CHRISTOLOGY. The doctrine of the person and work of Jesus Christ; the study of His relationship to God, and His relationship to men. By origin, the word ought to mean “the study of the doctrine of the Messiah,” for “Christ” is clearly a tr. of this old Jewish title; in NT times however, the concept is altered and deepened to include all that Jesus is to the eye of faith. This is not only the faith of His followers, but also the faith of Jesus Himself; a part of any Christology is to consider what Jesus believed and taught about Himself. In later controversial days, Christology became the discussion of the person of Christ, and Soteriology the study of His work; such distinctions are foreign to the NT, where the interest is not philosophical but practical, and where Christ’s person is usually defined in relation to His work.

The subject will be treated under the main titles used to describe Jesus in the NT: 1. Christ. 2. Lord. 3. Son of Man. 4. Son of God. 5. Servant. 6. Word. 7. Savior. 8. Other titles.

1. Christ (Χριστός, G5986, anointed, the tr. of מָשִׁיחַ, H5431, used itself in transliteration as Μεσσάας, in John 1:41 and 4:25). It rapidly became a proper name to Gr.-speaking Gentile Christians, although it obviously kept its full force in the gospels (Matt 2:4). Most scholars would agree that, in Acts, “Christ” still has force as a title (3:18), and many have felt that when Paul keeps the order “Christ Jesus” (Rom 6:3), or when he keeps the definite article “The Christ” (Rom 7:4), he is still very conscious of its adjectival nature. Since the custom of “anointing” was Heb., the meaning of the word would not be immediately apparent to Gentile converts. Perhaps that was why the name was so easily confused with the common slave name and homophone χρηστός, G5982, (useful). It is significant that the followers of Jesus were, however, not called “Jesuits” but “Christians” (Acts 11:26); that is, not after His name, but His title. The verb is used in the OT of the appointment of the priests (Exod 28:41), king (Judg 9:8), and prophet (1 Kings 19:16). The “secular” use (Ruth 3:3) reminds one that oil is a sign of gladness in the OT (Ps 45:7); a “suffering anointed one” is thus a contradiction in terms. “The Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam 16:6) refers to the king; after David’s day, this is always a “son of David,” so that messiahship involves kingship and Davidic sonship. In certain of the Psalms (e.g. 2:7; 110:4) divine sonship and priesthood are involved as well. A foreign king like Cyrus can be described as God’s “anointed” (Isa 45:1). All of these, however, refer to earthly rulers, with perhaps “millennial” features (Isa 11:1-9) superadded; the supernatural character of the Messiah is not apparent from the OT. Later Jewish traditions about a Messiah who fails prob. sprang up only after unsuccessful Messianic revolts in Rom. days. When the Qumran Texts distinguish between a “Messiah of Judah” and a “Messiah of Levi,” it may be an attempt to reconcile the kingly and priestly traits in the OT.

In the NT, some have sought a pattern by which Christ’s messiahship is first recognized by the demons; then by His disciples, then by His enemies and, with that, His death was made certain. Whether or not the full implications of “veiled Messiahship” are accepted, it seems clear that Jesus did not at first openly claim this position for Himself (though Vincent Taylor seems wrong when he states that Jesus scarcely ever used it). Doubtless this was due to the popular misconception of the messiahship, which appears to have been held by Peter (Matt 16:22). Instead, Jesus waited until His disciples themselves confessed it (Matt 16:16): this is hailed as proof of divine revelation. From that moment, while accepting the title, Jesus redefines messiahship in terms of suffering and death (16:21). John places this confession both early (John 1:41) and later (6:68, 69), but the content is virtually the same.

It is uncertain whether, at the trial before the high priest, Jesus actually admitted being the Messiah or no; the question turns on the meaning of “you have said so” (Matt 26:64 and parallels). If there was deliberate ambiguity, it was not because Jesus was denying messiahship, but because the Jewish concept of messiahship was not His. The “crucified Messiah,” a stumbling block to any devout Jew, soon became creedal confession to every Christian (1 Cor 1:23) and the subject of all early Christian preaching (Acts 3:18).

2. Lord (κύριος, G3261). This is part of the early baptismal confessions (e.g., 1 Cor 12:3). Jew and Gentile alike understood this term although in different ways. In the gospels, kurios is used frequently of Jesus (cf. Mark 7:28), but the word seems deliberately ambiguous. It could be merely the polite “sir” of John 20:15; on the other hand, it could be the full confession of the faith of Thomas (20:28). In the LXX, kurios was the usual tr. of the name Yahweh, or of the reverential אֲדֹנָ֕י usually substituted for it. To the Jew “Lord” thus expresses Christ’s full divinity and equality with God. The thoroughly Jewish and early nature of this title is shown by the “fossilized” liturgical survival of מָרָן, our Lord as a title for Christ (1 Cor 16:22). When the Jewish Christian thus equates Jesus with God, it means that any of the divine functions can be attributed to Him (cf. Heb 1:10). This was already true in the days of Acts, where prayer was addressed to Jesus (Acts 7:59).

