Why is Jesus Christ called the Son of Man?  While others in the Scriptures (particularly the Old Testament) who are called “son[s] of man” (Jeremiah 49:18, Ezekiel 4:16, Psalms 8:4), the word “son” is uncapitalized.  Elder James E. Talmage, a Biblical scholar, sheds light on the answer in his renown work, Jesus the Christ.  He says,

“In applying the designation to Himself, the Lord invariably uses the definite article. ‘The Son of Man’ was and is, specifically and exclusively, Jesus Christ. While as a matter of solemn certainty He was the only male human being from Adam down who was not the son of a mortal man, He used the title in a way to conclusively demonstrate that it was peculiarly and solely His own. It is plainly evident that the expression is fraught with a meaning beyond that conveyed by the words in common usage. The distinguishing appellation has been construed by many to indicate our Lord’s humble station as a mortal, and to connote that He stood as the type of humanity, holding a particular and unique relationship to the entire human family.”

Others are called by the title “son of man,” but only the Lord Jesus Christ is called The Son of Man.  Said the Spirit of the Lord to the prophet Nephi, “Knowest thou the condescension of God?” (Book of Mormon: 1 Nephi 11:16; emphasis added).  But, as Talmage says,

There is, however, a more profound significance attaching to the Lord’s use of the title ‘The Son of Man’; and this lies in the fact that Jesus Christ knew His Father to be the one and only supremely exalted Man, whose Son Jesus Christ was both in spirit and in body—the Firstborn among all the spirit-children of the Father, the Only Begotten in the flesh—and therefore in sense applicable to Himself alone, He was and is the Son of the ‘Man of Holiness,’ Elohim, the Eternal Father.

Moses wrote,
Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time” (Moses 6:57).

In other words, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22).

Joseph Smith, a prophet God raised up to re-establish Jesus Christ’s Church on earth in our day, said,

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121). Since ‘all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to [Jesus Christ],’ and since the Old Testament is something ‘which pertains to our religion,’then the Old Testament must somehow testify of Jesus Christ.1

Yet, the somewhat gruesome nature of blood sacrifice [in the Old Testament] has led some to ask, “How could such an activity have anything to do with the gospel of love?” We can better understand the answer to that question when we understand the two major purposes for the law of sacrifice. These purposes applied to Adam, Abraham, Moses, and the New Testament Apostles, and they apply to us today as we accept and live the law of sacrifice in a different way: through exemplifying a broken heart and contrite spirit. Its two major purposes are to test and prove us and to assist us in coming unto Christ” (M. Russell Ballard, “The Law of Sacrifice,” Ensign, Oct 1998, 7).

The evening before the Lamb of God was to be crucified for the sins of the world and hours before He was betrayed, the Lord Jesus was sitting with his Apostles in a “large upper room” (Mark 14:15). It was here that He first instituted the sacrament: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples,” (Matthew 26:26). Then He said, “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me” 1 Corinthians 11:24). Then, “After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:25). Thus, the purpose of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is to look back and remember Jesus the Christ and what He has done for each of us. Everything points “to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice [is] the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal” (Alma 34:14). Blood sacrifices looked forward; the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper looks backward, and the central act—the atonement of Jesus Christ—is right in the middle—the meridian of time.

In the previous two articles about the law of sacrifice, we have discussed how the law was used anciently to teach God’s children to look forward to this “great and last sacrifice.” With the Savior’s ultimate sacrifice, the law of Moses was done away. The law of Moses, however, “is not the same thing as the law of sacrifice” (M. Russell Ballard, “The Law of Sacrifice,” Ensign, Oct 1998, 7). The Savior said after His resurrection from the dead, “And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood . . . [but] ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit” (3 Nephi 9:19-20). Hence, what we sacrifice has changed; that we sacrifice, and the reasons why we sacrifice have remained the same.

The word sacrifice means to make holy. It also means “To surrender or give up (something) for the attainment of some higher advantage or dearer object” (Oxford English Dictionary, “Sacrifice”). Or, as Apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Bruce R. McConkie put it, “Sacrifice involves giving up the things of this world because of the promises of blessings to be gained in a better world” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. “Sacrifice,” Bookcraft: 1966).

