Gospel Doctrine New Testament Lesson 1 - “That Ye Might Believe That Jesus Is the Christ” Isaiah 61:

[rameumptom]

Gospel Doctrine New Testament Lesson 1 - “That Ye Might Believe That Jesus Is the Christ”

Isaiah 61:1-3; John 1

The Christ

The English word “Christ” comes from the Greek Χριστός (Khristós), and means “the Anointed One”. It is equivalent to the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ (Messiah). According to the Old Testament scholar, Margaret Barker, the Messiah is the “Angel of the Lord’s Presence”, or the angel that stands in Elohim’s presence as his chief messenger. Early Christians equated Jesus with the Messiah and the Great Angel who would deliver Israel.

In Luke 3, Jesus’ first discourse occurred in the synagogue. He was at least 30 years old, as that was the age when a man became a rabbi/religious leader, and was allowed to speak in the synagogue. The normal pattern was to stand, read a passage of scripture, sit, and then explain it to the people:

“16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

“17And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

“18The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

19To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

“20And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

“21And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

“22And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph’s son?” (Luke 3:16-22, see Isaiah 61:1-3).

Isaiah 61 was a key prophecy regarding the coming Messiah. Yet, for those in Nazareth who knew him, this was blasphemous. The Messiah would not be born of someone like Joseph, whom they knew. Many others at this time had proclaimed to be the Messiah, promising to free Judah from the Roman captivity. However, as we study the New Testament, we shall see that only Jesus offered a different promise. In his mortal ministry, he would not offer physical liberation from Roman captors, but spiritual liberation through faith and repentance in the atonement.

To preach the “gospel to the poor” meant preaching “good news” to them. He would heal the sad of heart, and would preach spiritual deliverance to those captive to Satan’s power. While he would literally heal the blind, he would heal even more who were spiritually blind so that they could again see with new eyes. They would be freed from the chains of death and hell, healed from the bruises brought on by sin and the struggles of this life.

The Gospels

The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) as we now have them were written decades after Christ’s death. Most scholars believe Matthew and Luke were written based upon the writings of the earliest written gospel, Mark, and perhaps from another source named Q (Quelle, German for source). John was written in the 2nd century after the Book of Revelation. Some scholars do not believe these were written by the original apostles (Matthew and John) and missionaries (Mark and Luke). It may be that they were later written by followers of those leaders, who learned from their teachings about Christ. This was a very common thing done anciently, where the disciple would write a book and name their teacher as author. Whether the books were indeed written by the original Church leaders or not, the key is that these books are inspired.

In the Beginning was the Word

John 1

“1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2The same was in the beginning with God.

3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”

In a look at the Greek, we find that these verses actually describe Jesus and God as separate Gods. Russell McGregor and Kerry Shirts did a great article which explains:

“How does Jehovah appear in the Greek New Testament? As Kyrios. This gets translated as "Lord" in English.

How does Elohim appear in the Greek New Testament? As Theos - especially Ho Theos [The God]. This, of course, gets translated as "God" in English.

Of course, the same words appear in many places in the New Testament that are not merely quotes from the Old. And you will find that Lord usually refers to Jesus - especially after his resurrection - while God usually refers to the Father....

[in Isaiah] the Lord announces that he is the one and only Savior (see Isaiah 43:3, 11; 45:15). And when the angel appeared to the shepherds in he field outside Bethlehem, he said to them, "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:11).

Now we may never really know what the angel's words were in the original Aramaic, but it seems reasonable that it would be something like, "a Savior, who is the anointed Jehovah."

But don't just take Luke's word for it. In John 1:1-2 we read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." ... [T]he first and third "God" in this passage comes from Greek Ho Theos - the God - while the second occurrence was simply Theos. So this could be rendered, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with The God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with The God." (Russell C. McGregor and Kerry A. Shirts, "Letters to an Anti-Mormon," FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1999, p. 139).

So, we see that there is a distinction between The God Elohim, and his Son Jesus. Both are God, but are separate beings.