To the Gentile, kurios meant “emperor” or “king,” when He proclaimed Himself “Dominus et deus,” “Lord and God.” Here it expresses authority primarily, with, no doubt, religious overtones. It also meant the particular god of a group or city or state; and finally it was used of several of the “great gods” of late heathendom, esp. those of the syncretistic mystery religions. It was in deliberate opposition to all of these that the Christians called Jesus “Lord.” To their heathen compatriots, there were “many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’” (1 Cor 8:5), but to the Christian only one Lord, Jesus Christ (8:6).

3. Son of man (νἱὸ̀ς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; OTבֶנ־אָדָ֖ם; Aram. בַּר־אֱנﯴשׁ). This is the favorite title chosen by Jesus for Himself; in John’s gospel it is used a dozen times with nearly seventy instances in the synoptics. Others did not use it as an address for Him, nor does the title occur after the time of Acts except in the Book of Revelation (although the idea reappears). Perhaps this was because of its peculiar linguistic form when tr. into Gr., and a consequent failure to realize its Sem. background of meaning. Like kurios, it is deliberately ambiguous when used of Christ because it has two distinct meanings in the OT. In Psalm 8:4 or Ezekiel 2:1, it simply means “man.” It is sometimes held that Ezekiel emphasizes the representative nature of the individual. If so, this would have important NT consequences. By contrast, Daniel 7:13 introduces a new aspect; there the “son of man” (apparently collective as well as individual) is a heavenly figure, almost divine. Intertestamental lit. (esp. the Book of Enoch) develops this concept of a heavenly figure, descending from God, and His agent in judgment of the world; the figure seems now fully individual. When, therefore, Jesus used the title “Son of man” to describe Himself (Mark 2:28), it was uncertain in which sense He meant the term, whether because he was “representative man,” or because He was this transcendental figure. To the Christian this is not an “either-or” but a “both-and”; for the Jew, once he was convinced that Jesus claimed to be this heavenly “Son of Man,” it was blasphemy, a capital charge (Matt 26:64). There was no suggestion of either suffering or death associated with the concept of “Son of man” in itself; all the associations were those of triumph (Matt 16:27, 28). Therefore to say that “the Son of man must suffer” (17:12) is as great a contradiction in terms as to speak of a “suffering Messiah.”

It is extremely likely that the term was used in Peter’s speeches in Acts (2:22, etc.) where Jesus is described as an ἄνθρωπος, G476, (man) attested by God. It appears in the speech of Stephen (7:56). It is clear from the context that the heavenly “Son of man” is meant, not the earthly figure. It is thus a false distinction to see “Son of man” as expressing Christ’s human nature. “Son of man,” understood in the sense of Daniel, expresses Christ’s heavenly origin at least as strongly as “Son of God,” as is clearly brought out in John’s gospel (John 3:13).

Elsewhere in the NT, the concept does not appear in set terms apart from a quotation from Psalm 8:4 in Hebrews 2:6, and the vision of the risen Christ in Revelation 1:13; 14:14. If the representative human nature of the “Son of man” is stressed, then perhaps much of the Pauline theology of anthrōpos (man) is based on it. Modern scholarship has opened up fresh vistas; the “last Adam” (1 Cor 15:45) and “second man” (15:47) may be variants of “son of man”—the more so, as the second is mentioned as “from heaven.” Cullmann is very illuminating on all these points. Even if this is farfetched, yet the figure of the heavenly “Son of man” must underlie the description of the Second Coming (1 Thess 4:17) and prob. also the Christology of Philippians 2:6-8. Paul’s speech on the Areopagus is based clearly on “son of man” theology, although not actually using the title (Acts 17:31).

4. Son of God (υἱὸ̀ς Θεοῦ). This title for Christ is freely used in the gospels, both by demoniacs (Matt 8:29) and foreigners (27:54), but also on the lips of His followers (14:33). In Matthew and Luke this position is associated with the Virgin Birth (Matt 1:23; Luke 1:35). Mark and John assert heavenly origin without entering into the question of the manner (Mark 1:1; John 1:14). This title seems to be closely associated with the categories of king, son of David, and Christ. It is not used in the early apostolic preaching as recorded in Acts unless παῖς, G4090, boy, is to be translated as “Son” (3:13, etc.). Nevertheless it is a favorite expression in Paul’s epistles (cf. Rom 1:3) and this corresponds to the theme of his preaching (Acts 9:20).