But what is a broken heart and a contrite spirit? A broken heart is the opposite of a hard heart. The image of a hard heart is used in the scriptures to denote pride. Hence, a person with a broken heart is one who is humble. The word contrite means repentant. A person with a contrite spirit is one who has an awareness of his or her guilt. This person remembers the things he or she has done wrong, but because the person is repentant, he or she strives to change and be better than before. This person knows that through the atonement of Jesus Christ, he or she can overcome all obstacles.

To have a broken heart and a contrite spirit therefore means we are willing to submit to God. We are willing to submit to God as Christ was willing to submit to His father. The Savior said, “And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men, even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil” (3 Nephi 27:14).

God loves us. He wants us to come unto Him. The law of sacrifice tests us and assists us in coming unto Christ (M. Russell Ballard, “The Law of Sacrifice,” Ensign, Oct 1998, 7). Another Apostle of the Church, Russell M. Nelson, has taught: “Our highest sense of sacrifice is achieved as we make ourselves more sacred or holy. This we do by our obedience to the commandments of God” (“Lessons from Eve,” Ensign, Nov. 1987, 88). Hence, “the sacrifice changed from the offering to the offerer” (M. Russell Ballard, “The Law of Sacrifice,” Ensign, Oct 1998, 7).

Sacrifice is therefore a wonderful blessing. Joseph Smith said, “A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation” (Lectures on Faith 6:7). In other words, sacrifice gives us faith, and with faith we can receive salvation. It is not always easy to give up something we want, especially when we can’t actually see the end results. But I testify that it is worth it in the end. Sometimes we must take a few steps into the darkness in order for the light to turn on and go before us. That’s faith. And sacrifice takes faith.

I end with one of my favorite quotes on the law of sacrifice: “Real, personal sacrifice never was placing an animal on the altar. Instead, it is a willingness to put the animal in us upon the altar and letting it be consumed!” (Neal A. Maxwell “ ‘Deny Yourselves of All Ungodliness,’ ” Ensign, May 1995, 68).

The atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ “embraces, sustains, supports, and gives life to all other gospel doctrines.  It is the foundation upon which all truth rests and all things grow out of it and come because of it.”1 “The wondrous and glorious Atonement was the central act in all of human history.”2 Because of these statements, all things also point to Christ and His atonement.  Those who lived before Christ looked forward to Him and His infinite and eternal sacrifice.  Those who live after Christ look back to this greatest of all events and “remember what was done.”3

There were many different ways in which the blood sacrifices before Christ were types and shadows of the great and last sacrifice.  Note a few of the details:

First, like Christ, the [sacrificial] animal was chosen and anointed by the laying on of hands. (The Hebrew title Messiah and the Greek title Christ both mean “the Anointed One.”) Second, the animal was to have its life’s blood spilt. Third, it had to be without blemish—totally free from physical

flaws, complete, whole, and perfect. Fourth, the sacrifice had to be clean and worthy. Fifth, the sacrifice had to be domesticated; that is, not wild but tame and of help to man (see Lev. 1:2–3, 10; Lev. 22:21). Sixth and seventh, for the original sacrifice practiced by Adam and the most common sacrifice in the law of Moses, the animal had to be a firstborn and a male (see Ex. 12:5; Lev. 1:3; Lev. 22:18–25). Eighth, the sacrifice of grain had to be ground into flour and made into breadstuffs, which reminds us of our Lord’s title the Bread of Life (see John 6:48). Ninth, the firstfruits that were offered remind us that Christ was the firstfruits of the Resurrection.”4

About 74 years before Christ, the prophet Amulek wrote about how Christ’s sacrifice would eventually end blood sacrifices:

It is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice . . .
And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal. (Alma 34:10, 14)

Nine years before that, the prophet Alma also testified of Christ,

And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.
And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities. (Alma 7:11-12)

The Savior of all mankind came and fulfilled the law.  He is the great and last sacrifice.  The pain that He went through was “so hard to bear” that we cannot comprehend it, and His suffering was so great that He–God, the greatest of all–trembled because of the pain, bled from every pore, and suffered both body and spirit (See Doctrine and Covenants 19:18).

