Since (according to the Gra (YD 157:3), cited in this answer), there is no issue in saying the name "Jesus," would there be an issue in saying the name "Christ"?

This name might be more problematic than "Jesus," because the word "Christ" means annointed, and apparently wasn't his given name, and also is a name that deifies him.

What does halacha have to say about saying the name "Christ"?

  • 3
    "and also is a name that deifies him"--it doesn't deify, it just messiah-fies – wfb Jun 4 '15 at 15:31
  • Cristos is the Greek form of the Hebrew word Mashiach. It simple denotes the messiah. So as @wfb noted, it does not name Yeshu as a god, but as a messiah. – ezra May 24 '17 at 16:25

It would seem to be that there is no issue saying Christ

1) Like you pointed out all christ means is anointed. and being that it has a definition, we don't care if the connotation was changed throughout the generations, as per the sources the Gr"a brings (Mordechai, Hagahos Maamonis, Yereiym etc.)

2) It's not a name, the Torah explicitly forbids saying the name of the avoda zarah , not appellations. This is clearly stated in the sources qouted above.

However, Rav Yitzchak Berkowitz in a recent Shiur (I unfortunately do not have a recording) prohibited the use of the word Christ

  • 1
    What about when it's used as a name -- as a clear reference to an individual in history? I'm talking about uses like "C-- died on the cross" etc -- that's clearly talking about one false claimant to the title, not the concept in general. In other words, when it is used as a name, is the Gr"a still ok with it? – Monica Cellio Dec 24 '14 at 15:14
  • @MonicaCellio the answer is yes, the name, word, appellation or whatever you want to call it, is not a name which inherently connotes lordship or godliness, so even if the meaning has changed over the generations, it doesn't matter. That is the entire point of the Gr"a, that even though yushka became a god over the generations, it doesn't change the essence of the name, it still retains the category of "shem hedyot", despite the fact that the name Jesus and "our lord and savior, the son of god blah blah" are inextricably connected. – Shoel U'Meishiv Dec 24 '14 at 18:47
  • 2
    @Mefaresh R. Hildesheimer doesn't say "christ" is less problematic, he says it's more problematic – wfb Jun 4 '15 at 15:32
  • @Mefaresh besides wfb's point from your quote, the tshuva says NOT to say it, even if the issur is not clear being that previous generations did not it is at least similar to a davar shel hetter shenogagim bah issur, she'ee efsher lihater lifneihem. And it is especially problematic in front of impressionable youth. – user6591 Jun 5 '15 at 17:37
  • 1
    Is it ok to refer to a well-known am ha-aretz as "rabbi"? After all, it's not a name, just a title, and a title far less lofty than mashiach. But we see people refusing to call even people who've been through rabbinical programs "rabbi" when they disagree with the issuing institution. (I am not trying to start a fight about that, only pointing out the example.) So it seems that there's probably some problem with ascribing honored titles to people who haven't earned them. Do any of these sources talk about that, or are they focused on ascribing lordship specifically? – Monica Cellio Jan 3 '18 at 15:59

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .