Theology beacon dictionary of theology

See estates of christ incarnation, messiah.

The references to the indwelling of Christ are few, doubtless because the ministry of in­wardness is ascribed primarily to the Holy Spirit (e.g., Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 3:16; 5:18). Christ indwells us in the person of the Holy Spirit, as He promised (John 14—16). Nowhere is this vanguard role of the Spirit in ef­fecting our salvation, in relation to the Father and the Son, more precisely stated than in Eph. 2:21-22: "In him [Christ] the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy tem­ple in the Lord. And in him [Christ] you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit" (Niv).

See in christ.

For Further Reading: GMS, 452 ff; WMNT, 4:280.

Richard S. Taylor

CHRISTIAN. This familiar name may have arisen from the common Latin practice of identifying followers of sages and political leaders by adding the ending iani to the name of the leader. For ex­ample, some religious leaders in Judea who sup­ported the political policies of the ruling family, were called Herodianoi (Mark 12:13). Probably no more specific identification of the Christians prevailed in the early years of the movement than that they were "disciples of Jesus of Naza­reth" or, as Acts states, followers of "the Way" (Acts 9:2; 19:9, rsv).

The title "Christian" occurs only three times in the NT (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16, rsv). The first instance reads: "The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" (in Syria). Herod Ag­rippa II employs the title in his response to Paul's testimony (Acts 26:28). And in the third usage the apostle Peter, in a passage dealing with the proper response to persecution, writes: "Yet if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but under that name let him glorify God."

Was this a self-chosen name by the Christians in Antioch? Essentially, two views prevail. (1) E. J. Bickerman translates chrematisai in Acts 11:26 not as "were called" but "styled themselves," thereby recommending the idea that the Anti­ochene Church created the name. (2) On the other hand, it is the opinion of other scholars that "Christian" had a pagan origin, that is to say, it was given to the followers of Christ in derision. Willingale notes, in support, that elsewhere the name is so employed by non-Christians, i.e., Agrippa and Tacitus (Ann. 15. 44). Also, the ref­erence in 1 Pet. 4:16 may not have been used by the writer in a felicitous sense but simply as a recognition of the fact that being a disciple of Christ carried the possibility of persecution from those who express their hatred by use of the name. One should not overread these fragmen­tary statements, however. It might well be that in the first purely Gentile church in Antioch, where separation from the Jewish community perhaps came more rapidly than in other cities, a name for the sect was needed and was developed most naturally in the manner suggested above in item (1). The love of the Christian converts for Christ would certainly incline them to use His name for their identification. As the Jews wished to be called "the Sons of Torah," so the Christians would be inclined to accept the public reference to them as Christianoi, disciples or followers of Christ.

The distinctive element in this new religion was that it was centered in the Person, Christ, and this fact would suggest the type of name by which the disciples were finally identified. By the second century the name "Christian" was firmly established and was being used by Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, and even by Pliny, the pagan Roman governor, in other areas of the Mediterra­nean world.

"Christian" carries several shades of meaning: (1) fervent commitment to Christ as Savior and Lord; (2) formal identification with the Christian Church; (3) acceptance of the general religious principles of the Christian community. To be "Christian" includes a faith relationship to Christ as Lord and a continuing identification with the Church, the common Body of Christ.

See christianity, disciple.

With reference to content, Christian ethics is frequently divided into two phases, Christian Personal Ethics and Christian Social Ethics. The first of these is usually adopted as a point of de­parture for ethical study and will so be used here. In both cases the major concern is, not human morality in general, but the content of ethical truth in Christianity, both historic and contem­porary. The sources for Christian ethics are the following: the two Testaments, taken especially in relation to the total revelation of Christianity's redemptive message; the historic development of ethical thought, beginning with apostolic times, continuing in the cumulative ethical insights of the Fathers and of the medieval thinkers; and fi­nally, the funded ethical wisdom of the Christian Church since the Protestant Reformation.