With His death, the law of Moses was fulfilled.  Yet, the law of Moses is not exactly the same thing as the law of sacrifice.5 We still keep the law of sacrifice.  The Savior taught concerning the fulfilling of the law and what we are to sacrifice nowadays:

And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings.
And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit.  And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost. (3 Nephi 9:19-20)

Malachi 3:8-10 is often quoted to motivate us to pay our tithes and offerings.  “Will a man rob God?” the record reads,

Yet ye have robbed me.  But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee?  In tithes and offerings.
Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.  (Malachi 3:8-10)

Because one of the offerings we are to give to the Lord is “a broken heart and a contrite spirit,” the same principle of blessings applies.  I testify that when we offer up to the Lord a broken heart and a contrite spirit that He will pour out a blessing upon us that is so great that we will not have room enough to receive it.  Our cup of blessings will fill to overflowing, even so much that those around us will also receive blessings.

Yet, no matter how contrite our spirit or how broken our heart, our sacrifice is nothing compared to the one that happened in the meridian of time.  Indeed, there is one offering that pours out a blessing so great upon all of mankind, that none can even begin to comprehend the greatness of it.  This offering is so great that it has power to bless—and save—all mankind: “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33).

In conclusion, hear another testimony from another prophet in the Book of Mormon–King Benjamin:

And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people.
And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.
And lo, he cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name; and even after all this they shall consider him a man, and say that he hath a devil, and shall scourge him, and shall crucify him.
And he shall rise the third day from the dead; and behold, he standeth to judge the world; and behold, all these things are done that a righteous judgment might come upon the children of men.
For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned. (Mosiah 3:7-11)

Hence, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”6

Notes

1 Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966, 60.
2 Neal A. Maxwell, “Willing to Submit,” Ensign, May 1985, 70.
3 Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Salt Lake City, 1980, 185.
4 M. Russell Ballard, “The Law of Sacrifice,” Ensign, Oct 1998, 7.
5 Ibid.
6 Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Ed. Joseph F. Smith, Deseret Book: Salt Lake City, 1976, 121.

The atonement of Jesus Christ is the central doctrine of Christianity, and all other Christian doctrines come out of and are appendages to it.1 Not only can these other doctrines be connected back to the Savior and His Atoning Sacrifice, but if they are not, “there will be no life nor substance nor redemption in them,” to use a phrase by President Boyd K. Packer, an apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.2 It is therefore not only important, but necessary, when studying any doctrine or teaching or appendage of the gospel of Jesus Christ, to connect it back to Jesus Christ and His eternal sacrifice.

When Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden of Eden, they were commanded “that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord” (Moses 5:5).  Yet M. Russell Ballard, another apostle of the Church, has said that some have wondered, “How could the slaughtering of an animal upon an altar have anything to do with the gospel of love?”3

He continues,

We can better understand the answer to [this] question when we understand the two major purposes for the law of sacrifice. These purposes applied to Adam, Abraham, Moses, and the New Testament Apostles, and they apply to us today as we accept and live the law of sacrifice. [The] two major purposes [of the law of sacrifice] are to test and prove us and to assist us in coming unto Christ.4

As we read more of Adam and Eve’s obedience to the law of sacrifice, take note of how these two major purposes—to test or prove, and “to assist us in coming unto Christ.”

“Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord” (Moses 5:5).  He offered up the firstlings of his flocks.  This was not easy, especially in an era when one lived off of their land and flocks.  A firstling was a very valuable possession.  And if that weren’t enough, Adam and Eve did not even know why they were offering sacrifices.  The record says that “after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord?  And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me (Moses 5:6).

Adam and Eve passed the test.

Like Adam and Eve, we are also asked to sacrifice.  Most of us don’t have any firstlings or firstfruits to give up (though even if we did, the law was changed after Jesus Christ made the ultimate sacrifice anyway).  We are, however, being tried and proved, and sometimes a person “must learn to walk a few steps ahead into the darkness, and then the light will turn on and go before [them],” as Boyd K. Packer has written.5 Adam and Eve took a few steps into the darkness.  They did not know why they were asked to give sacrifices, but they did it anyway.  Yet, notice, as the record continues, how Adam and Eve received a witness after the trial of their faith (see Ether 12:6) and were taught concerning the second of the two main purposes of the law of sacrifice—“to assist [God’s children] in coming unto Christ.”

