Chapter I: The treatment of this article consists of nomenclature and factual 6 material. (I) The nomenclature contains:
CHAPTER I: ON THE ETYMOLOGY
§ 6. The treatment itself follows the preface, and the treatment consists of: (1) Nomenclature and (2) Factual material. Nomenclature includes: (a) The etymology. (b) Homonyms. (c) Synonyms. So let us, then, consider the etymology.
The etymology of the name “Jesus.”
Thesis I. “Jesus” means Savior, for it is from the root 
in the Hiphil, 
, “he saved,” “he preserved,” “he set free.”
The angel shows this etymology and the explanation of the etymology in Matt. 1:21: “You will call His name ‘Jesus,’ because He will save His people from their sins.” (Rabbi Haccados addresses the consul of Antonini in his book Gale Razia and among other things says: “Because the Messiah will save His people, He will be called ‘Jeshua’; but the nations of a different kind who follow His faith will call Him ‘Jesus.’ As a consequence you will discover that this name ‘Jesus’ [Jesu] has been designated in Gen. 49:10: 
, for if you take the first letters of these words, 
, these same letters will spell the name ‘Jesus’ [Jesu].” Cicero himself admits, In Verr., act. 4, that one can express more with the words σωτήρ [“savior”] and σώζε
ν [“save”] than he can with the Latin salvator [“savior”] and servare [“save”]. The teachers of the ancient church, therefore, preferred to use the word “Savior” to express more fully the salvation imparted and granted to us in Christ.)
Observe, therefore: (1) Christ is the Savior not only with regard to the point from which [terminus a quo] and with respect to goods deprived, as the one who has saved us or freed us from our sins, from the wrath of God, from the accusation of the Law, from death, from judgment, and from eternal damnation. (These follow each other mutually, because God does not become angry except because of sin; the Law accuses nothing else except sin; death is “the wages of sin,” Rom. 6:23, and sin is “the sting of death,” 1 Cor. 15:55. Because of sin, we are subject to the harsh judgment of God, and the fire of hell burns nothing but sins.) But He is also the Savior with regard to the point to which [terminus ad quem] and with respect to positive goods, because He brought perfect righteousness, the grace of God, grace, life, and eternal salvation (Dan. 9:24).
(2) Christ is the Savior not only with regard to merit, as the one who acquired salvation for us with His perfect obedience and complete satisfaction, but also with regard to efficacy, because through the Word and the Holy Spirit He applies to us those heavenly benefits that belong to our salvation. For this reason He is called not only 
(“Savior”) but also 
—σωτηρία and σωτηριον, that is, salus or salutare [“health” or “salvation”]—Gen. 49:18 and Luke 2:30, to signify that Christ not only acquired salvation for us once with His suffering and merit but also is the fount of salvation from which we can draw the waters of salvation forever (Isa. 12:3; John 1:16).
(3) Christ is not a figurative and corporeal Savior—as were Joshua, Othniel, and other saviors of the Old Testament—but the true, proper, and spiritual Savior whom the name befits not only preeminently but also uniquely, because He is the sort of Savior who alone saves us (Acts 4:12); who saves us from every evil, because He saves us from sin, which is the beginning of every evil (Matt. 1:21); who saves us with His merit and efficacy (1 John 2:2); who saves us most perfectly, inchoatively in this life, consummately in the life to come.
Joshua was a type of our Savior. He was first called “Hoshea,” but Moses changed this name to “Joshua” by prefixing the letter 
for this purpose: (a) To promise a more certain salvation and victory over the Canaanites to Joshua himself and through him to his people, a victory that was beginning with this reconnaissance (Num. 13:[17–]18). “Hoshea,” you see, is formed from the imperative and means “Save!” “Joshua,” however, is from the future: “he will save.” (b) To indicate that God was going to bestow many good things on him, and so Moses added 
, the first letter of God’s four-letter name, to “Joshua. “ (c) Because Moses, with the prophetic Spirit, foresaw that Joshua was going to be a type of Jesus Christ both in name and in fact—namely, in leading the people into the land of Canaan. Just as God added to Abraham and Sarah the letter 
from God’s four-letter name to signify that He would be born from them as a man, so He added the letter 
to the name of “Joshua” so that the name “Jehoshua” might contain all four letters of God’s name and to signify that Jesus—whose type Joshua was—would be Jehovah, that is, the true God.
