This outline contains links to a few books that have helped me understand the context and content of the scriptures. As an Amazon Affiliate, I do earn a small commission from qualifying purchases (at no extra cost to you). Click here to see all of my favorite books on Amazon.
Χριστός – Christ, “anointed” – this is the term whereby Christians today identify Jesus. He is the Christ, the one anointed by God to rule, to be king. The word was applied to kings anciently, and in the New Testament it became the term used to describe Jesus’ mission: to be the king of our salvation, the king of the new heaven and new earth that Christians all over the world hope will one day come to be. From Strong’s Concordance we read:
The prophet Jacob in the Book of Mormon testified of Jesus Christ:
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—for thus it behooveth our God, and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God. (2 Nephi 10.3, emphasis added)
2 Nephi 10 and the revelation of the name of “Christ”
One of the most significant aspects of Jacob’s discourse is that for the first time in the Book of Mormon the title of Christ is used. A careful study of the Book of Mormon chapters before 2 Nephi 10 reveals that Lehi, Nephi, and Jacob use many terms, including Lord, God, and frequently “the Holy One of Israel,” to refer to Jesus Christ. However, in Jacob’s concluding discourse he tells the people through revelation from an angel that God’s anointed would be known as Christ. From this point forward in the Book of Mormon the name/title Christ is used liberally, over three-hundred times. Incidentally, the name Jesus is not revealed in the Book of Mormon until 2 Nephi 25.19, this time to Jacob’s older brother Nephi.
Is this title an anachronism?
Brant Gardner has suggested that Joseph Smith played a role in the translation process, that his language and his understanding of words and their relationship, as well as his knowledge of King James English, played a role in the translation of the Book of Mormon. I would agree with Gardner’s hypothesis. Gardner uses the term “loose translation” to explain how Joseph played a role in this translation process.[1]Gardner explained:Let me start by saying …that there is no resolution to the question of the nature of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Still, there are some clarifications that can be made … Continue reading In regards to this particular verse in 2 Nephi, I would concur. I do not believe that the word Χριστός was engraved on this particular section of the small plates. I see this as Joseph taking whatever word was on this section of plates and giving modern readers of the text an understanding that Jacob was told what modern readers would call Jesus.[2]I understand the arguments for a tight control over the translation process of the Book of Mormon. I see this as a valid argument and can see both sides of this debate. In other words, there are … Continue reading
This word, christos – Χριστός, is essentially the same word that Jacob was familiar with mashiyach – מָשִׁיחַ which is the Hebrew word for anointed, or anointed one. Jacob was informing his readers what the Holy One of Israel would be called. What name exactly did Jacob receive in this setting? I do not know. Perhaps it was Χριστός, but that would have been essentially like saying “Messiah” or “Anointed One” – mashiyach. Brant Gardner gives another possibility:
“The name the angel told Jacob was most likely the name we translate as Jesus (the Greek form of the Hebrew “Yeshua,” which we transliterate as “Joshua,” meaning, “Yahweh saves.” It is not just a name, but a meaning conveyed by the verbal phrase. Therefore, if we assume that this revelation comes to Jacob in his native language (Hebrew), then the name simultaneously contained the meaning of the verbal phrase used as a name. Jacob receives not just a name (Yeshua) but the meaning of the name (Yahweh saves). The name becomes a declaration of the Messiah’s mission and a confirmation that this Messiah is the Atoning Messiah. The angel’s declaration of the name, whose meaning Jacob would have understood, confirmed the identity in a way that is much stronger than our modern understanding of Jesus’ names/titles. This name was the name by which humankind would be saved.”[3]Brant Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon: Volume 2: Second Nephi through Jacob, Kofford Books, 2007, p. 182.
Another Explanation
Writers from the website Book of Mormon Central give another explanation for why this name is mentioned that I find insightful. After explaining how 1 Nephi 12.18 originally had the phrase “Jesus Christ” which was later changed by Joseph Smith to read “Messiah”[4]While preparing the 1837 edition, Joseph Smith actually edited the printer’s manuscript to say Mosiah, which then got typeset as Messiah. See Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants, Part 1, 1 … Continue reading They explain:
Whatever the name was which originally got translated as Jesus Christ in 1 Nephi 12.18—possibly the Hebrew Yeshua haMashiah—the angel’s use of it had an impact on Nephi. He remembered and wrote it down, but then chose not to use it again until he was nearly finished with his record, after quoting extensively from Isaiah. Then, after reintroducing the name and reminding readers that an angel had revealed it, Nephi went on to use both Jesus and Christ together 5 more times, and the name Jesus alone appears another 3 times.