The record reads,

And then the angel spake saying: This [sacrifice] is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.
Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore. (Moses 5:7-8)

As Bruce R. McConkie, yet another apostle, has written, “For a pastoral people whose lives depended on their flocks and herds, there could have been no better similitude than this.”6

The righteous posterity of Adam continued to offer sacrifices, down to the children of Israel.  However,

[b]ecause of the rebellious nature of the children of Israel in the days of Moses, the practice of the law of sacrifice was changed; it became a strict law requiring daily observance of performances and ordinances. During the time of Moses there was an expansion in the number and variety of offerings under the law of sacrifice. The Mosaic sacrifices consisted of five major offerings that fell into two primary categories—obligatory and voluntary. . .7

Yet,

[o]ne thing remained the same in all of these offerings: everything about Mosaic sacrifice focused on Christ. Like Christ, the priest acted as the mediator between the people and their God. Like Christ, the priest had to have the right parentage to officiate in his office. Like Christ, the offerer through obedience willingly sacrificed what was required by the law.8

Hence, the purpose of the law of Moses was to persuade God’s children “to look forward unto the Messiah, and believe in him to come as though he already was” (Jarom 1:11).
Alma, about 74 years before Christ, wrote that after the Savior’s ultimate sacrifice the law of Moses (not the law of sacrifice, for these two are not exactly the same thing) would be done away.  He said,

It is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.
And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.
And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.” (Alma 34:13-15)

God loves us.  He “doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world” (2 Nephi 26:24).  He gives His children laws and commandments that point them to Christ.  Giving up what we want for the sake of something better isn’t easy.  Sacrifice never was easy.  It tries our faith and, like all other doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, connects back and brings us closer to the Savior.

While the law of Moses was done away, the law of sacrifice was not.  Those who lived before Christ looked forward to Him as though He had already come.  Today, we look back with a “broken heart and a contrite spirit” (3 Nephi 9:20).

Indeed, as Neal A. Maxwell, an apostle of the Church, has said, “Real, personal sacrifice never was placing an animal on the altar. Instead, it is a willingness to put the animal in us upon the altar and letting it be consumed!”9

Notes
1 See Bruce R. McConkie. Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed. “Atonement of Christ.” Bookcraft: 1966. 60.; Joseph Smith.  Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Selected by Joseph Fielding Smith.   Salt Lake City: Deseret Book.  1938. 121.
2 Boyd K. Packer, in Conference Report, Apr. 1977, 80; or Ensign, May 1977, 55-56.
3 M. Russell Ballard. “The Law of Sacrifice,” Ensign, Oct 1998, 7.
4 Ibid.
5 Boyd K. Packer. “The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ—Plain and Precious Things,” Liahona, May 2005, 6–9.
6 Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1985, 114–15.
7 M. Russell Ballard, “The Law of Sacrifice,” Ensign, Oct 1998, 7.
8 Ibid.
9 Neal A. Maxwell, “‘Deny Yourselves of All Ungodliness,’” Ensign, May 1995, 68, emphasis added.

In the first verse of the first gospel as it appears in our New Testament, Matthew calls Jesus Christ “the son of David” as if it were a sort of preface to the genealogy he is about to write, and perhaps, a preface to Matthew’s entire testimony of the Savior. Following this preface is the line of royal descent from Joseph, Mary’s husband, back to David, King of Israel (Cf. Matthew 1:1-16).  Because Joseph is listed as a descendant of David, Joseph can also be called a son of David.

Joseph treated Jesus as if He were his own son, and by those who knew not of His divine origin Jesus was presumed to be “the son of Joseph” (Luke 3:23), or “the carpenter’s Son” (Matthew 13:55).  It may be said, then, that Jesus is the adopted son of Joseph.  However, Joseph was not Jesus’ literal Father.  As James E. Talmage explained,

“That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the “Son of the Highest” (Jesus the Christ. Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1922. 82).