(4) We must distinguish between a mediate Savior, such as are also the Father and the Spirit, because they save through the Son (“I shall save them in the Lord, their God,” Hosea 1:7), and an immediate Savior, such as the Son is. Here, again, we must distinguish between the efficacy of saving or the application of salvation, which is common to the three persons of the Trinity, and the mode of saving or the acquisition of salvation through the incarnation, namely, through suffering and death, which is proper to the Son.
(5) Christ is the Savior of all people [1 Tim. 4:10] with regard to merit and acquisition, because He merited salvation for all people without exception with His suffering and death; and He is the Savior only of believers with regard to fruit and application, because they alone are rendered partakers of salvation through faith.
Antithesis.
§ 7. (I) The Jews neither read nor pronounce the saving name “Jesus” because they were forbidden “to call to mind the names of other gods” (Exod. 23:13). If by chance they accidentally speak it, they punish themselves by hitting themselves. Furthermore, as a terrible blasphemy, they say 
understanding by apocope 
, “May his name be wiped out” (Fagius on Exodus 33). In place of “Jeshu,” which makes 316 in numbers, they read 
(“and vanity”), which gives the same number (Antonius Margarita, De fide Judaeorum). Christian magistrates, however, had to repress this blasphemy with very severe punishments. In the Qur’an, sura 29, it is written 
[“Isaiah, the son of Mary”] by transposing the letters disgracefully.
(II) Irenaeus (Adv. haeres., bk. 2, ch. 41, p. 140) gives another etymology of the name “Jesus,” the rationale for which lies hidden and secret. He says: “According to the Hebrews’ own language, the name ‘Jesus’ has two-and-a-half letters, as their learned people say. It signifies that He is the Lord, who contains heaven and earth, because ‘Jesus’ is heaven according to the ancient Hebrew language, while the earth is called ‘Sura Usser.’ The Word that has heaven and earth, therefore, is Jesus Himself.” And later: “Again, according to the Hebrew language, ‘Jesus’ has two-and-a-half letters.”
It was, however, an ignorance of the Hebrew language, which Irenaeus had in common with very many of the ancients, that misled him into this opinion. (1) The name 
has four letters, not two-and-a-half. (2) Those who derive it from 
or 
rather than from 
are contradicting the angel, that is, God Himself, at whose order the angel spoke. (3) Irenaeus seems to have ignored the proper and original meaning and to have followed some Jewish cabala. After all, who can search out what the name “Jesus” has in common with 
and 
, and what the words “Sura” and “Usser” are, of which no trace are extant among the Hebrews?
** He asked the opinion of a Jew, and the Jew deceived this man who was so very eager to learn, for he says, “as their learned people say.” **
(III) Some derive the name 
from the four-letter name “Jehovah” 
. Jacobus Faber Stapulensis: “In the name ‘Jhesus’ an aspiration must be placed behind [the J], because in the Tetragrammaton, the yod preceded the he but not the he the yod.” Hagostratus, in Galatinus: “The chief letters of the Tetragrammaton are yod, he, vav, which seem to correspond to these letters of ours: I, H, V; but when these are joined together, they form this blessed name. The title is added to designate the cross through which we are saved.” Osiander argues that the name “Jehovah,” which previously one could not speak, was made speakable by inserting the letter 
. He thinks that Luke consequently is saying that that previously unspeakable name was called out by the angel; that is, that it was pronounced in the name “Jesus” and was to be written 
.
However: (1) The angel does not take it from “Jehovah” but from 
. (2) The name “Jehovah” is written 
, but the name “Jesus” is written 
, and this diversity of letters proves a different etymology. (See Galatinus, bk. 3, ch. 20.) (3) According to the interpretation of the angel, the name “Jesus” is not directly and immediately the name of a person but of an office, denoting the act of saving. The name “Jehovah,” however, indicates the very essence of God, from the root 
or 
[“He is”], because being is most especially proper to God. (4) The name “Jehovah” befits Christ according to His divine nature, but the name “Jesus” embraces both natures. (See Galatinus, loc. cit.)
(IV) Some want the name “Jeshua” to have an affinity with the word 
, which means “subsistence” and “existence,” because in His two natures, divine and human, Christ established one indissoluble subsistence, hypostasis, and person. However, the true etymology is not this allusion, of whatever sort it may be, but that which the angel hands down.
