Q: “Who does the Bible say Jesus is?”

Matt Crawford | May 10, 2012 | Q&A On The Bible

Perhaps the most basic Christian question is, “Who is Jesus?” It was this question that Jesus Himself asked His disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” (Luke 9:18-20). Since Jesus is without doubt the most central figure in Christianity, discerning His identity is of paramount importance. The most basic answer to this question is that Jesus is fully God and fully man in one person. Let’s explore each of these three aspects in sequence.

First, the Bible says that Jesus is truly God. John 1 is the classic statement to this effect. There Jesus is called “the Word” who was with God in the beginning, and who Himself is “God” (John 1:1). Paul expresses the same point in Philippians 2:6, where he says that Jesus was “in the form of God” and possessed “equality with God” before coming to earth as a human.

Second, the Bible unequivocally asserts that Jesus is truly man. Numerous passages in the Gospels present Jesus doing the things that are suitable for a man to do rather than for God to do. For example, Jesus was thirsty (John 4:7), His spirit was troubled (John 13:21), He wept (John 11:35), and, most importantly, He died on the cross as a common criminal. Each of these activities are something that God in Himself would not be capable of because He does not have a body, and does not experience need or lack like human beings do.

So we have here two basic principles that initially appear to be at odds with one another. Jesus is truly God and Jesus is truly man, begotten from God the Father in eternity as the Son of God, and born of the Virgin Mary as an infant in a stable in Bethlehem. But how can both these statements be true? We might be tempted at this point to resolve this dilemma by supposing that Jesus was sometimes doing God-like things, and sometimes doing human-like things. In other words, at times He was God and at times He was a man. That might help to alleviate the apparent contradiction of supposing that someone can be both God and man.

The problem with this idea is that it runs up against biblical passages that speak about Jesus as God doing human things and about Jesus as man doing God-like things. One example of this is Paul’s statement that “the rulers of this age . . . crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Corinthians 2:8). Being crucified is something that only a person can experience, but only God would be called “the Lord of glory.”

The Scriptures teach that Jesus is God and man at the same time and in a single person. He is not divided into two separate individuals, but is now and always will be both God and man. And the wonderful truth is that He is both of these things for us, as the perfect mediator between God and humanity.

Why do we use the word “Trinity” when it doesn’t show up in the Bible?

Matt Crawford | April 24, 2012 | Q&A On The Bible

Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430)

Christians sometimes are puzzled as to what the term “Trinity” means, since it is a word that doesn’t itself show up in Scripture. Even though the word itself isn’t in the Bible, it is an attempt to do justice to the reality of God that we do see in Scripture. The term itself (Trinitas) is a combination of two Latin words, unitas, which means “unity,” and trias, which means “three.” These two parts capture well the two basic biblical principles that the word “Trinity” is meant to convey: the oneness of God (i.e., unity), and the threeness of God (i.e., the distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit).

Augustine, the fifth-century bishop of Hippo who wrote one of the most extended and profound treatments of the Trinity, began his work by laying out these two principles as starting points for understanding this mysterious reality:

“According to the scriptures Father and Son and Holy Spirit [are] . . . a divine unity; and therefore there are not three gods but one God; although indeed the Father has begotten the Son, and therefore he who is the Father is not the Son; and the Son is begotten by the Father, and therefore he who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, himself coequal to the Father and the Son, and belonging to the threefold unity.”

The first point Augustine makes has to do with the divine unity (unitas). Father, Son, and Spirit are all divine, and yet are not three gods, but one God. There are ample biblical passages that support this idea. No one would dispute that the Father is called “God,” and this title is given to the Son, Jesus Christ as well (see John 1:1). The Spirit is less often explicitly called “God,” but there are plenty of passages that point in that direction. For example, Jesus told his disciples to baptize new Christians in the “name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:29-20). If the Spirit were not God, and were merely a creature like us, it would be very unlikely for Him to be included in this list alongside the Father and Son.

However, Deuteronomy 6:4 tells us that “God is one,” indicating that we should not think of Father, Son, and Spirit as three separate and distinct “gods.” So this is Augustine’s first point and we find it throughout Scripture: Father, Son, and Spirit are all God, and yet there is only one God.

At this point we are faced with an apparent conundrum that we might be tempted to solve by saying that the Father, Son, and Spirit are really just three “names” or “manifestations” of the one God, such that there is no real distinction between them. Here Augustine’s second point comes into play by emphasizing the threeness of God (trias). He says the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father. The three truly are distinct from one another. A clear biblical example of this is the baptism of Jesus. The Father speaks from heaven calling Jesus his Son, while the Spirit comes upon Jesus like a dove. All three are present and acting simultaneously, and so are truly distinct from one another, albeit without being divided into three separate gods.

