"Jesus Christ" and "Christ Jesus"

[Peairtach]

What is the significance of this difference in the order of the words "Jesus" and "Christ"?

Are they in the same order in the Greek?

In "Jesus Christ" is the emphasis on "Christ"?

In "Christ Jesus" is the emphasis on "Jesus"?

Is one more familiar than the other?

E.g. Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: (I Cor. 1:2, KJV)

Do some of the Apostles and Evangelists use "Christ Jesus" more than others?

 

[KMK]

By 'Jesus Christ' is Paul referring to Him in His state of humiliation and by 'Christ Jesus' as Him in His state of exaltation?

 

[Peairtach]

If anything, I'd have thought it was the other way around.

With "Jesus Christ" the emphasis sounds as if it's on the "Christ"

And vice versa.

Maybe there's something wrong with my "ear" or maybe it's different in the Greek.

 

[Wayne]

The only way to even begin answering this question is to have access to the Greek text.
That and a careful consideration of the context in each instance.
Surely someone has previously studied this question.

 

[KMK]

The only way to even begin answering this question is to have access to the Greek text.
That and a careful consideration of the context in each instance.
Surely someone has previously studied this question.

That's what I was thinking. I don't remember seeing it addressed in any of the systematics I have read.

 

[Peairtach]

Bump

 

[Peairtach]

No-one knows anything about this?

 

[Tim]

KJV: Christ Jesus = 58 verses, Jesus Christ = 189 verses.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Paul uses both word orders in 1 Tim 1:1: Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, . . .

Perhaps some of the commentaries on this verse will discuss the potential significance. I personally have never attached a change in meaning to the two different forms.

 

[JonathanHunt]

I had wondered this myself in the past. I hope that someone HAS looked into it...

 

[Peairtach]

Not a change in meaning necessarily but a change in emphasis. Everything's there for a reason.

Are no Greek scholars going to help out?

 

[Whitefield]

I think it is more stylistic than theological.

 

[LawrenceU]

According to my Greek professors in college there is no significant difference in the order, other than the theory that in spoken koine it may have flowed better one way or the other to the original speakers.

 

[Steve Curtis]

I agree that it was both stylistic and in consideration of the "flow" - with one (Χριστός) beginning with a hard sound and the other (Ἰησοῦς) offering a softer sound. I have never seen a commentator assign anything more to the construction. But I, too, would be interested to learn of any that did see something more significant there.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

For what it's worth, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown suggests "In the Pastoral Epistles Christ is often put before Jesus, to give prominence to the fact that the Messianic promises of the Old Testament, well known to Timothy (2Ti 3:15), were fulfilled in Jesus."

 

[Steve Curtis]

For what it's worth, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown suggests "In the Pastoral Epistles Christ is often put before Jesus, to give prominence to the fact that the Messianic promises of the Old Testament, well known to Timothy (2Ti 3:15), were fulfilled in Jesus."

You have no "thanks" button - so thanks for the reference!

 

[Peairtach]

Is it......

"Jesus Christ" equals "Jesus who is the Christ" (?)

"Christ Jesus" equals "The Christ who is Jesus" (?)

The emphasis is on the words in italics (?)

 

[Steve Curtis]

Is it......

"Jesus Christ" equals "Jesus who is the Christ" (?)

"Christ Jesus" equals "The Christ who is Jesus" (?)

The emphasis is on the words in italics (?)

There is nothing to indicate that in the Greek. JFB's inference (and any others like them) must derive from something other than the syntax.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Is it......

"Jesus Christ" equals "Jesus who is the Christ" (?)

"Christ Jesus" equals "The Christ who is Jesus" (?)

The emphasis is on the words in italics (?)

There is nothing to indicate that in the Greek. JFB's inference (and any others like them) must derive from something other than the syntax.

Word order in Greek is often used to supply an emphasis. This is behind JFB's comment.

 

[Romans922]

According to my Greek professors in college there is no significant difference in the order, other than the theory that in spoken koine it may have flowed better one way or the other to the original speakers.

So the question is where did you go to college?

 

[CharlieJ]

I seriously doubt there is any meaningful difference. Greek is much more flexible than English regarding word order. I think trying to discern a distinction that would allow us to predict which term would be more appropriate to a given context may be a case of over-exegesis. Do you consciously make a distinction between when you say "Christ the Lord" and when you say "the Lord Christ"? I don't.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

"Greek is much more flexible than English regarding word order."

Yes, indeed. Because it is a declined language. And it is that flexibility that allows for the word order to potentially express additional nuance or emphasis. I am not suggesting such is always the case. But to imply that optional word order is never meaningful is simply not true..

 

[Kiffin]

2τη εκκλησια του θεου τη ουση εν κορινθω ηγιασμενοις εν χριστω ιησου κλητοις αγιοις συν πασιν τοις επικαλουμενοις το ονομα του κυριου ημων ιησου χριστου εν παντι τοπω αυτων τε και ημων

In the example you give (1 Cor 1:2), χριστω ιησου (Christ Jesus) can be translated “Christ who is Jesus” as you suggested. Ιησου (genitive) is in apposition to χριστω (dative) making them equative, specifying “who is” the Christ. When it is “Jesus Christ” (1:2- το ονομα του κυριου ημων ιησου χριστου) I believe it should (most if not all?) be taken together as one unit as a proper name (I could be wrong) but in the context of 1 Cor 1:2 it tells us that ιησου χριστου is the ονομα (name). The last portion could be translated “call upon the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ” or “call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”. Or maybe even the entire genitive contruction του κυριου ημων ιησου χριστου could be in apposition to ονομα, specifying which name the saints call: "with all that in every place call upon the name which is Lord Jesus Christ"

So in other words…

χριστω ιησου is similar to = the president who is Obama

and

το ονομα του κυριου ημων ιησου χριστου is similar to = the name of our leader, President Obama

I could be wrong. I need to brush up on my Greek. Purple Wallace where are you?

