precisely, the translator shows
7:12
Christos because it captured the external application of the oil.
7:15
They elevated the word from rubbed on to anointed.
7:19
So he is the appointed ruler. Appointed by God the Father.
7:22
And this is where the Reformed view of sovereignty shines so
7:25
brightly. Yeah, unpack.
7:27
That the Messiah does not elect himself.
7:29
He does not run a political campaign to achieve his status.
7:32
He does not win a popular vote. No, and he does not inherit the
7:36
role through human lineage alone.
7:38
Without the divine decree. He is sovereignly appointed and
7:42
anointed by God the Father to rule over the domain of reality.
7:46
God selects, God anoints, God appoints.
7:49
Yes, the oil is the physical seal of that heavenly reality.
7:54
When you realize the history here, it really makes you
7:57
rethink how casually we throw the phrase around today.
8:00
Oh, without a doubt. I think about my own speech and
8:03
the way modern believers talk. We treat Christ like Jesus's
8:06
surname. We really do.
8:07
We see Jesus Christ the same way we say John Smith or David
8:10
Johnson. Right as a designated
8:11
identifier. Yeah, we treat it like a family
8:14
name on a mailbox, completely stripping it of this heavy,
8:17
regal, authoritative context of being the appointed king of
8:21
Israel. We reduce a cosmic decree of
8:23
jurisdiction down to a mere label.
8:25
Yes, we forget that we were essentially declaring him the
8:29
sovereign ruler of reality. Every single time you say the
8:32
word, you are invoking the anointing oil of First Samuel.
8:37
You are acknowledging the vice, Durant.
8:39
It is a critical reevaluation we need to make.
8:42
The title Christos is a claim of total jurisdiction.
8:46
And when you look at the historical data, you see how
8:48
this specific claim of jurisdiction was fiercely
8:51
debated, violently rejected, and then definitively vindicated.
8:56
So if this word carries the ultimate weight of divine
8:59
appointment and cosmic rule, what happens when the guy
9:02
claiming that title is suddenly nailed to a Roman execution
9:05
stick? To a 1st century Jew, that is a
9:07
total paradox. Completely.
9:09
The historical texts point to the precise phrasing used by the
9:12
chief priests and scribes while mocking Jesus on the cross.
9:15
In Mark chapter 15, verse 32. Right, they say, let the
9:18
Messiah, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross,
9:21
that we may see and believe. And in the Greek text it is Ho
9:24
Christos, the definite article is there the Messiah.
9:27
They're using the term as an appellative.
9:29
Could you explain that term for us?
9:31
An appellative an. Appellative is a common noun
9:34
used as a descriptive title rather other than a personal
9:36
name. Give us an example.
9:38
Think of titles like the president or the mayor.
9:41
The religious leaders are not calling him by a personal name.
9:45
They are throwing the job description back in his face in
9:48
a derogatory manner. Wow, that is brutal.
9:50
It is. They are looking at a man
9:52
claiming to be the sovereign vice Trujin of the universe, and
9:56
he is bleeding out, pinned to wood by an occupying Pagan army.
10:00
The visual contradiction is the whole point of their joke.
10:03
Yes, the mockery hinges entirely on the prevention failing Jewish
10:06
expectation of what the Christos was supposed to be.
10:09
Which was what to them? A victorious military reigning
10:13
king who would expel the Romans and establish an earthly golden
10:17
age. To them, a crucified vice,
10:19
Rudrant was a logical impossibility.
10:21
But then the historical record outlines a massive turning
10:25
point. The Resurrection.
10:26
Yes, in the book of Acts chapter 2, verse 36, Peter is preaching
10:30
his first major sermon after the resurrection.
10:33
And he makes a very bold claim. He declares, Let all the House
10:37
of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him
10:40
both Lord and Messiah, This Jesus whom you crucified.
10:45
The resurrection flips the script on the mockery.
10:48
The early Christians viewed the bodily resurrection from the
10:51
dead as the definitive vindication of Jesus as the true
10:54
Messiah of Israel. It proved the claim.
10:57
The resurrection was God the Father publicly declaring yes,
11:00
this is my appointed vice curturant.
11:02
So the taunts of the chief priests at the cross were
11:05
answered by the empty tomb. Yes, God reversed the verdict of
11:09
the human core through the mechanism of resurrection.
11:11
And here is where the grammar gets really fascinating to me.
11:15
Our source texts show a distinct grammatical shift that happens
11:19
right after this vindication. A shift in how the word is
11:21
deployed. Exactly.