In the OT, “sons of God” seems to mean “angels” (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; and Dan 3:25). Presumably, by Sem. idiom, they were identified as being “like God,” for they had a spiritual, not corporeal, nature. More significant is the use in the Psalter, by which the ideal Davidic king is called God’s son; language is at times used which suggests full divinity (Ps 45:6). This appears to be the sense in which Jesus accepted the title; the Jews regarded it as tantamount to a claim to equality with God (John 5:18) and reacted accordingly. If then, “son of man” means “man” in the generic sense, “son of God” means “God.” That the concept of sonship includes and involves dependence and obedience is clear from the NT (Heb 5:8). Therefore, it is true that the path of sonship necessarily involved suffering.

“Son of God” asserts Christ’s deity, but no more surely than the title “Lord”; a parallel set of passages bluntly call Jesus “God,” but they concede little more than has been already accorded Him as “Son of God” (John 20:28; Heb 1:8; and prob. John 1:18).

5. The Servant of Yahweh (עֶבֶד־יְהוָ֖ה; δοῦλος). This concept, drawn from the latter half of Isaiah, involved suffering and death with an ultimate triumph. This thought entered into the deepest self-understanding of Christ. It is also found in Acts and 1 Peter as a major “theme,” while it reappears as one strand among many in the richness of Pauline Christology. In the representative nature of the “servant” of the “Lord,” and the way in which the servant is at times collective, at times individual, this title merges with that of “Son of Man.” Similarly, if modern understanding of the Aram. substratum of the gospels is correct, it is one with the title “Lamb of God” in John 1:29 (ἀμνὸ̀ς τοῦ Θεοῦ, Aram. טַלְיָא דִי אֱלָהָא, meaning either God’s lamb or God’s servant). If this is not accepted, the comparison of the Servant to a lamb in Isaiah 53:7 would make this identification probable.

The voice from heaven salutes Christ as the one “with whom I am well pleased” (Matt 3:17). This is clearly taken from Isaiah 42:1; thus, the concept of servanthood appears at the outset of Christ’s ministry. There is also the evidence of the evangelist Matthew (Matt 12:17), where the healing ministry of Jesus is directly equated with the fulfillment of the servant-song of Isaiah 42. The saying of Christ in Matthew 20:28 is even clearer; He came “not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many,” recalling Isaiah 53. To this the words of the institution at the last supper (“my blood...poured out for many”) also refer (Matt 26:28).

In the early speeches of Acts, if RSV is correct in tr. παῖς, G4090, (boy) as “servant,” it is a dominant category (Acts 3:13). The term δίκαιος, G1465, (righteous one) almost certainly refers to the Servant (Isa 53:11). Acts 3:14 gives Christ this title, used by Peter, Stephen and Paul, showing its universality.

Apart altogether from such direct reference, the thought occurs frequently in later NT passages. First Peter, for instance, repeats the “lamb” motif of Isaiah 53:7 (1 Pet 1:19), while Philippians 2:7 describes Christ as “taking the form of a servant.” It is probable that the habit of the Apostle Paul of introducing himself as “servant of Jesus Christ” (Rom 1:1, Phil 1:1, Titus 1:1) comes from this source.

6. Word (λόγος, G3364; OT דְּבַר־יְהוָ֔ה; Targum מַאֲמָרָא). In Gr. thought, logos has a long history, going back to the philosopher Heraclitus and the Stoics. Nevertheless, this is more a linguistic preparation than theological, for even the Stoic σπερματικοὶ̀ λόγοι (laws of generation) are abstractions. Philo personalized the concept, but not in the full Christian understanding of the word. Later Gnosticism and the religions of the “great gods” of Egypt used the term in a way closer to the NT; but Gnosticism shows clearly that any incarnation of such an intermediary Logos would be an impossible thought, except in a Docetic sense. There is thus no true parallel to the Christian doctrine, whereby the Logos becomes flesh (John 1:14).

