This is part of a series of posts on my understanding of faith, ministry and the church. I would enjoy feedback and your response to my answers to these questions.
Question – How do you interpret the statement Jesus Christ is Lord?
Response – My response begins:
I believe that the statement Jesus Christ is Lord is best interpreted through an examination of three words: Jesus, Christ, and Lord.
Jesus is a personal name that refers to an individual that lived in first century Palestine. The personal name of Jesus reinforces his humanity and points toward his unique identity among humanity. The meaning of the name Jesus also implies salvation. Christ is a title that points to the role of savior or messiah. This title has particular significance considering the Jewish expectations for the coming Messiah at the time of Jesus’ life on earth. Jesus Christ as Lord means that he is someone that has power, influence and authority.
Discussion
- How would you respond to this question?
- Where do you agree with my response?
- Where do you disagree with my response?
Rev. Andrew Conard 
4 replies on “Interpretation of Jesus Christ is Lord”
Of course the name Jesus was common in 1st century palestine and even before that time. [see Jesus Ben Ha-Notzri] You don`t need me to tell you that the name Jesus [anointed one] is synonymous with the Greek Yesous [anointed one] which was a title given to many of the Greek gods.
Indulging my “once an English major, always an English major” viewpoint here:
I’d suggest you spend some time reflecting upon “is,” too. “Is,” though a tiny little word, does hold significance.
Your board may ask you about all the masculine references to God. You might want to give that a little thought. Also, it might be good to think about actual experiences of Christ’s Lordship to keep things from being disembodied doctrines. Let me be the pretend examiner…”Andrew, this is all well and good. What difference does this make in your life and the life of the congregations you serve?”
martynblackburn – Thanks for sharing that information. I did know about the connection with the greek, but did not know about the common nature of the name in 1st century palestine – Thanks!
DogBlogger – duly noted. Great suggestion. I hope to work that into the next iteration of this response. Truly appreciated.
Matt – I hear you, on both points. You are right on with the response from the board. It was pointed out that I was skilled with the academic and theological understanding, but did not express in my papers much of the personal. This is another valuable suggestion for the next revision. Thanks!