Christology: Jesus as God and Man

To claim that Jesus could not also be God because He was a man is an understandable position. But taking the presupposition that God exist, could not God—the Supreme Power—be able to become a man, whom He would have created, if He truly wanted to? Thus, the statement that Jesus, being a man, could not be God would contradict the description of a monotheistic God by supposing that this God is not powerful enough to render Himself as a man. If Jesus is merely a man, then He is merely that. But if Jesus claimed to be God, which He did, and then backs up His claim with cogent evidence, then God just rendered Himself as the man Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Again, I agree, Jesus was one hundred percent man. The Bible unveils Jesus to us as a man born of a woman. He had human DNA, was laid in a manger as a baby,(1) seen as a young adolescent being instructed by rabbis at his community synagogue,(2) a grown man with a craft, emotions, friends, followers, and so on.(3) He was birthed through a woman’s womb, and died just like every other human. There is no denying His humanity. However, the Bible unveils Jesus as the man born not like all other humans, but of a virgin and with God’s DNA.(4) His miraculous birth is one of many authentications to His deity. He claimed to be the Covenant God of Israel—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.(5) This was a blasphemous claim to the Jews. But He didn’t stop with a claim. He performed miracles, healed diseases, exercised authority over Creation, and defied the laws of nature.(6) Not to mention that while He died like every other human does, He didn’t stay dead. Jesus showed His authority and power even over death when He resurrected three days after His crucifixion.(7) This “man”, was more than a mere man, He was the God-man.

So you ask, “How can Jesus be both a man and the one Supreme Being at the same time?” Friends, this question has puzzled men for centuries. Though, not all men have been baffled by this question as we see in the New Testament. If you ever wanted to know how God would be if He was a human, Jesus Christ is that portrait. Jesus is the fullness of the Great Divine living as fully human.(8) Still, how is this possible? Jesus, being the all-perfect and infinitely wise God, knew exactly how to perfectly be perfectly human and perfectly God. Everything that makes us human (i.e. flesh & bones, breathing air, emotions, free will, personality, etc) He was, bar sin.(9) And everything that makes “God” “God” (i.e. sovereign, omniscience, righteous, holy, benevolent, etc) He was, bar whatever, if any, limitations He sovereignly placed upon Himself.(10) The Creator of the human race—whom was created in the image of the Creator—knew how to be fully human and still fully Creator in unison without compromising either nature. This is how Jesus can be both truly God and truly man at the same time. Moreover, Jesus being both God and man is extremely significant; for only one who is fully God and fully man can completely redeem mankind and once for all satisfy the law of God.(11) God established the law, when broken, to be fulfilled by an unblemished living sacrifice.(12) God cannot sacrifice himself, for God is Spirit.(13) All men fall short of the righteousness of God so no mere man will do.(14) But God-Incarnate can offer Himself as an unblemished living and fully satisfactory sacrifice.(15) Thus, the life and death of Jesus Christ, the God-man, is the only sufficient payment for God’s holy and righteous law.(16)

If one overemphasizes or denies either the deity or humanity of Jesus, they will lead themselves and others either into believing there are two Gods, or one greater and one less than God, or more God less man, or more man less God, and many variations of the sorts. What this does is make Jesus’ sacrifice not completely sufficient because of the imbalance of His humanity or deity, creates the heretical problems for the Trinity, the unity of God, and so on. The Scriptures clearly show that Jesus is fully God and fully man, and early church history affirms this as well. To deny this truth or overemphasize either one is distorting the truth within the Scriptures along with the character and attributes of God.

Reading and learning about my Lord’s humanity gives me hope during famine and stormy seasons because I know He endured the same. Furthermore, it draws me to a more intimate relationship with Him because I know He can experientially relate to my human weaknesses. To know that my God came and put on my humanity just to redeem me causes me to love and live for Him all the more!

_____________________
1. Luke 2:6-7
2. Luke 2:41-52
3. Matthew 12:46-50; 14:13-14, Mark. 6:3, Luke 7:13, John 15:15
4. Luke 1:26-35
5. John 6:35; 8:12, 58; 10:9-11; 11:25; 14:6; 15:5; 18:5-8
6. Luke 5:1-26; 6:17-19; 8:22-25; 9:14-17, Mark 6:45-52
7. Mark 15:25-16:6
8. Colossians 1:15, 19; 2:9
9. Hebrew 2:14-18; 4:14-15
10. Colossians 1:15-18, Philippians 2:6-8
11. Romans 3:21-26, Galatians 4:3-7, Colossians 1:19-20, 1Timothy 2:3-6
12. Hebrew 9:16-22
13. John 4:24
14. Romans 3:9-20, 23
15. Hebrews 9
16. Hebrews 7:20-28; 10:11-12

3/2011

Marriage, Divorce, & Remarriage

It is sad to see born-again children of God considering their options in marriage. After being married for eleven years this September, and going from literal hell to grace during the first nine years, I can empathize and also stand firm on God’s Word concerning hard times in marriage and possible divorce. 
     As I descent into this topic, I will exhaust as much as I can, as concisely as I can. I should caution, this a little lengthy, but my hope is it's informative enough that it’s worth the time. 

