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.

Sometimes some of the simplest questions are also some of the most profound.  These types of questions are therefore some of the most difficult to answer.  “Why is Jesus called the Son of God?” is one of these questions, simple, profound, and difficult to answer.  But as one of my English Professors told me the other day, “The hard questions are really the only questions worth asking.”  In that case, Why is Jesus called the Son of God?

In a basic sense, the question is closely related to the question the Spirit of the Lord asked Nephi: “Knowest thou the condescension of God?” (1 Nephi 11:16).  Note a definition of “condescend” that the Oxford English Dictionary gives the word, “To depart from the privileges of superiority by a voluntary submission; to sink willingly to equal terms with inferiours.”  I feel like I can use Nephi’s response to the Spirit’s question as my own response, “I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things” (1 Nephi 11:16-17).

What the record says next is a basic answer to the question.

“And he [the Spirit] said unto me [Nephi]: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.
And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!
And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.
And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!”  (1 Nephi 11:18-21).

James E. Talmage, a biblical scholar, wrote about the Savior’s birth and what it means that Jesus is the Son of God:

“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.” In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood with the capacity and possibilities of mortality; and this through the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity, declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by philosophy, that living beings shall propagate—after their kind. The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental, and spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His parents—one immortal and glorified—God, the other human—woman. (Jesus the Christ. Deseret Book: Salt Lake City, 1990. 77.)

When speaking of a son, we mean a male child of a father and a mother.  Calling Jesus Christ the Son of God is closely related to calling Jesus the Firstborn.  Also, to be called a firstborn son implies being an heir and inheriting “the leadership of the family. . . This is often spoken of in the scriptures as birthright” (Bible Dictionary: Firstborn).  Because Jesus is the Son of God and the Firstborn, He is therefore heir to “all . . . that the Father hath” (John 16:15).  Furthermore, He “is the firstborn of the spirit children of our Heavenly Father, [and] the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh” (Bible Dictionary: Firstborn).

The second of these last two statements from the Bible Dictionary, that Jesus is the “Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh,” reiterates what the Spirit said to Nephi, that Mary is “the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh” (1 Nephi 11:18).  The phrase “after the manner of the flesh” is interesting.  It specifies that Mary is Jesus’ mortal mother.  But by specifying, the phrase alludes to the existence of a life before Jesus received a physical body.  “We are not now thinking about the Virgin Birth,” said C. S. Lewis, “We are thinking about something that happened before Nature was created at all . . . ‘Before all worlds’ Christ is begotten” (Lewis, 157).  This is essentially a rewording of the first statement from the Bible Dictionary, that Jesus “is the firstborn of the spirit children of our Heavenly Father.”

But because of the definition of “son” that was defined above, that a son is a male child of a father and a mother there is another corollary.  The definition of “son” implies that during the Premortal Life, “before Nature was created at all,” Jesus, “the firstborn of the spirit children,” must have a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father.  Eliza R. Snow once wrote,

I had learned to call thee Father,
Thru thy Spirit from on high,
But, until the key of knowledge
Was restored, I knew not why.
In the heav’ns are parents single?
No, the thought makes reason stare!
Truth is reason; truth eternal
Tells me I’ve a mother there. (Hymns 292)

For some, all this will be hard to comprehend.  But, “There is no good complaining that these statements are difficult.  Christianity claims to be telling us about another world, about something behind the world we can touch and hear and see.  You may think the claim false, but if it were true, what it tells us would be bound to be  difficult—at least as difficult as modern Physics, and for the same reason” (Lewis, Mere Christianity 156).

Yet, just because these statements are difficult does not mean they are not possible to comprehend with study and faith.  “For with God all things are possible” (Mark 10:27).

I know I have certainly not come close to describing every way (or even one way) in which Jesus is the Son of God, but I hope this basic explanation will invite the reader to study more deeply the life of the Savior, and the “great . . . plan of our God” (2 Nephi 9:13).

Simeon: Witness of Birth of Jesus Christ

The birth of Jesus Christ is celebrated, revered, as a marvel to each of us.  His coming was long prepared for, eagerly awaited, prepared from the pre-mortal life. The birth of Jesus Christ was anticipated by those who were holy saints, seeking to live by the promises of the Old Testament given by Jehovah, the Savior of the World.  Simeon was one who received a revelation regarding the birth of Jesus Christ and who lived to see Him in the flesh.

In the words of one Mormon scholar:

Our attention now turns to Jerusalem and its temple. There an aged man, described by Luke as “just and devout,” one who in faith had awaited the coming of the Messiah and who had received the promise of the Lord that he would not die until he had seen the Savior, was moved upon by the Holy Ghost to go to the temple. His is the first testimony within the sacred walls of the temple of which we have records that announced the birth of Jesus Christ. Appropriately, he bore the name Simeon, which means “hearing” (see Genesis 29:33). Indeed, God had heard his righteous plea, and now his prayer was to be answered.

Thus Simeon was there to greet parents and child as they entered the temple–Mary for the ritual of cleansing, and Joseph to pay the tax which redeemed the firstborn from priestly service. Simeon took the child in his arms and, praising God, said, “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of the people; a light to lighten the Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel” (Luke 2:29-32). Simeon’s declaration, which came by the spirit of prophecy, reached far beyond the understanding and hope of those of his nation–for he saw the universal nature of Jesus Christ‘s ministry and attested that He was Savior to Jew and Gentile alike. Had his words fallen upon the ears of a Pharisee, they would have been greeted with shouts of heresy!

Then Simeon blessed Joseph and Mary and said to Mary regarding the birth of this babe, the birth of Jesus Christ: “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel: and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword may pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” Would that we knew all else that he spoke, including the words of blessing pronounced upon the couple in whose custody the Child was placed. Always–as we shall see throughout this whole work–there was more uttered orally to those who then lived, usually far more, than was recorded and preserved for those who should thereafter hear the accounts. At least we know that Simeon and his message would divide the house of Israel; that men wold rise or fall as they accepted or rejected his words; that he was a sign or standard around which the righteous would rally; and that Mary, who now had joy in the growing life of the infant Son, would soon be pierced with the sword of sorrow as she saw him during his waning hours on the cross of Calvary (Sperry Symposium Classics, Joseph Fielding McConkie, 2006, Brigham Young University & Deseret Book, 114-115).

Additional Resources:

Learn more about the birth of Christ at the official site for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (inadvertently called by friends of other faiths as the “Mormon Church“).

The birth of Christ is a grand event in Christianity.

Request your free copy of the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ and a Companion to the Bible.

Who, then, was this Zacharias to whom Gabriel appeared? He was a descendant of Abia (Hebrew, Abijah). His name meant “remembered of Jehovah.” He was married to a woman named Elizabeth, whose fathers, like those of Zacharias, had also been priests (see Luke 1:5). Her name was that of Aaron’s wife, of whom she was a descendant (see Exodus 6:23). It means “God is my oath,” or “consecrated to God.” Thus this noble couple, “consecrated to God” long before their births, were, in the Nativity story, to be “remembered of Jehovah,” as the promise was granted to them that they at long last should become the parents of a child–a child destined to be the earthly forerunner of the Messiah. Of the parents of John the Baptist we read, “They were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless” (Luke 1:6). Zacharias and Elizabeth honored the law of their fathers not only in letter but in spirit. Their righteousness entitled them to God’s favor. Zacharias, who held that priesthood which entitled to receive the ministering of angels, was worthy of, and received, that sacred privilege.

Sperry Symposium Classics, Joseph Fielding McConkie, 2006, Brigham Young University & Deseret Book, 110.