If at this point you’re still wondering how to hold these two ideas together then don’t worry. That means that you’ve actually gotten the point! Scripture presents us with both these truths so we must affirm them both even if there is an ultimate mystery in terms of how to reconcile them. It is this biblical mystery of unity and threeness that the term Trinity is meant to capture.

Greg Thornbury on the Crucifixion

Greg Thornbury is the Dean of the School of Theology and Missions and Vice President for Spiritual Life at Union University in Jackson, TN. He also serves as editor for the “Q&A on the Bible” section of the BibleMesh Blog.

BibleMesh aims to help people understand the big picture as well as important facts of the Bible. The first BibleMesh resource is “The Biblical Story,” a course that presents Scripture as a cohesive narrative of God’s work in the world from Genesis to Revelation. It utilizes an interactive quizzing tool that helps people remember what they have learned. And finally, it includes a social networking platform which will allow pastors and church leaders to host their own online Bible studies and contribute their own resources. Forthcoming content will include courses in Biblical Greek and Hebrew.

Why are there so many Bible translations, and how do I choose one?

David Roach | March 22, 2012 | Q&A On The Bible

The multitude of Bible translations on the market can seem overwhelming. But there are good reasons for having so many versions of Scripture available.

Perhaps the most important reason is that different translators have different translations philosophies. Some believe that it is best for an English Bible to reflect the sentence structure, style, and expressions of the original Greek and Hebrew—a word-for-word translation. Popular word-for-word translations include the Revised Standard Version, the English Standard Version, and New American Standard Bible. On the other hand, some translators believe that it is unnecessary to maintain the sentence structure and style of the original Greek and Hebrew. In fact, they think original structure and style can obscure the meaning at times. So they attempt to give the meaning of the original text using modern idioms and sentence structures—a thought-for-thought translation. Some of the popular thought-for-thought translations are the New Living Translation and The Message.

Between word-for-word and thought-for-thought translations are those that attempt a combination of the two philosophies, translating word for word where possible but using modern phrasing where the original is confusing or antiquated. In this family of translations are the New International Version and the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

Another reason for different Bible translations is to reach different audiences. For example, the Good News Bible was intended for people whose first language is not English, and the Living Bible was intended for children originally.

Also, different translations rely on different Greek and Hebrew texts. Most of the recent translations use Greek and Hebrew texts that combine the best readings from many early manuscripts. Others, like the King James Version and New King James Version, translate the entire Bible from one Greek and Hebrew text known as the Textus Receptus.

So how do you select the right translation for you? It depends on what style of language you prefer and how you intend to use a particular Bible. Here are a few recommendations:

Do you want traditional poetic language? Try the King James Version.

Are you planning to do in-depth studies of individual words? A word-for-word translation like the English Standard Version or New American Standard Bible is likely your best bet.

Are you going to be discussing the Bible in a group with varying denominational backgrounds? The Revised Standard Version and New Revised Standard Version are both widely accepted among many Christian groups.

Do you need something that is easy to read aloud in a worship service, without excessively long sentences? The New International Version would be a good choice.

Are you going to read large sections of Scripture in a single sitting and want a modern-English paraphrase? The New Living Translation might be just right for you.

Remember that there isn’t just one correct Bible translation. God has blessed modern English readers with many good options to suit different purposes. So don’t be intimidated by the variety.

Q: If God knows everything, and Jesus is God, why did He choose Judas as one of His disciples if He knew he would betray Him?

Mark Coppenger | March 12, 2012 | Q&A On The Bible

It was precisely because Jesus knew that Judas would betray him that He chose him as a disciple. For us to be saved, it was essential that Jesus die for our sins on the cross — and Judas’ treachery would lead to that event.

As popular as Jesus was, the authorities knew that it could be disastrous to seize Him with a lot of people around, people who could rush to His aid. They needed to know when and where He would be relatively alone, and Judas was just the man to give them this insider information.

As awful as the crucifixion was, this central event in history was wonderful in its effect. Indeed, that’s why we call the day on which it occurred, “Good Friday.” And though it seemed to signal a breakdown in Jesus’ ministry, when the world turned on Him despite His life-giving teaching and healing, it came right on schedule according to a plan put in place from the very founding of the world. Throughout human history, Jesus was to be the sacrificial lamb, who would die for the sins of His people (Revelation 13:8).