Perhaps Nephi chose to begin using the name during his commentary on Isaiah because, in Hebrew, “The names ‘Jesus’ and ‘Isaiah’ are similar in form and meaning.” Both names are based on the root word yasha, meaning salvation.[5]Margaret Barker, “Isaiah,” in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2003), 490. Yesha‘yahu (Isaiah) is composed of yesha, which means “help, deliverance, … Continue reading It thus may not be a coincidence that right after Nephi reminded readers of the angelically revealed name Jesus Christ, Nephi taught the most central doctrine of the Gospel: “there is none other name given under heaven save it be this Jesus Christ, of which I have spoken, whereby man can be saved” (2 Nephi 25:30).
By the time he was finishing his record, the name Jesus apparently came to have particular significance for Nephi—perhaps because of the way his family had been saved from destruction and exile. In his closing testimony, Nephi wrote, “I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell” (2 Nephi 33:6).[6]Book of Mormon Central, or BMC Team, KnowWhy #304, April 24, 2017, Why did Nephi say an angel had revealed the name Jesus Christ?
Further Reading:
Taylor Halverson, “O How Great the Goodness of Our God” 2 Nephi 6-10.
References
| ↑1 | Gardner explained:Let me start by saying …that there is no resolution to the question of the nature of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Still, there are some clarifications that can be made to help understand the issues. First, the loose/tight terminology that stems from Skousen has muddied the waters. He has always discussed the point at which Joseph read something in some way through/on the seer stone and spoke it to a scribe. That really isn’t translation. The transformation of information from Nephite to English is translation, and the evidence for that transition is that it would be “loose,” though I hesitate to use that term because it continues the terminological problem. I see most of the text (but not all) as a functional translation… whoever translated the Book of Mormon into English was fluent in western European culture… We get agricultural concepts and idioms that are specific to that cultural inheritance, but which contrast to agricultural and historical practices anywhere in the Americas. That tells us that the translator knew a particular culture, and it wasn’t the original. Thus the translation shows evidence of the modern rather than the ancient in some of those particulars (flora and fauna are one example, but references to wheat culture is also significant)… the unfortunate by-product of the analysis of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon is to make the text even more inscrutable than it already is. Without Joseph as the translator, we now have to find someone else–and there is no one. In particular, the qualifications of that not-Joseph would have to look a lot like Joseph, but maybe a hundred years earlier–except sometimes not. We have to figure out why a divinely-assisted translation couldn’t find some better way of wording the text, and why the not-Joseph was a better source of a miracle that was Joseph. I’m all for the divine presence in the translation process, but pushing it into unknowable mystery goes beyond anything else that happened in the restoration. Comment posted by Brant Gardner, March 29, 2019, On Early Modern English and the Book of Mormon, Times and Seasons, accessed 2.11.2020. |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | I understand the arguments for a tight control over the translation process of the Book of Mormon. I see this as a valid argument and can see both sides of this debate. In other words, there are times when there is certainly “tight” control over the way that the text reads, and at other times I see Joseph using his mind to clothe these words in ways that 19th century readers of the text could understand. For a further analysis of this debate, see “Tight versus Loose Translation Theories.” Accessed 2.11.2020. See also, Was every word of the Book of Mormon translation provided directly from God? Fairmormon. In the article the author writes, “While the translation of the Book of Mormon may come directly from God, this does not preclude the role that Joseph would play in adapting the language of the Book of Mormon to a cultural and linguistic framework that would both establish that the text was authentic and inspired while also communicating the Book’s message clearly. Thus Joseph’s model of revelation is one in which God could use things such as King James language as the means to the end of establishing his everlasting covenant and calling his children to repentance. This theology of translation may feel strange to some Latter-day Saints that might only accept the view that a translation provided by God can only be a formally equivalent (word-for-word) rendering of the Reformed Egyptian into English. Though, this view might build our conviction of the reality of God’s love and the truth that we are all God’s children and thus gods in embryo given that God, using this instance as an example, recognized the divine potential of Joseph Smith and chose to respect his agency. He worked in cooperation with Joseph (instead of merely subjecting his mind to the revelation) to get his message out to his children.” |
| ↑3 | Brant Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon: Volume 2: Second Nephi through Jacob, Kofford Books, 2007, p. 182. |
| ↑4 | While preparing the 1837 edition, Joseph Smith actually edited the printer’s manuscript to say Mosiah, which then got typeset as Messiah. See Royal Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants, Part 1, 1 Nephi 1-2 Nephi 10, p. 258-259. |
| ↑5 | Margaret Barker, “Isaiah,” in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2003), 490. Yesha‘yahu (Isaiah) is composed of yesha, which means “help, deliverance, salvation,” and then the theophoric yahu, meaning Yahweh. Yeshua (Jesus) is another form of the name Yehoshua (Joshua) and likewise derives from yasha. See Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. M.E.J. Richardson, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1:446, 449. See also “Isaiah,” “Jesus,” and “Joshua,” in Book of Mormon Onomasticon, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson, online at onoma.lib.byu.edu. |
| ↑6 | Book of Mormon Central, or BMC Team, KnowWhy #304, April 24, 2017, Why did Nephi say an angel had revealed the name Jesus Christ? |