11:22
I mean yes, the word transitions from an appellative, a title
11:25
like the Christ, to a proper name.
11:27
The research details the variations used by the Apostle
11:30
Paul in the early church. Right.
11:31
You start seeing Jesus the Messiah, then Jesus Christ, then
11:35
Christ Jesus, and eventually you see Paul using simply Christ in
11:39
an absolute sense. Like in Romans chapter 5 verse 6
11:42
or Galatians chapter 2 verse 20. The manuscript data regarding
11:46
this shift is just staggering. The variations show a rapid
11:50
linguistic evolution within the span of a single generation.
11:53
So wait. Dropping the word the turns it
11:56
into a name. I need you to explain the
11:58
mechanics of the Greek article here, because in English, if I
12:01
say the president is a title, if I just say president it is still
12:05
a title. How does dropping the article in
12:08
Greek suddenly make it his actual first name?
12:11
It is a great question. What happens in the minds of the
12:13
early church readers when they see a phrase like Matthew 27
12:16
verse 17 where Pilate says Jesus, the so-called Messiah,
12:21
versus reading Paul's letters where it operates as a
12:24
standalone proper noun? The presence or absence of the
12:28
definite article, the word the is a massive indicator of how
12:31
the early church processed the unique identity of Jesus.
12:34
OK, break that down. In Greek syntax, when a title
12:37
becomes so uniquely and exclusively associated with a
12:40
single individual that no confusion is possible, the
12:42
article can be dropped. Because everyone knows who you
12:45
are talking about. Right, it functions as a proper
12:48
name because the category only has one member.
12:51
Because there is no, no competition for the role.
12:53
Precisely when Pilot asks the crowd who they want released in
12:57
Matthew 27, he says Jesus, the so-called Messiah.
13:02
Pilot is using it as a contested title.
13:04
Yes, in Pilot's mind it is a role Jesus is claiming, but it
13:08
is external to his innate identity.
13:11
It is just a political claim. But then Paul writes something
13:14
different. Yes, as the letters of Paul
13:17
circulate a few decades later, you see the article drop away.
13:20
The resurrection function as the ultimate, undeniable proof of
13:24
his identity. The proof was so absolute that
13:26
the title fused with his personhood.
13:29
No one else could ever hold the job, because no one else
13:32
conquered death. That is just incredible.
13:34
Because no other claimant rose from the dead, no other claimant
13:37
could ever legitimately hold the title of Christos.
13:40
It forced the word to function grammatically as a unique
13:43
identifier. Yes, the grammatical shift from
13:46
title to name is a historical record of the Church's absolute
13:50
certainty in the resurrection. The grammar itself is a
13:53
historical witness to the empty tomb.
13:55
It really is. You can literally see the
13:57
confidence of the early church encoded right into their syntax.
14:02
But what happens when this very Jewish concept, loaded with all
14:07
this Old Testament baggage about anointing oil and divine vice
14:11
usions, suddenly leaves Jerusalem?
14:13
And drops into the middle of Pagan Rome, Yes.
14:16
As the name Christos moved out of Jewish circles and into the
14:20
broader Greco Roman world, it collided with Gentile culture.
14:23
And it caused a massive historical misunderstanding A.
14:26
Huge one. We have to consider the phonetic
14:29
reality of the 1st century Mediterranean world here.
14:32
Yes, the message was spreading verbally.
14:34
The early church was largely an auditory culture.
14:37
People were hearing the gospel shouted in marketplaces,
14:39
discussed in trade guilds and whispered in households long
14:42
before they were reading it on parchment.
14:44
Right. And for the Gentiles hearing
14:46
these speeches, the word Christos sounded almost
14:49
identical to a completely different Greek word.
14:51
The word Christos. Yes, there were homophones.
14:54
Spelling difference is incredibly.
14:55
Subtle, right? Very subtle.
14:57
An iota in Christos versus an ETA in Christos.
15:01
But in pronunciation, they were virtually indistinguishable to
15:04
the average year on the street. And this phonetic similarity is
15:07
crucial because Krisos was an existing, very common word in
15:11
secular Greek. What did it mean?
15:13
It translates to good or kind or useful, and it was heavily
15:18
utilized as a proper name in secular literature and in public
15:22
inscriptions across the Empire. The sources give us some amazing
15:25
historical examples of. This they do.
15:27
You have Socrates Christos, who is a king of Bithynia.
15:30
Yes, you have fosi on the Christos, an Athenian statesman.
15:34
The text even mentions a pupil of the wealthy Greek aristocrat
15:38
Herodis Atticus, who bore the name.
