JESUS CHRIST

The question comes up occasionally, perhaps because of what is stated in the gospel of Mark: “Heaven and earth shall pass away; but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” (Mark 13:31-32; emphasis added). the phrase “neither the Son” is not found in Matthew or Luke. Jesus Christ knows all things; He possesses the fulness of the glory and power of the Father (see Doctrine & Covenants 93:16-17). Surely He knows when He will return. if He did not know the exact day or time of His return in glory when the Olivet prophecy was uttered, then certainly after His Resurrection and glorification He came to know. It is worth noting that the Joseph Smith Translation of this verse omits the disputed phrase.

Sperry Symposium Classics, Brigham Young University, Religious Studies Center, 2004, p. 201.

Prior to the placing of man upon the earth, how long before we do not know, Jesus Christ and Satan, together with the hosts of the spirit-children of God, existed as intelligent individuals, possessing power and opportunity to choose the course they would pursue and the leaders whom they would follow and obey. In that great concourse of spirit-intelligences, the Father’s plan, whereby His children would be advanced to their second estate, was submitted and doubtless discussed. The opportunity so placed within the reach of the spirits who were to be privileged to take bodies upon the earth was so transcendently glorious that those heavenly multitudes burst forth into song and shouted for joy (Job 38:7).

Satan’s plan of compulsion, whereby all would be safely conducted through the career of mortality, bereft of freedom to act and agency to choose, so circumscribed that they would be compelled to do right—that one soul would not be lost—was rejected; and the humble offer of Jesus the First-born—to assume mortality and live among men as their Exemplar and Teacher, observing the sanctity of man’s agency but teaching men to use aright that divine heritage—was accepted. The decision brought war, which resulted in the vanquishment of Satan and his angels, who were cast out and deprived of the boundless privileges incident to the mortal or second estate. (more…)

We affirm, on the authority of Holy Scripture, that the Being who is known among men as Jesus of Nazareth, and by all who acknowledge His Godhood as Jesus the Christ, existed with the Father prior to birth in the flesh; and that in the preexistent state He was chosen and ordained to be the one and only Savior and Redeemer of the human race. Foreordination implies and comprizes preexistence as an essential condition; therefore scriptures bearing upon the one are germane to the other; and consequently in this presentation no segregation of evidence as applying specifically to the preexistence of Christ or to His foreordination will be attempted.

John the Revelator beheld in vision some of the scenes that had been enacted in the spirit-world before the beginning of human history. He witnessed strife and contention between loyalty and rebellion, with the hosts defending the former led by Michael the archangel, and the rebellious forces captained by Satan, who is also called the devil, the serpent, and the dragon. We read: “And there was war in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels” (Revelation 12:7; see also verses 8 and 9. (more…)

It is a matter of history that, at or near the beginning of what has since come to be known as the Christian era, the Man Jesus, surnamed the Christ, was born in Bethlehem of Judea. The principal data as to His birth, life, and death are so well attested as to be reasonably indisputable; they are facts of record, and are accepted as essentially authentic by the civilized world at large. True, there are diversities of deduction based on alleged discrepancies in the records of the past as to circumstantial details; but such differences are of strictly minor importance, for none of them nor all taken together cast a shadow of rational doubt upon the historicity of the earthly existence of the Man known in literature as Jesus of Nazareth.

As to who and what He was there are dissensions of grave moment dividing the opinions of men; and this divergence of conception and belief is most pronounced upon those matters to which the greatest importance attaches. The solemn testimonies of millions dead and of millions living unite in proclaiming Him as divine, the Son of the Living God, the Redeemer and Savior of the human race, the Eternal Judge of the souls of men, the Chosen and Anointed of the Father—in short, the Christ. Others there are who deny His Godhood while extolling the transcendent qualities of His unparalleled and unapproachable Manhood. (more…)

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.

Who was John the Baptist?

The Baptism - Greg Olsen

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).

Christ Led to Pilate - Mark Mabry

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.

Christ Led to Pilate - Mark Mabry

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.

Of the four gospels, only Matthew and Luke give an account of the Jesus Christ’s conception and birth. Written from two different perspectives and containing different details, these two narratives complement each other and together paint an important picture of the nativity, including that Jesus’ mother was named Mary, that she lived at one time in Nazareth, that he would be born near Jerusalem, and that his conception was a divine miracle.

Although Matthew testifies that Mary conceived by the power of God, he emphasizes that Jesus Christ was the son of David by the genealogy at the beginning of the birth narrative and by his focus on the role of Joseph, Jesus’ legal father. Through dreams, Joseph received instructions to wed Mary, accept and name the infant Jesus, and move the family when threatened by Herod and then his son Archelaus. Through the use of quotations from the Old Testament, Matthew further demonstrates how Jesus Christ’s birth fulfilled messianic prophecies.

Luke’s account, on the other hand, frequently illustrates Mary’s perspective and includes more personal and family information. His retelling of the annunciation preserves the stirring angelic instruction that Mary received, and her visit to Elizabeth provided both of them with spiritual confirmations regarding the roles their sons would play. In addition to details of the night of Jesus’ birth, Luke’s narrative also includes accounts of the naming and circumcision of Jesus, his presentation in the temple, and his teaching in the temple as a twelve-year-old.

Some of the aspects of the two narratives that traditional tellings of the Christmas story frequently harmonize provide interesting details when read separately. Matthew gives no indication that Joseph himself was from Nazareth, perhaps suggesting that he or his family were from Bethlehem or owned property there, the traditional home of King David, or that Mary was from Bethlehem, perhaps owning land there. In Luke’s account, when Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem shortly after their marriage, their accommodations seemed improvised. Interestingly, the word katalyma, traditionally translated as “inn” and often interpreted to mean a caravansary or camp, can also mean “guest room” (the other time Luke uses this word, it is for the “upper room” of the Last Supper in Luke 22:11-12). Luke’s account features angels and shepherds, who find the child in the well-known manger, whereas Matthew’s account has the Magi arrive later, and they find the family by that time living in an actual house.

Joseph seems to have intended to keep the family in Bethlehem, leaving only when warned that Herod wanted to kill the child. Herod’s death in 4 B.C. helps date the account, for that is when Joseph brought the family back from Egypt to Nazareth. Finding Herod’s unstable son Archelaus ruling in Judea, Joseph, again warned in a dream, decided to take the family instead to Nazareth which may have been Mary’s home. His fears were justified; ten years later, in A. D. 6, the Romans deposed Archelaus at the instigation of the Jews themselves because of his violence and misrule. This was also the year that P. Sulpicius Quirinus, or “Cyrenius,” began his governorship in Syria. Although B.C. 6 is the date Luke seems to give for Jesus Christ’s birth, historically, it was the year when Judea became a province.