(V) There are some who derive the Greek name 
[“Jesus”] from 
[“I heal”] or from the Syriac
[“I heal”], so that “Jesus” is the same as “physician.” [Epiphanius],1
Haeres. 29: “The Hebrew language says that Jesus is called ‘healer’ or ‘doctor’ or ‘preserver.’ “ Basil (Ascet.) and Cyril (Catech. 10) do the same thing, but in Matthew the angel shows that we should look for the origin from 
.
§ 8. (I) The question arises: Is the name “Jesus” written “Ihesus” with aspiration? This is solemn for the Jesuits, and for this reason they generally place “IHS” with a cross superimposed, as an abbreviation, in the frontispieces of their books. Buntingus thinks that it is of little import whether it is written with or without aspiration. However: (1) Neither in Hebrew nor in Greek is there a letter or aspiration “H”; consequently, it also should not be added in the formation of the Latin word. (2) Although 
could appear to have been contracted from 
with the shewa changed into a tsere because of the letters 
and 
, which were elided through crasis (because it is formed from the Hiphil 
; and because that son, Josedek, who in Haggai and Zechariah is called 
, is elsewhere called 
in Ezra 2:2 and Neh. 7:7; and 
the son of Nun, is called 
in Neh. [8]:17), nevertheless it is evident on the basis of the Syriac version of the New Testament that the name of the Savior is not written as 
but as 
Yet even if in the Hebrew there is a 
, the Latin that has been formed from the Greek 
nevertheless ought not have an aspiration. 
is formed directly from the root 
by a shewa (just as 
, “fowler,” is formed from 
, and 
“anointed one,” is formed from 
; or it is formed from the future 
, “he will save.”
(3) Pagninus, in his explanation of Hebrew names, teaches that we should write “Jesus” as 
but not as 
, because in the inscription on the cross that is preserved in Rome in the Church of the Holy Cross it is found written in that way. Although this argument is of very little weight among us, nevertheless it is correct to set it against the Jesuits.
§ 9. (II) The question arises: How would the Greek 
and the Latin Jesus be formed from the Hebrew 
? The Septuagint translators render the names 
and 
as 
. The angel followed them when he attributes that name to our Savior in order to show that the figures of the Old Testament are being fulfilled in Him. Meanwhile, lest the change in spelling and pronunciation take anything away from the true meaning of this name, he adds the clear explanation that it is taken from the root 
in the Hiphil and means “Savior.”
Now, the question arises of how the name 
, from which the Latins have taken the name “Jesus,” would be formed from 
. Some claim that we must simply reject this spelling and pronunciation because it originates from a corruption of the Jews who, in order to take away from Christ the honor of saving, have elided the root letter 
from His name, and in place of 
they write 
in order to hide that poisonous blasphemy about which we spoke earlier. Before that blasphemy of the Jews developed, however, the Septuagint translators wrote 
, in which the 
has likewise been elided. Therefore some people respond that, according to Baal Aruch in the Lexicon Thalmudicum, it was customary for the Syrians to elide the letters 
and 
, especially at the end of a word, because they customarily do not pronounce but absorb the letter 
because of its difficulty. As a consequence, they read 
instead of 
, from which comes the name 
, to which ς was added, because the Greeks were in the habit of adding that at the end of foreign words.
But because it is clear that it takes its origin from the Hebrew rather than from the Syriac, others proceed in this way: The name 
to the Greeks has three syllables because the iota is a vowel as far as they are concerned, though it is a consonant for the Hebrews and Latins. Second, they render the vowel point tsere under the yod in “Jeschua” as an η, because η sounds like “e.” Third, they render the guttural 
as “s” for the sake of a softer pronunciation. In this way they [also] formed Messias out of Meshia.
§ 10. (III) The question arises: Was the name “Savior” attributed to the Messiah in the Old Testament also? Some people think that the name “Jesus” was known not only to the Jews and the prophets but also to the Gentiles, because the sibyls had foretold many things about the Messiah and about His name, “Jesus.” Familiar is the song of the Erythraean sibyl, whose acrostic renders this sentence: 
.” (See Constantine the Great, Orat. ad coetum sanctorum, which is found in Eusebius after his life of Constantine; Augustine, De civit. Dei, bk. 18, ch. 23; etc.)
On the other hand, some claim that it was first revealed by the angel in the New Testament, and to this they apply the statement of the prophet, “He will be called with a new name that the mouth of the Lord will declare” (Isa. 62:2). However, this has to do properly and principally with the church of the New Testament.