In spite of Cullmann, it does not seem that there are any clear antecedents in the DSS (Manual of Discipline, 11:11). Neither דַּ֫עַת֒, H1981, (knowledge) nor מַחֲשָׁבָה, H4742, (thought) are personalized; nor are they the same as Logos. But in the OT, the děbar-Yahweh (LXX ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ) is the creative word, either as uttered by God, or as communicated by Him to prophets to utter in His name; for such a Word, there can be no failure in fulfilling the divine purpose (Isa 55:11). This Sem. antecedent for the NT doctrine is continued by the Aram. mēmrā, both used as a tr. of da’at and also as a reverential substitute for the divine name. In this sense, the “word of God” is already almost personified.

Outside of John’s gospel, logos is used as a title for Christ only in 1 John 1:1 and Revelation 19:13. Even in the gospel it is not used after ch. 1, so that the term cannot be said to dominate the fourth gospel. Nevertheless, the two thoughts that it conveys, that of preexistent creational activity, and perfect expression and revelation of God, are characteristic not only of John (John 1:1-5) but also of Paul (Col 1:15-20) and of Hebrews (Heb 1:1-3). In both of these last, the closely connected category of Wisdom is involved.

7. Savior (OT מﯴשִׁ֖יעַ; NT σωτήρ, G5400). Cullmann remarks that the Aram.-speaking church could hardly use this as a title for Jesus, since His very name already conveyed this idea (Matt 1:21, where the play on words is conscious). In the OT, the noun is an epithet of God (2 Sam 22:3), so in the NT it may still be applied directly to Him (Jude 25) or to those raised up by God to save His people (Isa 19:20). The cognate verb is freely used, but in all cases the sense is material and this-worldly (Matt 1:21, in applying it to salvation from sins, is a far deeper concept).

In the NT, the noun is used sparingly in early days, though John twice uses the phrase “Savior of the world” (John 4:42; 1 John 4:14), but Luke 2:11 is a clear example. Acts 5:31 shows it in the early Petrine preaching, and 13:23 in Paul’s “Jewish” preaching. Its use in Philippians 3:20 corresponds to that in 2 Timothy 1:10 or Titus 1:4. The cognate verb is frequent in Paul. In the gospels, the verb is used not infrequently, both of physical healings (Matt 9:22) and “salvation” from danger (8:25). Thus, disease and death are the main evils, but Luke 23:35 uses it in the fully spiritual sense of the word, as do the epistles.

Possibly, as Vincent Taylor suggests, the noun was used sparingly in early days because of its wide application in non-Christian circles to kings, and to gods of mystery-cults, as well as to healers like Asclepius. Scholars have long pointed out that, from the start, it must have been part of Christian creedal confession, since it corresponds to the last letter of ἰχθύς, G2716, (fish), the early anagram and symbol of Christianity (̓Ιησοῦς Χριστὸ̀ς Θεοῦ υἱὸ̀ς σωτήρ, Jesus Christ, son of God, Savior). Thus Savior, with Son of God and Messiah, must have been considered basic titles.

8. Other titles ἀρχιερεύς, G797, (high priest) is used of Christ in Hebrews 2:17, etc. It is, of course, a “royal” office, as the reference to Melchizedek shows (Heb 5:6). The cleansing of the Temple (John 2:13-17), Christ’s “high-priestly prayer” (John 17), and various other gospel sayings also point to this title. Προφήτης (prophet) was never an orthodox title for Christ. He was frequently so regarded by outsiders (Matt 21:11) and even by some disciples (Luke 24:19), but never accepted the title as adequate (Matt 16:13-16). It became the characteristic view of heretical Jewish Christianity, with its reduced Christology. Αῤχηγός (founder, leader; perhaps for Heb. נָשִׂיא֒, H5954, as in the LXX) is another title of somewhat indeterminate meaning, used in the highly Jewish milieu of Acts 3:15 and Hebrews 2:10, along with several other terms. Into the rich vocabulary of Revelation space will not allow an entry; but the terminology is more poetic and descriptive than definitive. It is the language of liturgy and devotion, not that of theological definition.

See Jesus Christ.

Bibliography (For books before 1953, see the Bibliographies of any standard work.) L. Koehler, Hebrew Lexicon (1953); E. Stauffer, Theology of the NT, 5th ed. (1955); R. Bultmann, Theology of the NT (1955); O. Cullmann, The Early Church (1956); W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (1957); A. Wikenhauser, NT Introduction (1958); A. M. Habermann, Megilloth Midbar Yehuda (1959); G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, 3rd ed. (1960); C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the NT (1962); O. Cullmann, Christology of the NT, 2nd ed. (1963); J. Danielou, History of Early Christian Doctrine I (1964); J. Danielou, and H. Marrou, The Christian Centuries (1964); R. H. Fuller, The Foundations of NT Christology (1965); W. G. Kummel, Introduction to the NT (1966).