Godhead vs Trinity

The religious argument between one united Godhead of three distinct beings versus one God of one substance but three separate persons, has raged on for almost 2000 years. One of the earliest Christian teachers and defenders was Origen. Origen taught that the Father and Son were two separate beings, but both are Gods. He explained that Christ is a subordinate God to the Father, such as John 1:1 seems to tell us. This was the main belief for early Christianity regarding the Godhead until the times of Athanasius, Arius, and Eusebius of Caesarea. Over the first few centuries of the Christian era, Greek ideas trickled into the Christian church, including the idea that there is only one God, who is made of a perfect substance, while all other things are made of other impure substance. Arius belonged to the Eastern Church and taught that Father and Son were separate beings, and since there is only one God, Jesus was not God, but Lord. Athanasius, eager to defend the godhood of Christ, developed a different concept we now call the Trinity. It states that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God, made up of three separate persons, but of one substance. The term “consubstantiation” or “homoousias” (of one substance) became key to his teaching. Followers of Athanasius sought to have Arius deposed as bishop, creating a huge rift in the Christian Church. To try and repair the damage to the Church and unity of his kingdom, Roman Emperor Constantine brought 318 bishops together in the first major ecumenical council at Nice in 325 AD.

Eusebius of Caesarea is known as a key bishop of the time, as well as the best chronicler of early Christian history. Eusebius was an ardent student of the Bible scholar Pamphilus and devout follower of Origen. In the battles between Arius and Athanasius, Eusebius sought the middle ground, agreeing that Father and Son were separate beings, yet also stating that Christ was also God. When the Council of Nice ended, the Arians were temporarily routed by the Athanasians. The Trinitarian creed, also known as the Athanasius Creed, was set in place. However, for the next century there would be continued battles over this teaching, wherein the Arians almost succeeded in establishing their own belief.

Eusebius agreed with certain tenets of the creed, such as Christ is eternal and uncreated. However, he drew the line at the term “consubstantiation” as it is not in the scriptures, and he insisted the gospel of Christ should be established on Biblical writings, and not on non-scriptural creeds. Today, while the majority of traditional Christianity follows the teachings of Athanasius on the Trinity, the Jehovah’s Witnesses tend towards an Arian view of God and Christ. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) holds a similar belief to the Origen/Eusebius belief that Father and Son are members of the Godhead, with Christ subordinate to the Father. As we can see from the Greek translation of John 1:1, this seems to be the correct interpretation. Christ IS God who is with THE God of all, Heavenly Father.

When was Christ born?

December 25th is the traditional celebration for Christ’s birth. This date came about centuries after Jesus’ death, when early Christians sought to celebrate the date.

For about a century, Latter-day Saints have believed that Christ’s birth was actually April 6, 1 BC, based upon a reading of D&C 20:1 by Elder James Talmage in his book, Jesus the Christ. We have since found that verse one was not part of the original revelation, but was a header put in the revelation by the scribe. Also, more recent General Authorities statements and research clearly show that Jesus must have been born around 5 BC.

Why? For one thing, Herod the Great, who spoke with the wise men and ordered the death of infants in Bethlehem, died in spring of 4 BC. Jesus could not have been born in 1 BC and still have Herod in the story. This and several other clues within the Bible and Book of Mormon suggests that Christ was probably born around December 5 BC. So December 25th could actually be the right date!

Bibliography

Wikipedia on Christ:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ

“Letters to an Anti-Mormon”, McGregor and Shirts:http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=11&num=1&id=310

Eusebius of Caesarea: Eusebius of Caesarea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History:http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm

When was Jesus Born? Michael De Groote in Deseret News: What was the real date of Jesus' birth? | Deseret News

[volgadon]

I hope you don't mind my posting this lengthy excerpt from pages 104-107 of Sigmund Mowinckel's "He That Cometh." I feel it helps make sense of the names in Isaiah 9, and how they apply to a messiah.

But what is the reason for this sudden change of fortune?

What is the light which has dawned on the oppressed people?

We are now told:

For a child has been born to us,

a son has been given to us;

the token of royalty shall be on his shoulder,

and his name shall be called 'Wonderful Ruler',

‘Divine Hero’, 'Father for ever’,

and ‘Prince of peace and well-being’.