 

[Jack K]

Not a change in meaning necessarily but a change in emphasis. Everything's there for a reason.

As a guy who spends much of his work time writing, I would agree there's a reason but would suggest it's possible the reason is merely stylistic or due to flow. It's also very possible there's a theological reason. But it seems we're straining to find a reason based on theological meaning, whereas a reason based on style is easy to see. Every good writer knows you should vary your word choice/order here and there to make your writing read better.

Not saying theology or emphasis has no bearing. But it would make sense, good sense, purely from a good-writing perspective.

 

[Peairtach]

2τη εκκλησια του θεου τη ουση εν κορινθω ηγιασμενοις εν χριστω ιησου κλητοις αγιοις συν πασιν τοις επικαλουμενοις το ονομα του κυριου ημων ιησου χριστου εν παντι τοπω αυτων τε και ημων

In the example you give (1 Cor 1:2), χριστω ιησου (Christ Jesus) can be translated “Christ who is Jesus” as you suggested. Ιησου (genitive) is in apposition to χριστω (dative) making them equative, specifying “who is” the Christ. When it is “Jesus Christ” (1:2- το ονομα του κυριου ημων ιησου χριστου) I believe it should (most if not all?) be taken together as one unit as a proper name (I could be wrong) but in the context of 1 Cor 1:2 it tells us that ιησου χριστου is the ονομα (name). The last portion could be translated “call upon the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ” or “call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”. Or maybe even the entire genitive contruction του κυριου ημων ιησου χριστου could be in apposition to ονομα, specifying which name the saints call: "with all that in every place call upon the name which is Lord Jesus Christ"

So in other words…

χριστω ιησου is similar to = the president who is Obama

and

το ονομα του κυριου ημων ιησου χριστου is similar to = the name of our leader, President Obama

I could be wrong. I need to brush up on my Greek. Purple Wallace where are you?

Interestingly, when I asked my minister he said almost the same as you. He's no great Greek scholar though.

But he may have been remembering something he'd been taught at the Free Church College in Edinburgh.

 

[CharlieJ]

Actually, Χριστω Ιησου in 1 Cor. 1:2 is all dative. Ιησους is irregularly declined, being the same form in both genitive and dative. It needs to be that way for this kind of apposition to work. Again, I think style makes a lot more sense than theology or "emphasis," an almost meaningless concept unless you can specify how the emphasis contributes to the broader flow of thought. English speakers don't consistently differentiate between "King Jesus" and "Jesus the King," and I doubt Greeks did either. I do think it's worth keeping in mind that "Christ" is a title, not a name; the confession is that Jesus is the Christ, or from the perspective of someone who had been waiting for the Christ, the Christ is Jesus!

 

[Willem van Oranje]

"Greek is much more flexible than English regarding word order."

Yes, indeed. Because it is a declined language. And it is that flexibility that allows for the word order to potentially express additional nuance or emphasis. I am not suggesting such is always the case. But to imply that optional word order is never meaningful is simply not true..

In Greek, emphasis is often given to a word by placing it first. e.g. John 1:1c And so I would not be surprised if these constructions are to the same effect.

 

[KMK]

I do think it's worth keeping in mind that "Christ" is a title, not a name;!

That's what I was thinking, but then I read Shedd:

Speaking generally, Messiah is the Old Testament term for the Redeemer, and Mediator is the New Testament term. The word Christ which translates Messiah is generally a proper name in the New Testament, not an official title. Sometimes, however, the God-man is denominated Jesus "the Christ," or "that Christ." Matt 16:20; and Luke 9:20; John 1:25;6:29. Dogmatic Theology, Vol II; pages 353,4

He makes an interesting point. Although if you think about it, don't most proper surnames come from titles or origin? Thomas 'Aquinas', for example. Or, Genghis 'Kahn'.

 

[Kiffin]

Actually, Χριστω Ιησου in 1 Cor. 1:2 is all dative. Ιησους is irregularly declined, being the same form in both genitive and dative.

crazy irregularities

 

[LawrenceU]

I do think it's worth keeping in mind that "Christ" is a title, not a name;!

That's what I was thinking, but then I read Shedd:

Speaking generally, Messiah is the Old Testament term for the Redeemer, and Mediator is the New Testament term. The word Christ which translates Messiah is generally a proper name in the New Testament, not an official title. Sometimes, however, the God-man is denominated Jesus "the Christ," or "that Christ." Matt 16:20; and Luke 9:20; John 1:25;6:29. Dogmatic Theology, Vol II; pages 353,4

He makes an interesting point. Although if you think about it, don't most proper surnames come from titles or origin? Thomas 'Aquinas', for example. Or, Genghis 'Kahn'.

Yes, but Messiah is unique. Genghis was a kahn. Thomas was one man from Aquino. There is only one Christ/Messiah.