15:40
And there is a foundation in Bithynia, dedicated by a man
15:43
named Christos for the Great Mother Goddess.
15:45
It is everywhere. The historical text note it was
15:48
a common epithet for beneficent rulers, and it was extremely
15:51
widely used as a name for slaves.
15:53
So place yourself in the shoes of a Roman citizen in Corinth or
15:57
Ephesus for a minute. You are walking through the
15:59
forum and you hear these traveling Jewish preachers
16:02
talking endlessly about a man named Christos.
16:05
Right now, to the Jewish mind, this word carries the massive
16:09
weight of First Samuel, the pouring of the anointing oil,
16:12
the divine vice prideren, and the sovereign God of Israel
16:15
breaking into history. All that context.
16:17
But to the Pagan year, lacking all that Old Testament context,
16:21
it just sounds like they're talking about a very nice,
16:23
useful fellow named Good. It is a massive communication
16:27
breakdown. Massive.
16:28
It is like an American going to London and talking about running
16:33
for president. That is a great comparison.
16:35
And the British crowd assumes they mean running a literal foot
16:39
race for the CEO of a local company named president.
16:43
The vocabulary overlaps, but the entire cultural framework of
16:47
appointed executive power is completely missing.
16:50
The mental categories do not match at all.
16:52
Not even close. The consequence, as our sources
16:55
point out, citing the Roman historian Suetonius and Appian,
16:58
is it Gentiles often assume Christians were simply followers
17:01
of a man named Christos. The good one.
17:04
Yes, the good one. This even led to the variant
17:08
spelling questions with an ETA instead of an iota appearing in
17:11
early secular records. It is an amusing historical
17:14
quirk, but, well, it reveals something incredibly significant
17:18
about the era. Oh yeah, this linguistic
17:20
confusion is direct evidence of the rapid expansion of the
17:24
Gospel. How so?
17:25
Walk us through that logic. The message was moving so
17:29
rapidly across geographical and cultural borders, pushing so
17:33
deep into Pagan territories, that the linguistic and
17:36
theological categories of the Gentiles simply could not keep
17:40
up with the reality of the Hebrew Messiah.
17:42
The church was running faster than the local dictionaries
17:45
could adapt. I love that.
17:46
The Roman world had no conceptual box for a crucified,
17:49
resurrected Jewish vice concurrent, so they defaulted to
17:53
the closest phonetic match. A good, useful man.
17:56
Yes, the Pagan world accidentally summarized the
17:59
character of Jesus by confusing his royal title with their local
18:02
word for good. That is very true.
18:05
They missed the royal authority of the Vice pageant, but they
18:08
accidentally hit on his moral perfection.
18:11
They thought his followers were just the followers of the good
18:15
one. But the New Testament writers
18:17
did not leave the Gentile church in the state of phonetic
18:19
confusion, did they? No, they certainly did not.
18:22
The apostles rigorously defined the parameters of the Word.
18:26
They combined Christos with specific concepts to establish
18:30
concrete, objective doctrines. They had to build the
18:32
theological framework for these Gentile converts from the ground
18:36
up. Which takes us right into the
18:38
multi term usage section of our historical data.
18:41
A vital section. Having established the words
18:43
progression from medical salves to the Septuagint to the cross
18:47
to the cultural collision with the Gentile homophones, we now
18:50
look at how the apostles actually deployed the word in
18:53
their letters. The text highlights Ephesians
18:55
chapter 5 verse 5 which uses the phrase Kingdom of Christ and
18:59
God. Yes, and the data defines this
19:02
phrase very specifically. It states it is the domain ruled
19:06
by God as the sovereign King. This ties directly back to the
19:09
concept of the vice hadrant we discussed suggest earlier.
19:12
The deputy ruler. Yes.
19:13
The Kingdom is not an abstract philosophy.
19:16
It is a domain of rule. It has borders, it has citizens,
19:20
and it has a sovereign. And then we see the phrase faith
19:22
of Jesus Christ or trust in Jesus in places like Galatians 2
19:26
verse 16 and Romans 3 verse 22. Which is central.
19:29
The lexicon defines this as trusting in Jesus as contained
19:33
in the content of the Gospel. It focuses intensely on the
19:37
doctrine of justification by faith.
19:39
This is a cornerstone of our confessional theology,
19:42
specifically reflecting the Westminster Confessions view of
19:45
justification. Unpack that a bit for us.
19:47
Justification is an objective legal declaration by God.
19:52
It is not based on human effort, moral improvement, or our own
19:55
inherent righteousness. Right.