Some embrace a middle opinion: namely, that this name of the Messiah was revealed to the devout, not to the Gentiles. Nevertheless it was revealed to the devout of the Old Testament: (1) In types, because Joshua, the son of Nun and the leader of the people of Israel, as well as his son, Josedek, the priest, who were types of Christ, were called by this name, as will become clear later. (2) In promises and prophecies. “I wait 
for Your salvation, O Lord” (Gen. 49:18); that is, “Your saving,” which “You will prepare before the face of all people,” as Simeon explains (Luke 2:30–31). “Who will give out of Zion 
the salvation of Israel?” (Ps. 14:7). “… that we may know Your way upon earth and 
, Your salvation among all nations” (Ps. 67:2). “Our God is a God of salvation” (Ps. 68:20). Augustine comments on this passage in this way, De civ. Dei, bk. 17, ch. 18: “God, the God of salvation, is Jesus, which is interpreted ‘Savior’ or ‘saving.’ You see, the explanation of this name was given when, before He was born of the Virgin, it was said: ‘You will call His name Jesus because He will save His people from their sins.’ Because His blood was shed for the remission of their sins, surely it was not right for Him to have other escapes from this life except that of death. Therefore when it had been said, ‘Our God is a God of salvation,’ there was immediately added, ‘and to the Lord belongs the escape of death,’ to show that He was going to save them by dying.” “The Lord announces His salvation” (Ps. 98:2). “All the ends of the earth see the salvation of God” (v. [3]). (This is repeated in Isa. 52:10 and is referred to Christ in Luke 3:6.) “Let the earth open, and let 
, salvation and righteousness sprout forth” (Isa. 45:8). “I have given You as a light to the nations that You may be 
, My salvation to the end of the earth” (Isa. 49:6). “Say to the daughter of Zion: ‘Behold, your salvation-bringer is coming’ “ (Isa. 62:11). (Cf. Matt. 21:[5]; Rev. 22:1.) “I will save them in the Lord their God” (Hosea 1:7). “I will rejoice in the God 
, of my salvation” (Hab. 3:18).
We make a distinction: (1) Between the thing expressed by the name and the name itself taken formally. The thing denoted by the name “Jesus” was known to the devout of the Old Testament; that is, they believed that the Messiah would actually be their Savior, and they hoped for their salvation from Him. They did not know so precisely, however, that He would be called by the name 
formally and uniquely. Thus they believed that He was going to be called “Messiah,” that is, in the truth of the matter He was going to be “Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14); “wonderful Counselor,” etc. (Isa. 9:6); “Jehovah, our Righteousness” (Jer. 23:6). However, they could not have understood the proper name of the Messiah from this.
(2) Between the proper name and the appellative name. The name 
, having a tsere under the 
and a patach under the 
, is the proper name. But 
, having a shewa under the 
and a qamets under the 
, is an appellative of the feminine gender, meaning “salvation” and “liberation.” The former was not well-known to the devout of the Old Testament in the same way as was the latter. From the apocryphal books they add the witness of 4 Ezra [7:28]: “My Son 
, Jesus, will be revealed with those who will rejoice with Him.” Also: “My Son Jesus will die, and a generation will turn to Me” [4 Ezra 7:29]. Sirach 43:25: “The Lord Jesus planted him.” However, the very fact that they express the name of Jesus so clearly and lucidly takes authority away from the apocryphal books, because this did not occur in the prophets. Moreover, in Sirach, 
was written by scribal error instead of 
[“islands”], for in the Greek it reads: 
or 
[“He planted islands into it,” or “in it”].
The name “Jesus,” therefore, was new: (a) With regard to its particular application, because the angel applied it to our salvation and brought it down from the heavenly court to earth. (b) With regard to a clearer revelation, because the power of this name was noticed more completely and more deeply in the New Testament. (c) With regard to its signification, because in the Old Testament there had not been the sort of Savior as Christ is, nor will there be another in the New Testament such as He.