Christian ethics assumes that there is a valid and binding relationship between God and men, and usually accords this precedence over the re­lationships of persons to others persons. In prac­tice, as well as from the biblical perspective, the two are hemispheres of one sphere. Both Testa­ments assume that there are overarching prin­ciples which govern men and women in the entire grid of their interpersonal behavior, in­cluding their attitudes and behavior toward God himself.

The Bible as a whole abounds in statements detailing the obligations of the creature to the Creator, and assumes rather than argues the va­lidity of His requirements. The formulation of God's ethical demands upon human beings found a special focus in the giving of the Law at Sinai. The Decalogue (Exod. 20:3-17) was be­stowed in close and intimate relation to the mira­cle of the Exodus, and assumes a relation of covenant between Jehovah and the Israelitish people. And as distinguished from the ceremo­nial and strictly political legislation of the Pen­tateuch, the Ten Commandments represent basic moral legislation.

It follows that the requirements of the Deca­logue devolved in a special manner upon the Jewish people, but their underlying premise is that God is holy and righteous, and as Creator He has a right to lay His demands upon all per­sons everywhere. The fact that the mandates of the Ten Words are found, at least in part, in the codes of nations and people outside the Jewish tradition suggests that their content commends itself to the sensitive moral dispositions of per­sons outside the Judeo-Christian tradition. This suggests that they are of universal application, so that God implicitly demands of the pagan world the same type of ethical behavior that He explic­itly requires of His chosen People.

Christian ethics assumes the validity of the Decalogue, this assumption being inferred both from the holiness of God, and as well from the intimate connections between Judaism and the Christian evangel. We are persuaded that the NT writers were supernaturally guided in reaching the conclusion that the Ten Commandments are binding upon the Christian person. The under­lying elements of covenant were thus brought to bear upon the Christian life. Chief among these were: that God's demands were right and just; that God is everywhere seeking a response from His creatures; that Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law, not by merely keeping it himself, but by re­vealing the love which must underlie behavior which is truly ethical, and by providing the dy­namic by which the Christian person can live ethically.

Our Lord's statements both simplify the re­quirements of the Decalogue (by reducing all the commandments to two, namely total love to God and sacrificial love for the neighbor) and inter-nalize many of its requirements. This latter ten­dency appears most evidently in the Sermon on the Mount, in which the locus of visible sins was placed within the realm of the intention of the inner life.

See ethics. decalogue, morality, righteous­ness.

Christian perfection is purity of heart. It is not necessarily maturity. It is a term of quality, not of quantity. It admits of growth and increase. In­deed, the fruits of holiness grow best in a heart that is pure and free. It is sin, not purity, that pre­vents progress, growth, fruit, and maturity. There is no perfection, in this life at least, that does not admit of and demand improvement. The pure in heart see God (Matt. 5:8). As they continue to see, they continue to be transformed into the im­age of the One they see (2 Cor. 3:18). This pro­gram of perpetual improvement is the hallmark of true children of God, culminating in "resurrec­tion perfection" (1 John 3:1-3). The act of God by which one is made pure is instantaneous (Acts 15:8-9). The grace of God and the human re­sponse by which one becomes mature is gradual and progressive.

Christian perfection is equated with perfect love. To the question "What is Christian per­fection?" John Wesley answered, "The loving God with all the heart, mind, soul, and strength" (Works, 11:394). This, in essence, is holy living, "as he which hath called you is holy" (1 Pet. 1:15). As Wesley says, "Not that they have al­ready attained all that they shall attain, either are already in this sense perfect. But they daily 'go on from strength to strength; beholding' now, 'as in a glass, the glory of the Lord, they are changed into the same image from glory to glory, by the Spirit of the Lord'" (ibid., 379).

To avoid misunderstanding and false hopes, Wesley explained carefully what Christian per­fection is not. He summarizes from his sermon on "Christian Perfection" as follows: