JESUS CHRIST krist), (Gr. 'Incrolls Xptcrros :Incras 6 Xptar6s), the ordinary designation of the incarnate Son of God, and Savior of man kind.
This double designation is not, like Simon Peter, John Mark, Joses Barnabas, composed of a name and a surname, but, like John the Bap tist, Simon Magus, Bar-jesus Elymas, of a proper name, and an official title. Jesus was our Lord',s proper name, just as Peter, James, and John were the proper names of three of his disciples. The name seems not to have been an uncommon one among the Jews. The apocryphal book Ec clesiasticus is attributed to Jesus the son of Sirach ; and, in the New Testament, we read of Jesus, the father of Elymas the sorcerer (Acts xiii :6), and of 'Jesus, which is called Justus of the circumcision' (Col. iv :it), one of Paul's 'fellow. workers unto the kingdom of God which had been a comfort to him.' To distinguish our Lord from others bearing the name, he was termed Jesus of Nazareth (John xviii :7, etc.), 'Inaoi3s 6 Nai-topaios, and Jesus the son of Joseph (John vi :42, etc.) (1) Personal Name. There can be no doubt that Jesus is the Greek form of a Hebrew name, which had been borne by two illustrious.,individ uals in former periods of the Jewish history— the successor of Moses and introducer of Israel into the Promised Land (Exod. xxiv :13), and the high-priest who, along with Zerubbabel (Zech.
took so active a part in the re-establishment of the civil and religious polity of the Jews on their return from the Babylonish captivity. Its original and full form is Jehoshua (Num. xiii : 16). By contraction it became Joshua, or Jeshua; and when transferred into Greek, by taking the termination sharacteristic of that language, it as sumed the form Jesus. It is thus the names of the illustrious individuals referred to are uniformly written in the Sept.; and the first of them is twice mentioned in the New Testament by this name (Acts vii :45 ; Heb. iv :8).
The conferring of this name on our Lord was not the result of accident, nor of the ordinary course of things, there being 'none of his kin drcd,' as the 'neighbors and cousins' of his mother said, 'called by that name' (Luke i :6t). It was the consequence of a twofold miraculous inter position. The angel who announced to his virgin mother that she was to be 'the most honored of women,' in giving birth to the Son of God and the Savior of men, intimated also fo her the name by which the holy child was to be called: 'Thou shalt call his name Jesus' (Luke i And it was probably the same heavenly messenger who appeared to Joseph, and, to remove his sus picions and quiet his fears, said to him: 'That which is conceived in thy wife Mary is of the Holy Ghost, and she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus' (Matt. i :2o, 21).
The pious pair were 'not disobedient to the heavenly vision."When eight days were ac complished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb' (Luke ii :21).
The name Jesus, like most of Jewish proper names, was significant ; and, as might well be expected, when we consider who imposed it, its meaning is at once important and appropriate. The precise- import of the word has been a sub ject of doubt and debate among interpreters. As to its general meaning there is all but an unani mous concurrence. It was intended to denote that he who bore it was to be a Deliverer or Savior. This, whatever more, is indicated in the original word ; and the reason given by the angel for the imposition of this name on the Virgin's son was 'because he shall save his people from their sins' (Nlatt. :2I). But while some interpreters hold that it is just a part of the verb signifying to save in the form Hiphil, slightly modified, and that it signifies 'he shall save,' others hold that it is a compound word formed by the addition of two letters of the incommunicable name of the Divin ity, rtlrts, to that verb, and that it is equivalent to 'The Salvation of the Lord,' or 'The Lord the Savior.' it is not a matter of vital impor tance. The following circumstances seem to give probability to the latter opinion. It does not appear likely that Moses would have changed the name of his destined successor from Oshea, which signifies 'savior,' into Jehoshua (Num. xiii :16), if the latter signified merely he shall save; whereas, if the word be a compound term, em bodying in it the name Jehovah, we see an ade quate reason for the change. In the first chapter of the Gospel by Matthew (Matt. i 23), the most natural interpretation of the words (though they admit of another exegesis) seems to imply that the prediction of Isaiah, that the Virgin's son should be called Immanuel, was fulfilled in the imposition of the name Jesus on the Son of Mary. This would be the case only on the sup position that Immanuel and Jesus are equivalent terms, a supposition which cannot be sustained urtless Jesus can be fairly rendered 'Jehovah will save,' or 'Jehovah the Savior.' In that case, Jesus and Immanuel—God with us, i. e., on our side--express the same ideas.