§ 11. (IV) The question arises: In Zech. 9:9, why is the Messiah not called 
in the active sense, but 
, “saved,” in the passive? We respond: The Targum explains this actively: 
, “liberator” or “redeemer.” In his Lex., Schindlerus explains it in the same way and compares it with the word 
in Deut. 22:27: “There was no rescuer for her.” In this way, the 
would be formative of a noun from the letters he-emanthi, but because such formations of nouns hardly ever occur, it is more simple to take it as a Pual2
[passive] Niphal, and this provides a suitable meaning. Christ is not only “Savior” but is also Himself “saved.” That is, because He wished to redeem us with His suffering and death, and descended into the depths of our wretchedness, therefore it was necessary that He be saved first, so that, having been saved, He might be able to save us too. “I looked around, but there was no helper; I was in anxiety, and there was no one to help” (namely, among men). “My own arm” (the power of My divinity) “has saved Me, and My anger” (or zeal) “has helped Me” (Isa. 63:5). Some think that the very name 
has the form of a passive participle and means not “Savior” but “saved.” And yet it is not a Pual3 [passive] Qal but a Thoar,4 as “Joshua” is formed from the future 
or from the noun 
, “salvation.”
§ 12. The practical use is consoling, and the devout ancients explain this in very sweet words. Because this name was applied to the Messiah not by human decision but by divine command, because His name is proper and uniquely His, because it includes the treasury of all the benefits that come down to us from Christ, therefore the foundation for every true and solid comfort is being presented to us in this name. Galatinus, bk. 3, ch. 20: “The other names for the Messiah are taken from the effect of salvation itself, and they signify either the source alone or the means alone or the end of salvation alone. But this name ‘Jesus’ contains and expresses sufficiently the entire process of our salvation, namely, the source, means, and end. Therefore it includes everything else.” The name “Jesus” is a necklace woven with various gems and pearls. The heavenly Bridegroom gives it to His betrothed, and on it He impresses His own likeness deeply [ad vivum]. The name “Jesus” is, as Bernard says (Song of Songs, sermon 15, col. 532), “honey in the mouth, a song in the ear, a cry of exultation in the heart. It gives light to what has been said, it gives food to what is thought, it softens what is cried out.” The name “Jesus” is the paradise of our heart, a paradise in which we look upon the flower of love, the rose of humanity, the violet of humility, the lily of purity, the hyssop of cleansing, the myrrh of incorruptibility, the palm of victory, the olive of mercy, the balsam of healing. In this paradise of our soul you see the tree of life, the rod of Aaron, the shoot from the root of Jesse, the offshoot of David, the living vine, a packet of myrrh, a flower of the field and a lily of the valleys, the font of salvation and life. You see, whatever is set forth in these figures, all of that is contained briefly in the name “Jesus.”
Hilary, explanation of Psalm 51: “The angels adore this name, the demons tremble at it, and humans take their salvation from it.” Epiphanius, Haeres. 29, p. 53: “The name ‘Jesus’ means ‘Healer’ and ‘Physician.’ “ Bernard, Sermon 2 super Missus est, col. 27: “Oh, that the Lord Jesus would deign to count me, a sinner, among His people, that You may save me from my sins. For truly blessed is that people whose Lord is Jesus Himself, whose God is Jesus.” Bernard again, Sermon 2 de circumc., col. 64: “By His very own nature He has the power to be Savior; this name is inherent in Him. No human nor angelic creature has clothed Him with it.” Song of Songs, sermon 15, col. 532: “The name ‘Jesus’ is food, light, medicine. You have this medicament for yourself, O my soul, and it lies concealed in the capsule of this word, which certainly is Jesus, the bringer of salvation. You will find it effective against absolutely every plague of yours.” Sermon de coena Domini, col. 1710: “ ‘Jesus’ is sweet in sound, sweet in appearance, sweet in name. The name ‘Jesus’ is sweet and pleasant, consecrated from eternity, announced by the angel, foretold by the oracle of Solomon, who said, ‘Your name is oil poured out,’ etc.” Anselm, De mis. hominis, p. 89, from Augustine, De contrit. cord.:
O Jesus, for the sake of Your sweet name, do unto me according to Your name. Forget the arrogant one who provokes You. Look kindly upon the wretched one who calls upon You. O Jesus, Yours is a sweet name, a delightful name, a name that comforts the sinner, a name of blessed hope! For what is Jesus except Savior? Therefore for Your sake alone, O Jesus, be Jesus for me. Be my kind Savior! Do not, O Lord, do not pay attention to my wickedness so as to forget Your goodness. O good Lord Jesus, though I have admitted that for which You could condemn me, You have not lost that by which to save me.
“Say to my soul: 
, I am your salvation” (Ps. 35:3). If you need the forgiveness of sins, this name has been given to you for this very reason: because He will save His people from their sins (Matt. 1:21). If you need defense, this name is a very strong tower (Prov. 18:10). If you need righteousness, that is given in this name (Jer. 23:6). If you need the Holy Spirit, He is given through this name (John 14:26). If you need salvation, salvation is in it (Acts 4:12).