Hence Christ is called the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh; he had a mortal mother and an immortal Father.  Therefore, in order for Jesus to be a literal descendant (and therefore a son) of David, Mary must also have been of Davidic descent.  Talmage explained further that:

“A personal genealogy of Joseph was essentially that of Mary also, for they were cousins. Joseph is named as son of Jacob by Matthew, and as son of Heli by Luke; but Jacob and Heli were brothers, and it appears that one of the two was the father of Joseph and the other the father of Mary and therefore father-in-law to Joseph.  That Mary was of Davidic descent is plainly set forth in many scriptures; for since Jesus was to be born of Mary, yet was not begotten by Joseph, who was the reputed, and, according to the law of the Jews, the legal father, the blood of David’s posterity was given to the body of Jesus through Mary alone” (Jesus the Christ. Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1922.  87).

Jesus is therefore a son of David.  But because the title “son of David” recognizes the genealogy of Jesus Christ means it must have a deeper meaning.  In order to find out what this deeper meaning is, the title itself must be defined.

David was the great king of ancient Israel.  His reign “was the most brilliant of Israelitish history, for (1) he united the tribes into one nation, (2) he secured undisputed possession of the country, (3) the whole government rested upon a religious basis, and the will of God was the law of Israel (Bible Dictionary: David).  Because David was king of Israel, his descendents, under the patriarchal order, were entitled to the throne.  However,

“At the time of the Savior’s birth, Israel was ruled by alien monarchs. The rights of the royal Davidic family were unrecognized; and the ruler of the Jews was an appointee of Rome. Had Judah been a free and independent nation, ruled by her rightful sovereign, Joseph the carpenter would have been her crowned king; and his lawful successor to the throne would have been Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews” (Ibid. 88).

Finally, perhaps the analysis can go one step further if we distinguish “son of David” with a lowercase ‘s’ from “Son of David” with a capital ‘S.’  The lowercase ‘s’ version denotes any son or descendant of David.  Absalom, Amnon, Solomon, and others are given this title (Cf. 2 Samuel 13:1, 2 Chronicles 1:1).   But the title “Son of David” with a capital ‘S’ is reserved for only one being that has ever walked the earth.  It is applied only to Jesus of Nazareth, usually when asked to perform a miracle.  Hence, by addressing “Jesus as Son of David” one “demonstrates . . . belief that He was the Messiah of Israel” (Ibid. 335).

Messiah is an Aramaic word that means “the anointed” (Bible Dictionary: Messiah).  In Old Testament times, kings were anointed to their offices, as were priests, high priests, and prophets (Cf. 1 Samuel 10:1, Exodus 40:15, Leviticus 21:10, 1 Kings 19:16).  It is, therefore, fitting that Jesus is called Messiah—the Anointed One—for He is Prophet, Priest, and King.  David was anointed when he became king of Israel, and he, as heretofore quoted, “united the tribes into one nation, . . . secured undisputed possession of the country, . . .  and [made] the will of God . . . the law of Israel” (Bible Dictionary: David).  David, in a sense, delivered Israel.  It is therefore also fitting that the Anointed One—the Messiah—“denotes the King and Deliverer whose coming the Jews were eagerly expecting” (Bible Dictionary: Messiah).  The Jews were “eagerly expecting” that Deliverer because the Old Testament is full of references, types, shadows, and prophecies of the coming of One who would unite Israel once and for all, give them the law of God to live by, and deliver unto them their nation.  This Deliverer was and is Jesus the Christ, the Son of David.

The account of the Magi, or Wise Men, is a well-known and loved part of the Christmas story. Nevertheless, Matthew’s account simply states that when Jesus Christ was born, “there came wise men from the east,” without specifying how many there were, exactly who they were, where they came from, or that they were kings. The traditional number of three wise men arose because of the association of one king for each gift given to the infant Jesus (gold, frankincense, and myrrh). The identification of these “kings” as Balthasar, Melchior, and Caspar does not date before the sixth century.The historian Herodotus first uses the Greek term magoi to refer to a priestly caste among the Medes and Persians who were noted as dream interpreters. Later associated with the priests of the Zoroastrian religion, magoi was also used to describe various types of eastern diviners and wise men, including the Babylonian astronomers known as Chaldeans. By the roman period, the Latin term magi was used for a whole range of practitioners, from diviners and more respectable astrologers to magicians and charlatans. Although some scholars have suggested that the Magi may have been Jews from Babylon or elsewhere in the eastern Diaspora, the earliest artistic representations of the Magi portray them in Persian or other eastern garb. Some early Christian writers viewed the Magi as magicians who readily accepted the superiority of Jesus Christ and gave up their magical arts to come and worship him. Others saw them as the best of the pagan wise men who were inspired by their knowledge of astronomy to recognize signs of Christ‘s birth.