19:57
When Paul writes knowing that a man is not justified by the
20:00
works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ in
20:02
Galatians 216 he is rooting justification entirely in the
20:07
objective reality of the vice vagrants completed work.
20:10
The Christos fulfilled the mandate of the King.
20:12
Yes, the Anointed One completed the task assigned by the Father.
20:16
Therefore, our trust is placed externally upon His merits, not
20:20
our own. It goes back to the external
20:22
application. Just as the anointing oil is
20:24
applied from the outside, the righteousness that justifies the
20:27
Sinner is an alien righteousness.
20:29
It is applied to us from the outside.
20:32
That distinction between external reliance and internal
20:36
effort brings us to one of the most arresting definitions in
20:39
this entire stack of sources. It defines the Gospel of Jesus
20:43
as the good news concerning the present instantiation of Jesus's
20:47
divine dominion and the way of salvation through his death and
20:50
resurrection. That is a dense definition.
20:52
It is, but it goes further. It focuses on a lexical
20:55
connection in 2nd Corinthians 11 verse 10 where Paul talks about
20:59
the truth of Christ being in him.
21:01
Ah, yes. The source material defines this
21:03
gospel of Jesus intersecting with truth as a message that
21:08
conforms to and answers the nature of reality.
21:10
Let us pause and consider the magnitude of that definition.
21:13
Please do. A message that conforms to and
21:16
answers the nature of reality. From a confessional standpoint.
21:20
This is the bedrock. The Gospel of Christ is not a
21:24
subjective emotional state. It is not a moral therapeutic
21:28
system designed to make you feel better about your circumstances
21:31
or help you self actualize. It is a concrete claim about the
21:35
objective nature of the universe.
21:37
I have to challenge the modern cultural tendency right here
21:39
before it. We live in an era where people
21:41
constantly talk about living my personal truth.
21:44
Oh yes, very common. We equate faith with a sort of
21:48
blind optimism, A customizable spirituality, or a private
21:52
religious feeling, but the source material specifically
21:55
rejects that. It absolutely.
21:56
Does it defines the truth of Christ as conforming to actual
22:00
reality? It is a declaration of what I
22:02
asked. Regardless of how you feel about
22:04
it. Right.
22:05
Regardless of whether you acknowledge it or ignore it, the
22:07
vise Angeant reigns, the anointed one holds dominion.
22:11
The message demands a response from the listener because it is
22:14
the baseline reality of the cosmos.
22:15
You are hitting on the fundamental distinction between
22:18
subjective perception and objective truth.
22:21
Break that down. If I say ice is cold, that is a
22:24
statement conforming to the nature of reality.
22:27
My internal belief about the ice does not change its temperature.
22:30
The ice is cold, whether you believe it or not.
22:32
Yes, the Apostolic declaration of the Christos operates in the
22:36
same manner, but on a cosmic scale.
22:40
Jesus is the anointed King. He rose from the dead.
22:42
That is the reality. Faith is trusting in that
22:45
reality for justification. So because the Gospel of Christ
22:48
is an objective reality, it creates a physical, living
22:52
community that is tasked with heralding this truth to the
22:55
world. It is not just an idea that
22:57
floats in the ether. No, it lands.
22:59
It takes physical shape. Which brings us to the final
23:02
section of our historical analysis, the Church and
23:06
conveying the message. The sources point to Ephesians
23:09
chapter 4 verse 12. It introduces the concept of the
23:12
body of Christ. And the data defines this as a
23:15
congregation of believers, understood as a human body.
23:18
Yes. OK, I want you to consider the
23:20
physical implications of this. Let's trace the line all the way
23:23
back to the very beginning of our discussion.
23:25
Back to the Greek doctors. Yes, if the word Christos traces
23:29
back to the physical rubbing of medical salve, the tactile
23:33
smearing of ointment to bring healing to a wound, and the
23:36
church is defined as the literal body of the anointed one, Wow,
23:40
how does that alter the way believers interact with one
23:43
another and the world? That is a striking connection to
23:47
make. It makes the church inherently
23:49
tactile. You cannot be a theoretical
23:51
body. Right, a body has physical
23:52
substance. A body has hands, it has weight,
23:54
it takes up space, it touches things, it gets dirty.
23:57
Yes, if we are the body of the one who is rubbed on to bring
24:01
healing, it means the Church is supposed to be the active
24:04
physical agent of the King's dominion in the world.
24:07
We are the external application of His truth to a broken
24:10
reality. And how does that physical body
24:12
operate? The sources give us specific
24:15
verbs associated with conveying this message.