§ 13. Thesis II. “Christ” means “anointed,” from
[“I annoint”], because our Savior was anointed with the oil of gladness, that is, with the fullness of the Holy Spirit.
Let this be the explanation: As the name “Jesus” is Hebrew with regard to its first origin, so the surname “Christ” is Greek. Therefore the fact that our Savior is marked with a Hebrew and a Greek title makes known that He is the Savior of both Gentiles and Jews, that is, of all people without exception. The name “Christ” corresponds to the title “Messiah,” which is taken from the root 
(“he anointed”). In John 1:[41] Andrew says, “ ‘We have found the Messiah,’ which is interpreted, ‘the Christ.’ “ In John 4:25 the Messiah is said to be Christ. (
[“Messiah”] comes from the Chaldaic 
with the 
changed into σσ and 
into the Greek ending -ας).
The name “Messiah” is attributed to the Son of God, the promised Savior, in: 1 Sam. 2:10: “The horn of the Messiah.” Ps. 2:2: “They set themselves against the Lord and His Christ.” Ps. 132:10, 17. Dan. 9:25: “Until the coming of the Messiah, the prince.” Verse 26: “The Messiah will be cut off.” It is attributed to Him also in many passages of the Chaldaic paraphrase. Gen. 49:10: “Until the Messiah comes.” Isa. 53:1: “Behold, My servant, the Messiah, will understand.” Mic. 5:2: “The Messiah will come forth from you before Me.” Augustine, Contra literas Petiliani, bk. 2, ch. 104: “Christ’s name comes from ‘chrism,’ that is, from ‘anointing.’ The Hebrews say that He is the ‘Messiah,’ and this word is harmonious with the Punic language, just as very many, and in fact almost all, Hebrew words are.” Tractate 7 on John: “ ‘Messiah’ means ‘anointed’ in Latin, ‘Christ’ in Greek. He was uniquely anointed, He was especially anointed, and for this reason all Christians are anointed.”
§ 14. The definition of the title is: (I) Figurative [typica], because the prophets, priests, and kings of the Old Testament, who were anointed with holy oil, were types of Christ. The oil was called 
and consisted of four spices: myrrh, cinnamon, calamus, and cassia. It is evident that the priests were anointed from the account of Exodus [29]. It is evident that the kings were anointed from the histories of Saul, David, Solomon, Jehu, etc. (The Hebrews note that the successors of an anointed father were not anointed. In regard to the example of Solomon, they respond that this happened because of the sedition of his brother Adonijah. This, however, is not certain.) It is evident that the prophets were anointed from the account of Elisha (1 Kings 19:[16]). Justin, Dial. cum Tryph., p. 244: “After they received this, all kings and anointed people bore [the title] of being called ‘kings’ and ‘christs.’ “ Lactantius, Inst. div., bk. 4, ch. 7, p. 202: “ ‘Christ’ is not a proper name but a title of power and kingship, for this is what the Jews used to call their kings. The Jews had previously been commanded to prepare the sacred ointment with which those who were called to the priesthood and kingship could be anointed. Just as now for the Romans clothing of purple is a sign of royal dignity that has been assumed, so for the Jews, anointing with the sacred oil would grant the royal name and power. For this reason, we call Him ‘Christ,’ that is, ‘the Anointed One,’ who in Hebrew is called ‘Messiah.’ “
(2) Proper, because Christ “was anointed with the oil of gladness” (that is, with the Holy Spirit) “beyond His fellows” (Ps. 45:7). (See Isa. 61:1; Dan. 9:24; Luke 4:[18]; Acts 4:27; 10:38; Heb. 1:9.) (Some claim that there are two kinds of anointing in Christ: one by which the Word Himself, by assuming the human nature, anointed it with the fullness of His own Spirit, Col. 2:9, in regard to which they understand the prophecy of Dan. 9:24; the second, by which God the Father anointed Christ as man “with the oil of gladness beyond His fellows,” in regard to which they understand the words of Ps. 45:7 and Isa. 61:1. But this is one and the same anointing by which the Father anointed Christ according to His human nature with the Holy Spirit and by which Christ anointed His own flesh with the oil of deity and the fullness of His own Spirit, just as there is one and the same communication by which the Father is said to have placed His Son at His right hand according to the human nature and by which the Son carried the assumed flesh to the right hand of the Father. You see, though it was not the Father and not the Holy Spirit but the Word alone who assumed the flesh into the unity of His person, and thus the goal5 of this assuming is not the person of the Father or of the Spirit but of the Word, nevertheless that was one and the same action of the three persons.)
