Mormon Dilemma 57
Name of Jesus
2 Nephi 10:3; “Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ—for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name—should come among the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him…” – BC 545
Matthew 1:21; “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.”
There are a number of problems with this verse in the Book of Mormon, but for now we’re just taking a look at one thing.
For this mini-study we’re taking a look at the vocabulary in the Book of Mormon and what it refers to as the name of Jesus.
Christ was/is not Jesus’ name. It’s His title. The English rendering of the term “Christ” is Christos, meaning “anointed”. In the Hebrew the term “anointed” is Mashiach, or Messiah for the English rendering.
It’s a title, not a name. What if your name is John Doe and someone insisted your name is Mr.? Let’s say this person told you that he/she really wanted to hang out with you and spend time with you as a friend? Wouldn’t it give you pause to wonder what their intention really was if they can’t even get your name right?
Yes, the term Christ was originally given as a title. However, it is just as much a name as a title, as it is a title specific to a single individual.
After all, smith was originally a title referring to the persons occupation, but it later became a name due to the change in the manner it was used.
In like manner Christ has become a name for Jesus to distinguish him from anyone else having the name of Jesus. (A Greek name, equivalent to the Hebrew Joshua).
In the modern day the Title of Christ has become a second name of Jesus, much like a surname in the English language.
The correct translation of the complete title is;
Jesus, the Christ
or translated from the Hebrew;
Joshua, the Messiah
I do see your point about how human culture has taken the title and made it into a name. I work construction and cringe when I hear someone taking His name in vain when they hurt themselves, get mad, or when something isn’t constructed correctly. I quickly ask them if they are praying to Jesus or I say, “No, if Jesus had built it, it would be perfect”.
Problem is, it wasn’t a human that was talking to Nephi… it was an angel from Heaven.
You would think that the angel would have gotten it right…
CAMDEN
The Angel did get it right. He told Jacob (not Nephi) that the saviors name would be Christ, which is what his name has become. He did not say it was Christ, nor did he actually say that it would be Christ when he was among the Jews. He simply said that at some point in the future he would be known by this name, and so it is the name he was going to use.
In all truth the name he actually gave would not have been Christ, as Joseph Smith has told us there was no Greek on the plates. It would have been a name in their own language that was equivalent to Christ (like the Hebrew Messiah) and thus was effectively translated as Christ by Joseph Smith.
Jesus, the Christ, is the name of the Son of God. This has been used as his name since the days of the Early Apostles, and so for the angel to tell Jacob that he would be called this is in no way contradictory or problematic.
To sum things up, here are the first five definitions of the word “Name” as given at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/name. Please tell me if you think that none of them are appropriate to the way in which Christ is applied to Jesus, and thus showing errors with Jacob’s statement.
1. a word or a combination of words by which a person, place, or thing, a body or class, or any object of thought is designated, called, or known.
2. mere designation, as distinguished from fact: He was a king in name only.
3. an appellation, title, or epithet, applied descriptively, in honor, abuse, etc.
4. a reputation of a particular kind given by common opinion: to protect one’s good name.
5. a distinguished, famous, or great reputation; fame: to make a name for oneself.
So “Jesus Christ” is not only a description of who He is, but also what He is called as His name?
Does that mean what somebody is called as a name could also be who they are or a description of what they are?
Yes. That is the nature of language and how it has always worked.
When I recited Isaiah 9:6 to the Bishop of my ward (when I called him and told him I wanted my name removed from the church records), He said that Jesus would be “called” those things and just because He is called those names doesn’t mean that is what He is. (Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace)
Do you see the Trinity in there?
I have always considered those to be names of Christ, or titles, because that is what he was.
He was wonderful.
He was a counselor.
He is the Mighty God.
He is the Everlasting Father (though not in the same sense as his Father).
He is the Prince of Peace.
And while I see that you can see the trinity, I do not think this was the intent of Isaiah, and I can also see the LDS doctrine of God.
A title is an additional name given to a person to distinguish them from others. I am now reminded of the play “Man of La Mancha.” At one point he is being knighted, and he says “If your Lordship recalls, it is the custom to grant the new knight an additional name.” In response the one performing the ceremony gave him the name “Knight of the Woeful Countenance.” This is very much a title or description of who he was, but it was given as a name to distinguish him from others.
In the same way all these descriptions that are given by Isaiah are Titles, or additional names describing Christ, given to distinguish him from others.
Ya, and when I tried to tell the Bishop that Jesus was God (as in the Trinity) he said, “He is the God of this world”.
Which took me aback because I knew that is how Satan is described in the Bible, as “the god of this world”.
You are probably going to tell me, “He meant to say that He (Jesus) is the God “over” this world, not “of” this world…
CAMDEN
No. He probably meant that Jesus is the God of this Earth, which is very different from the world. The world is the man-made civilization and governmental structures and boundaries that exist because of it. The Earth is the full existence of this planet and all life on it.
Satan is the god of the world, for the world believes and follows his doctrine. Jesus is the God of this Earth, for all nature believes and follows his doctrine.
However, if you were trying to claim the trinity I am not surprised he disagreed. Now, Jesus is God, in that he holds that title as a member of the Godhead. He is not, however, God the Father, and is most frequently distinguished from our grand Head by the Title Lord Jesus Christ. While they are both God, in that both share that Title being members of the Godhead (as does the Holy Ghost) they are still very separate and distinct beings. As such, to say that the trinity is wrong is correct.