Many scholars see the emphasis of the Jewish milieu of Matthew as a sign that this Gospel was written primarily for Jews and Jewish Christians. Therefore, if the Magi were indeed Gentiles rather than Jews from the eastern Diaspora, they join the women of the Matthean genealogy, the Syrophoenecian woman, and the centurion at the foot of the cross as figures demonstrating the inclusion of Gentiles as well in the Christian message in Matthew’s Gospel.

John the Baptist was born to righteous and devout parents of priestly descent in a small village in Judea, traditionally identified as Ein Karem, a modern suburb of Jerusalem. He played a singular role at the beginning of Jesus Christ‘s ministry. Each gospel provides insights into John’s ministry as a prophet, preacher, baptizer, and witness in the Judean wilderness east of Jerusalem, culminating with the baptism of Jesus at the River Jordan. Moreover, each gospel author emphasized certain aspects of John’s life, providing a context for each author’s particular witness of Jesus.

John the Baptist preached repentance and baptism, was sharply critical of the Pharisees and Sadducees, prophesied of one “mightier than [he], whose shoes [he was] not worthy to bear’ (Matthew 3:11), and identified Jesus Christ as the “Lamb of God” (John 1:36). Luke alone, however, provides details of John’s birth and childhood (see Luke 1 and 2).

Eventually, Herod Antipas arrested, imprisoned, and executed John the Baptist.

John is sometimes identified with Elias (the Greek form of Elijah) as one who prepares the way (see Malachi 4:5-6). Some of John’s followers later became disciples of Jesus Christ, and others seemed to continue following John (John 1:35-42; Matthew 11:2-6; Luke 7:18-23). After John’s death, those who had not accepted Jesus continued their activities. Paul may have encountered some of them in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).

John the Baptist symbolizes to us the final transition from the Old Testament (or old covenant) and the beginning of the New Testament (new covenant). The time of the Law and the prophets had passed, and the time of the Messiah had arrived. John the Baptist, the last legal administrator of the Mosaic covenant, had one foot in each dispensation. Nevertheless, Jesus Christ declared, “He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light” (John 5: 35).

The Gospel of Matthew reports that Pilate’s wife said to him, “Have thou nothing to do with that just man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him” (Matthew 27:19). This report may have found its way into the Gospels from a variety of different channels such as rumor, legend, or secondhand testimony. Some early Christians proposed that this report represents firsthand knowledge on the part of the evangelist; and therefore Pilate’s wife, or even Pilate himself must have converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The tradition of Pilate converting to Christianity has a complicated history that begins in the latter half of the second century when Irenaeus (A.D. 130-200) and Tertullian (A.D. 160-220) reported that added knowledge could be found in extracanonical documents about Jesus‘ trial before Pilate and that Pilate had written personally to the emperor Tiberius about Jesus. These passing references most likely find their origin in the pseudepigraphal Acts of Pilate. The Christian Acts of Pilate were most likely written in the second century as a counterbalance to the pagan Acts of Pilate that had been forged at the time of Maximin and that were being taught in schools as a refutation of Christian doctrines and claims. The Christian Acts of Pilate undermines the pagan forgery by reporting special knowledge about the details of Jesus’ interrogation before Pilate, Pilate’s secret inquiry of the chief priests after Jesus’ crucifixion, and his private conversion to Christianity. The success of the Christian Acts of Pilate can be appreciated by the fact that they survived while the pagan Acts have been lost. Knowing the history of these documents inspires little confidence that they report any kernel of historical truth about Pilate’s conversion to Christianity.