A son is born! By the birth of the child, light has dawned upon them in the darkness. The certainty of deliverance and salvation has been created within them, so that they already rejoice in anticipation of the coming victory and prosperity…

To this fact direct expression is given by the names which the prophet already gives to the child, names which he will assuredly win for himself when he sits on the throne of his fathers. In the east, as is clear particularly from Egyptian sources, the ceremony of enthronement included the bestowal by the deity of names which expressed the king's nature, his relationship to the deity, and his destiny; and clearly this custom also formed part of the coronation ritual in Judah. That is what the prophet is referring to here.

Even now, by anticipation, he bestows upon the newborn prince the royal names which Yahweh has destined for him and which he will one day bear. They are 'Wonderful Ruler' (literally, 'Counsellor'), 'Divine Hero', 'Father for ever', 'Prince of Peace and Good Fortune' (both ideas are included in the Hebrew salom, 'peace', which really means, wholeness, fullness, perfect conditions). The first and last of these names are immediately intelligible to us: to rule over the land and the nation in war and peace, to have the right counsel in every situation, and to carry it into effect, to secure 'peace' and 'happiness' by victory in war and by prudent and just government were always the tasks of kings in ancient Israel.

But even the first name, 'Wonderful Ruler', seems to hint that here these qualities are present in a wonderful, superhuman degree. The other two names show quite plainly that divine equipment is meant. The second name,

el gibor, may be translated as 'Heroic God' or as 'a God of a Hero', i.e., 'Divine Hero'; by analogy with 'Wonderful Ruler', the latter interpretation is the more likely. But in either event, the heroic power which the child will possess is characterized as divine.

In form the name offers a precise parallel to the epithet applied to Aleyan-Baal in the Ugaritic texts: 'tiu gaziru, 'the victorious or heroic god', the god who is victorious over his enemies and raises life out of death again.

The third name, 'Father of Eternity',may according to normal Hebrew usage be interpreted 'Father for ever', i.e., one who for all time acts as the father of his people or his worshippers. But here, too, we have analogies which point in a somewhat different direction. The Egyptian king-god also bears the title 'Prince of Eternity' and 'lord of infinity' and in the Ugaritic texts the supreme god, El, is also called 'Father ofYears' (abu sanimi}. 'Eternity' in Hebrew does not denote the infinite, empty, abstract, linear prolongation of time which we associate with the word, but is equated with ' time ' in all its infinite comprehensiveness. The word can therefore also mean 'the course of the world’ (aeon) or simply ‘the world’ itself as a totality of time and space. To the Hebrew, 'time' is not an empty formal notion, a concept or category in the Kantian sense, but is inseparable from its entire content. 'Time' is all that exists and happens in time. It is the sum of the content of the years. ‘Father of Eternity’ and

'Father of Years' are therefore identical conceptions. They indicate the one who produces, directs, and is lord of the everchanging years, who lets the years with all their content of events follow each other in constant succession, who thus produces and directs 'eternity', the entire fullness of events and reality.

It is evident that such a name really belongs to a god, and not just any god, but the god, 'the high god', ‘the supreme god', 'the father of the gods’ (see below, pp. i8sf). That the Jews, too, knew and used this title is apparent from a number of passages.

Thus the newborn child is a ruler, a king, with divine attributes and divine equipment.

What kind of child is this, then; and what are his task and his vocation?

To increase the dominion,

and <make> good fortune endless,

upon the throne of David,

and in his kingdom,

to establish it with justice and righteousness

from henceforth and for ever

the zeal of Yahweh of Hosts

will perform this.

The child will sit on the lofty throne of David's kingdom as a scion of David. He is called to extend his dominion and to create endless 'peace’ (well-being) for his dynasty, and for its realm and empire, and thereby also for the people over whom the dynasty rules, and to restore the kingdom of David, which for the present, at least, is abased and subdued, to its ancient splendour. He will perform this as ruler of the kingdom, by displaying precisely those virtues which are required in a ruler: to execute ‘justice ', ‘righteousness', and 'judgement', to provide 'justice' for his people, and by 'judging’ them to deliver them from their adversaries, so to rule that well-being ('ideal conditions') is restored and maintained. He will also, if need be, 'give judgement against', and so destroy, not only foreign enemies, but any malefactors who exist within the nation, and protect all his subjects against the violation of their rights as members of the covenant people. The ideal which is now to be realized through this child is the old ethical ideal of a king or ruler in Israel: to establish and maintain conditions of righteousness and bliss at home and abroad.