From this a clear distinction is apparent between the anointing of the kings, priests, and prophets of the Old Testament and the anointing of Christ: (a) With regard to the efficient cause. The former were anointed mediately through other prophets and priests, but the latter was anointed immediately by God Himself. (b) With regard to the material. The former were anointed with external oil, but the latter with internal and invisible oil—that is, the Holy Spirit. (c) With regard to the end. The former were anointed for an earthly and worldly kingship, but the latter for a heavenly and eternal one. (d) With regard to the effect. The anointing of Christ brings usefulness even to us, because the anointing of the Spirit comes down from Him as the head upon us as His members, and even we “have received of His fullness” (John 1:16), which cannot be said about the kings and priests of the Old Testament. Athanasius, Contr. Arian., orat. 2, p. 171: “Not like Aaron and David and all the rest was He Himself also anointed with oil, but in a different away, ‘above all His fellows,’ which, the prophet has explained, was the oil of the Holy Spirit. ‘The Holy Spirit was upon Me because He anointed Me.’ “
§ 15. (1) Justin Martyr seems to draw the name “Christ” from 
[“use”] (Apol.
2. pro Christ., p. 42).6 He says: “It is claimed that we are Christians. And yet it is not right to hate what is 
, that is, proper and good.” Sylburgius is correct in warning that “the etymology is merely allusive,” because Justin is alluding to a common custom at that time, because Christ was being called “Chrestus” at that time without anyone knowing the definition of that name. Lactantius, loc. cit.: “We must explain the definition of this name because of the ignorance of those people who are in the habit of calling Him ‘Chrestus’7 with a letter changed.”
(2) What Justin writes in Apol. 2. pro Christ., [ch. 6,] p. 35, is to be taken in the same way. He writes: “He is called ‘Christ’ because through Him God anointed and adorned all things.” And in the same place he adds that this name includes a meaning not at all familiar. However, because the definition of the title is obvious and has been explained in Holy Writ, it is pointless to spend a long time asking about other things. Augustine, De civ. Dei, bk. 17, ch. 16: “Who is so ignorant in this religion or so deaf toward its fame that has spread far and wide that he does not know that Christ was so called from ‘chrism,’ that is, from ‘anointing’?” (Compare also Augustine, De cons. evang., bk. 1, ch. 3; Retract., bk. 1, chs. 12 and 26; Cyril, Deincarn. unig., ch. 1; etc.)
§ 16. The question arises: Could the Son of God also have been correctly called “Christ” in the Old Testament before His incarnation? Some deny this: (1) Because in the fullness of time—that is, after His incarnation took place—He received this anointing. Dan. 9:24: “Seventy weeks of years have been decreed … to anoint the Anointed One of the saints.”
(2) Because this name includes both natures, namely, the anointing deity and the anointed humanity. Irenaeus, bk. 3, ch. 20, p. 209: “In the name ‘Christ’ we hear the one who anointed and the one who was anointed as well as the very ointment with which He was anointed. Indeed, the Father anointed, but the Son was anointed in the Holy Spirit, who is the ointment.” Athanasius, Contra Arianos, orat. 5, p. 321: “Christ is considered as both together.” Damascenus, Orthod. fid., bk. 3, ch. 3: “We say that the name ‘Christ’ belongs to the hypostasis not as if it were an altogether singular thing, but as signifying a subsistence of two natures. For He anointed Himself—as God anointing His own body with His own divinity, and as man being anointed—for He Himself is the latter and the former, and the divinity is the chrism of His humanity.” Athanasius, De salut. adv. Christi, p. 494: “This name ‘Christ’ should not be thought of apart from the flesh.” (Compare Origen, 
bk. 4; Hilary, De trinit., bk. 11; Ambrose, on Hebrews 1; Augustine, on Psalm 44 and tractate 7 on John; Eustachius, in Theodoret, Dial. 1; Damascenus, bk. 3, ch. 4, and bk. 4, ch. 6; etc.) Because the human nature of Christ, therefore, did not yet exist in the Old Testament, surely unction also did not yet have a place; as a consequence, He could not yet have been called “Christ.”