Joseph Caiaphas (AD 18-36) was a Jewish leader in the first century. All four Gospel accounts place Caiaphas at the center of Jesus Christ‘s interrogation by Jewish authorities and his delivery to Pilate. What is surprising about the way in which Caiaphas’ story is told is that the synoptic Gospels authors largely pass over the subject of his motivation for acting against Jesus.

Interestingly, the Gospel of John provides a glimpse into Caiaphas’ motivation to impede and thwart Jesus Christ‘s growing popularity: Caiaphas’ was concerned that more people would follow Jesus once they heard about the raising of Lazarus (John 11:47-54). But during the trial scenes, it is Annas, his father-in-law, who directs the proceedings while Caiaphas waits patiently offstage. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not include the miracle of Lazarus or the motives of Caiaphas; all three find it sufficient to relate the story of a Galilean Messiah who travels to Jerusalem for Passover only to find hostile Jewish leaders who ultimately take his life. Perhaps such facts did not appear necessary to their accounts of the Atonement.

Christian sources have been unanimous in their denunciation of Caiaphas and his father-in-law Annas for their roles in the hearing and execution of Jesus of Nazareth. Surprising to some may be the fact that Jewish sources have also denounced the family of Caiaphas and Annas. Many scholars have attributed to Caiaphas the practice of allowing inside the gates of the temple the vendors who sold the animals of sacrifice, a practice that was directly condemned by Jesus Christ. Jesus’ actions in driving the moneychangers and vendors from the temple may have been an act directed at Caiaphas’ business practices in the temple.

Another interesting facet of Caiaphas’ tenure is the complete absence of conflict between the high priest and Rome. Josephus reports that Pilate committed numerous atrocities against Jewish institutions, yet these sources do not relate any action or reaction by Caiaphas. Caiaphas was removed from office in the same year as Pilate, suggesting that Caiaphas’ tenure was closely linked with that of Pilate. The story of Caiaphas’ reign is told in the framework of complicity, corruption, and self-aggrandizement, both in Christian and Jewish sources.

Pontius Pilate, the Roman official under whose authority Jesus Christ was tried and sentenced, was the fifth governor of Judea, holding his position during the period of A.D. 26-36. As an equestrian, Pilate came from the Roman class that was second only to the senatorial order and from which the Roman emperors increasingly drew their administrative and military officials. Little is known about his career before his appointment as governor of Judea, although he may have benefited from the political patronage of L. Aelius Seianus (Sejanus), an important minister of the emperor Tiberius (ruled A.D. 14-37). Although Tacitus calls him a “procurator” (Tacitus, Annales 15:44), which is the title common for the equestrian governors of small imperial provinces from the time of Claudius (ruled A.D. 41-54, and important inscription from Caesarea, the capital of Roman Judea, confirms that he held the earlier title of “prefect.”

Two first-century Jewish sources, Josephus and especially Philo, record several disastrous missteps early in Pilate’s administration of Judea, including carrying into Jerusalem Roman standards that were offensive to Jewish sensibilities, responding to Jewish demonstrations against his policies with excessive force, and dedicating golden shields to the emperor Tiberius in the former Herodian palace. Pilate’s earlier problems in the province, and perhaps the A.D. 31 purge in Rome of the supporters of his possible patron Seianus, put Pilate in a difficult political position when he was faced with the case of Jesus Christ, particularly when the hostile claque gathered at the trial accused Pilate of not being a friend of the emperor when he initially sought to release Jesus (John 19:12). The good working relationship that Pilate seems to have had with Joseph Caiaphas, a Jewish high priest from A.D. 18-37, may suggest that either he was more influenced by the animosity of the Jewish leadership against Jesus Christ or that he was collaborating more closely with it than the Gospel accounts reveal.

Of all the Gospel accounts of Pilate’s trial of Jesus Christ, John’s may be the most important because of its account of two private interviews between them (John 18:33-38; 19:8-11). The first interview preserves a memorable interchange between Pilate, the representative of fleeting, worldly power, and Jesus Christ, the Son of God: “Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice” (John 18:37).

In A.D. 36, Pilate brutally suppressed a Samaritan religious movement on Mount Gerizim. Perhaps as a result, in late A.D. 36 or the spring of A.D. 37, Pilate was suspended from his office; and Caiaphas, who may have encouraged the action, was dismissed as high priest.