Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Titles of Jesus

The last two weeks at church (Huddle) we've been discussing the various different titles given to Jesus-and exploring how, if at all, they change, challenge, confirm, call into question any of our previous perceptions and understandings of Jesus. The 7 we looked at-which I think is reasonably definitive, but don't know, as it was given to me in class were: Messiah (Christ), Son of God, Son of Man, Word, Lord, Son of David and Lamb of God. Now I think of it, there's the Lion of Judah and some other OT ones that I know are floating in the back of my mind.

Anyway, we were discussing the relevance and meaning of each to us today. One that raised a bit of discussion was the title Son of David. First because its not actually true, in that Jesus does not actually have any direct ancestral heritage to David. The ancestral line is traced back through Joseph, who if we believe what the very next part of the Bible says, wasn't actually Jesus' father.

Despite this, it would have probably still been important for many Jewish listeners to hear that Jesus was here to fulfill that Kingly role of David, to continue on, but also fulfill that Jewish ancestry. But is it OK for the Bible writers/us to call him that if its not actually literally true? Are we OK with it just being a figure of speech?

The other issue we discussed was the relevance to us of this title. We all admitted that we did not feel it was particularly relevant to us right now-that it placed no real bearing on our understanding or experience of Jesus. Is it OK to almost ignore that title of Jesus? Or are we missing out on some profound theological insight by not engaging with it more fully?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Matthew's genealogy traces back the lineage of Jesus through Mary's line (as opposed to Luke's Gospel which goes directly back through Jo) to David, and the back to Abraham - via the dodgy women of the bible!?!