Judas treachery came as no surprise to Jesus. The Bible teaches that the Lord knew what was in the hearts of all men, including Judas (John 2:24-25), who was the perfect traitor, whom Jesus would even call “a devil” (John 6:70). His character was deeply flawed. For one thing, he was a thief, who helped himself to the disciples’ living funds (John 12:4-6). For another, he was ambitious to a fault, and was frustrated when the Lord didn’t capitalize on opportunities to enlarge His earthly influence (John 14:22). Furthermore, he took no care to guard his heart, so Satan could “enter him” at will (John 13:27).

We can only imagine Satan’s delight on finding such an evil and usable man in Jesus’ inner circle. He exploited Judas’s character for what he thought would be great gain, the execution of the Son of God, but he fell into a trap. Jesus’ death, and subsequent resurrection, broke Satan’s grip on countless souls, giving them eternal life. In a word, the devil’s use of Judas backfired.

Jesus did not turn Judas into a traitor; He selected him because He already had a traitorous character. And as a number of New Testament passages make clear, the particulars of his treachery were anticipated centuries in advance. For example, the prophet Zechariah spoke of someone’s throwing thirty pieces of silver to the potter (Zechariah 11:13). That’s precisely the amount Christ’s enemies paid Judas for his cooperation, and that same money was used to buy a burial place for Judas in a potter’s field, once he’d committed suicide in remorse for his horrible deed.

So did Jesus choose a traitor knowingly? Absolutely, from a long time back. He knew that Judas was precisely the sort of man who would push Him toward the cross. And so, in selecting him as a disciple, He helped arrange His own death – for our sake.

If you have a question about the Bible you would like us to answer, please e-mail us at: customer.support@biblemesh.com

Salvation in the Old Testament

Mark Coppenger | February 14, 2012 | Q&A On The Bible

Q: How were people saved in the Old Testament times since they lived before the coming of Jesus Christ?

The short answer is, “The same way we’re saved today – by faith.”

Just look at the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, where the writer explains how “the people of old received their commendation.” He doesn’t say that they were made holy by their circumcision, their fastidious attention to the dietary rules, their response to demands of the festival calendar, or the quality of the animals they brought to the temple for sacrifice. Indeed, in chapter ten, he’s already said that “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” Those were merely ceremonies pointing to the real thing to come, Jesus’ once-for-all sacrifice on the cross.

As chapter eleven demonstrates in stirring detail, such ancients as Abel, Enoch, and Noah distinguished themselves by their trust in God’s revelation of Himself. In Noah’s case, this meant building an ark on dry land in anticipation of a flood no one else expected. And then came Abraham, who, in his old age, with a supposedly barren wife, received a promise from God that all the world would be blessed through his offspring. He didn’t know Jesus by name, or the details of His saving work, but he and others in his line were looking forward to wonderful things to come, “seeing” and “greeting” them “from afar.”

The big test of Abraham’s faith came when God told him to sacrifice Isaac, his only hope of a legacy. Abraham passed that trial with flying colors, confident that if God let him follow through with the killing, He would then raise Isaac from the dead, and make sure that he in turn would have children of his own, leading up to the Promised One. (Happy to say, the angel of the Lord stopped Abraham just short of sacrifice, when it was clear the old man was willing to do it.)

That same chapter eleven gives more good examples of faith in action: Moses walked away from the safety and comfort of Pharaoh’s court; the Israelites marched around the doomed city of Jericho according to God’s instructions; and many unnamed people of God went to prison for their stand. But the point is not that we’re saved by walking away from luxury, by making public displays of piety, or suffering abuse by those who hate God. The point is rather the disposition of souls toward what God shows us, our trust in what He has disclosed and our willing submission to His leadership. As Paul says in Romans 2:29, it’s essentially a matter of the heart, not the physical externals. And in Romans chapter 4, he uses Abraham as the perfect example of one whose “faith was counted . . . as righteousness.”

Today, that certainly means that we accept Christ as Savior and Lord. We receive His death on the cross as the payment of our sin debt and His resurrection as guarantee that He has the power to rescue us from the grave and take us to heaven. In a sense, we’re looking back to Calvary, while the Old Testament saints were looking forward to Calvary (and the centurion in Matthew 27:24 was looking right at Calvary, where he said, “Truly this was the Son of God”). In other words, there’s always been one plan of salvation, trust in God’s provision in Jesus, whether we’re anticipating Him imperfectly in Old Testament days, observing Him as earthly contemporaries in the first century A.D., or reflecting on Him (as He is revealed in the New Testament) in the 21^st century. It’s been faith in Jesus, to the extent that God has revealed Him, from first to last.