However, though the human nature according to which Christ was anointed in the fullness of time did not yet exist in the Old Testament, nonetheless even in the Old Testament our Savior both truly existed and also could have been called “Christ.” It is for this reason also that even before His incarnation, this name is attributed to the Son of God (1 Cor. 10:9; Eph. 1:4; Heb. 13:8): (1) Because of the sameness [
] of the person. After all, there is not one Son of God in the Old Testament and another Christ in the New; but He is one and the same person who became composite [
] through the assumption of the humanity in the New Testament. Meanwhile, the sameness of His person remained (John 8:38).
(2) Because of the decree of God made already from eternity concerning the anointing of the Savior. Therefore as He is called “the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world” (Rev. 13:8), namely, by reason of the eternal decree (1 Pet. 1:20), so also our Savior is and can be called “Christ” by reason of the divine decree.
(3) Because of the prophecies published in the Old Testament about the anointing of the Messiah (Dan. 9:25).
(4) Because of the figures and types of this anointing in the kings, prophets, and priests of the Old Testament who preceded.
(5) Because of the efficacy of this anointing, because the granting of the Holy Spirit comes to believers not only in the New Testament but also in the Old, because of Christ, who was anointed with the fullness of the Holy Spirit.
(6) Because of what is connoted or because of the term. Christ was anointed in the New Testament to be our king and priest. And yet already in the Old Testament He was mediator, king, and priest for the Church according to His divine nature. Therefore as 
by metonymy signifies the establishment of a king or priest, because anointing with the sacred oil would confer royal power and priestly dignity, so Christ also was anointed in the New Testament; that is, He was established as the King of His Church. Therefore some use this distinction: The name of Christ is taken in two ways: (a) As it is the name of the royal and priestly office that is common to both natures. (b) As it is the name of the office with a connotation of temporal investiture and inauguration that takes place through the anointing of the Holy Spirit, in which regard it indeed indicates the person [suppositum], but, nevertheless, according to the human nature.
§ 17. The practical use is: (1) Consoling. Our Savior is Christ, who has been anointed with the fullness of the Holy Spirit to be our king and priest, for which reason He is called the oil itself. Isa. 10:27: “The yoke will be destroyed because of the Oil, for Jehovah has anointed Him with His Spirit,” as Jonathan the Chaldean interprets it. We, therefore, can “receive of His fullness” (John 1:16). He has been divinely established as our king (Ps. 2:9); therefore He will protect and defend the subjects of His kingdom from all their foes. He was anointed as a priest; therefore He will intercede for us at the right hand of the Father. Justin, 
. et resp., q. 135, p. 374: “The word ‘Christ’ embraces all the rest of His titles within itself, even though we may not always use them all. But if Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah, surely from Him all those benefits come down to us that the Old Testament said would be granted to us through the Messiah.”
(2) Exhorting. From “Messiah” we are called 
, Messiani, “anointed people” (1 Chron. 17:22; Ps. 105:15). From “Christ” we are called “Christians” (Acts 11:26) because “we, too, have received anointing from Him” (1 John 2:27; [1] Cor. 2:[12]). Justin, Dial. cum Tryph., p. 276: “Just as your entire race is called ‘Jacob’ and ‘Israel’ from that one Jacob whose surname was ‘Israel,’ so also we are and are called ‘sons of the true God’ from that Christ who begot us unto God.” Therefore let us behave ourselves as people anointed and consecrated to God, touching nothing unclean and not sharing in the dead works of sinners. We have been anointed by Christ to be spiritual “kings and priests” (Rev. 1:6); we are “a royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9). Therefore as kings let us fight bravely against Satan, the world, and our flesh. As priests, let us offer to God “spiritual sacrifices acceptable through Christ” (Rom. 12:1; 1 Pet. 2:5; etc.).
1 Read Epiphanius instead ofEusebius.
2 Read Pual instead of Paul.
3 Read Pual instead of Paul.
4 I.e., an adjectival form, derived from the verb: Johannes Buxtorf, “Lexicon Breve Rabbinico-Philosophicum” in Lexicon Hebraicum Et Chaldaicum (Basel: Johann König, 1663), s.v. 
5 Terminus, that is, the terminus ad quem, which is the point at which a movement comes to rest. In this case, the human nature of Christ was assumed into the unity of Christ’s person specifically, which is where the motion of assuming ended, so to speak.
6 
is the root of the adjective 
(“useful, good”).
7 Read Chrestum instead of Christum.