24:17
Verbs like what? Philippians chapter one, verse
24:20
15 speaks of those who preach Christ.
24:22
The lexicon defines this as conveying the gospel conceived
24:26
of as heralding its primary topic.
24:29
Heralding like a town crier unrolling a scroll in the public
24:32
square and shouting the news of the Empire.
24:34
Yes, it is public, vocal and authoritative.
24:38
It is an announcement of a fact. But there is a contrast, isn't?
24:42
There there is contrast that heralding with a verb used in
24:45
Colossians chapter 4 verse 3. Paul asks for an open door to
24:49
speak the mystery of Christ. And what does the source say
24:52
about that? The source defines this as
24:54
making known the now revealed divine secret concerning the
24:58
Messiah. What is the distinction there?
25:00
Preaching a topic versus speaking a mystery?
25:03
They sound similar on the surface.
25:05
The distinction lies in the posture of the messenger and the
25:08
depth of the information. How so?
25:10
Well, heralding a topic is declaring the basic fact of the
25:14
King's dominion. The King reigns.
25:15
That is the headline. But revealing a divine mystery,
25:19
a mystery that was hidden in ages past but now made manifest,
25:23
requires an understanding of the intricate mechanics of God's
25:26
redemptive plan. Oh, I see.
25:28
Believers are not just sharing data points.
25:30
They are not simply reading a list of historical facts off a
25:33
page. They are pulling back the
25:36
curtain on what God has been orchestrating since before the
25:39
foundation of the world. They are declaring the sovereign
25:42
appointment of the King over the domain of reality.
25:45
It is the difference between reading the Daily News headlines
25:48
and explaining the underlying mechanics of the universe.
25:51
That makes so much sense. When you speak the mystery of
25:54
the Christos, you are explaining how the medical S, the anointing
25:58
oil of First Samuel, the crucifixion on a Roman cross,
26:02
and the vindication of the empty tomb all fit together into God's
26:06
sovereign decree of justification.
26:08
You are explaining the why and the how, not just the what.
26:11
This has been an absolutely massive progression today.
26:14
We covered a lot of ground. We started with the raw
26:16
linguistic data of a single Greek word.
26:19
We looked at ancient physicians rubbing medical salves on wounds
26:22
and construction workers plastering stone walls.
26:25
The mundane physical origins. Right.
26:27
And then we traced that word into the Septuagint, where
26:30
Jewish scholars used it as the translation for the Hebrew
26:33
Messiah, dripping with the anointing oil of Israel's kings,
26:37
marking the vice preaching of the sovereign God.
26:40
And we saw that royal title thrown back as mockery at the
26:43
cross, only to be definitively vindicated by the resurrection.
26:47
Which permanently shifted the grammar of the early church from
26:50
a descriptive title to a unique stand alone proper name.
26:54
Then we watched it collide with the Gentile world, causing
26:56
phonetic confusion with the Greek word for good.
26:59
Proving the message was outrunning the dictionaries of
27:02
the Pagan Roman Empire. Yes, and finally we saw it
27:04
established as the bedrock of objective truth, a claim about
27:08
the sovereign dominion of God that justifies the Sinner
27:11
through faith alone and forms of physical living body to herald
27:15
that reality to the world. It is a clear demonstration of
27:19
how the precise mechanics of language carry the massive
27:21
weight of divine revelation. It really is, and I want to
27:25
leave you with a final arresting idea based on the historical
27:28
reality we have uncovered today. I think this is a vital point to
27:32
close on. Consider the sheer weight of
27:34
history present every single time you say the name Jesus
27:37
Christ. You are uttering a phrase that
27:39
carries the legacy of ancient kings, the physical touch of
27:42
anointing oil, the vindication of an empty tomb, and a concrete
27:46
claim about the absolute objective nature of reality.
27:50
The challenge is this. Never use the word as a
27:53
convenient, thoughtless label. Again, no.
27:55
Yeah, when you speak it, you are making a cosmic declaration of
28:00
God's appointed vice Regent. It is a heavy word.
28:03
It demands reverence. It does.
28:05
You know, we started by talking about the desire for clean
28:07
binary precision. When looking at definitions, we
28:11
like to point to a jagged white line in a dictionary and say
28:13
there it is. But tracing the word Christos
28:15
shows us that God's precision is so much larger than our tight
28:18
little categories. His definitions are written
28:20
across centuries of history, translation, and objective
28:23
reality. Thank you for taking this deep
28:25
dive with us today. Keep looking at the text, keep
28:28
asking the hard questions and keep thinking.