What the Bible says Marriage is and is not
     Allow me to start with explaining what the biblical teaching on marriage is. God didn’t waste any time defining what marriage is, but without the term “marriage”. In Genesis 2:18, God said, “It is not good that man should be alone.” And so God made a woman—from man—for man to be in a covenant (a mutual binding) relationship with one another (Gen. 2:19-25). The man is rejoined to the woman to again become one flesh. Thus, marriage is a relationship between a man who leaves (uncommits himself from) his parents and becomes joined (bound—covenanted in soul, in mind, in emotion, in speech, and in the physical) as one flesh with his wife in the sight of God. Furthermore, the New Testament solidified this covenant relationship when Jesus and the Apostle Paul quoted the same statement by God in Genesis 2 (cf. Matt. 19:3-6, Eph. 5:31).
     The God-designed marriage as seen in Genesis nullifies our contemporary definitions of what marriage could or should be. A God-designed marriage cannot be between same sexes. A God-designed marriage is not a civil union. A God-designed marriage is not living together as boyfriend and girlfriend or even as engaged. A God-designed marriage is not a long-term relationship that acts or looks as if it is a marriage. A God-designed marriage is not between multiple men and women—polygamy. A God-designed marriage cannot be between children; for children are still under the care of their parents of whom the man has to leave in order to become one flesh with his wife. A God-designed marriage excludes “the mentally impaired, and those who are psychotic or psychopathic at the time of entering into marriage.”(1) Why exclude these particular classes—children, psychotic, mentally impaired, and psychopathic? That can be answered like such,

"To sunder one’s parental relationships and join oneself in (sic) intimate, lifelong union with a person who hitherto has been a stranger demands a considerable degree of maturity—as expressed in a capacity for self-giving love, emotional stability, and the capacity to understand what is involved in committing one’s life to another in marriage.(2)"

Also, the God-designed marriage as seen in Genesis is the foundation for the condemnation of fornication (sex outside of marriage) and adultery (unfaithfulness within the covenant relationship of marriage); because you’re only suppose to become one flesh/joined with your husband or wife. Furthermore, God charged the first male and female, who were married, to be fruitful and multiply—that is, have sex and reproduce only in the context of marriage (Gen. 1:27-28). Accordingly, we can clearly see marriage is serious in God’s eyes. 

God's view on Divorce

     With seeing what God’s designed marriage is, we can now appropriately move into God’s view on divorce. In Deuteronomy 24 is where we find the first mention of the law concerning divorce. I like what D.J. Atkinson had to say in regards to the law concerning divorce. He said, “this legislation is granting a permission, not giving a command.”(3) If you take a hard, long look at the passage, there is no hint of a command to divorce but rather the presupposition that divorce will take place. Atkinson goes on further to say, “the main point of the paragraph is concerned with remarriage….The paragraph recognizes that divorces happen, though it does not command or encourage them.”(4) The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states, “Moses’ aim was “to regulate and Thus (sic) to mitigate an evil which he could not extirpate (completely remove).””(5) Hence, we can see from the inception of this law divorce was never commanded by God, but simply orderly permitted because sinful man was already inclined to divorce.
    The follow-up question to this is what is permissible for divorce then? According to Deuteronomy 24:1, what was permissible was “he has found some uncleanness in her”. The term “uncleanness” is interpreted in others translations as “indecency”. Regardless, both in the Hebrew for this context mean nakedness or to make/become naked.(6) Matthew Henry writes in his commentary, “This uncleanness must mean something less than adultery; for, (sic) for that, she was to die…”(7) The Bible says in Leviticus 20:10 that both the adulterer and adulteress shall be put to death. So this passage in Deuteronomy could imply a number of different reasons for one to get a divorce.
     The same ambiguity in the Deuteronomy passage was presented before the greatest scholar ever to live, Jesus of Nazareth. The Pharisees’ asked Jesus “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” (Matt. 19:3). Jesus answered quoting Genesis 2:24. What does this mean? Jesus was stating, if you get married stay married and only let God separate what He has joined together; hence it’s more lawful (right) to stay married rather than divorce. The Pharisees then bring up Deuteronomy 24:1, but presented it out of context. “They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”” (Matthew 19:7). Jesus first corrects their misinterpretation by telling them, one, the certificate was given because of the hardness of your heart not as a way out for you in your marriage; two, Moses permitted it not commanded it; and three, “from the beginning it was not so.” (Matthew 19:8). Again implying it’s more lawful (right) to stay married rather than divorce. But then Jesus, whom I believe knew in their heart they weren’t satisfied with the answer He gave them, goes on to supersede the old law—i.e. with the phrase “And I say to you” (Matt. 19:9 compare with Matt. 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-37)—and clarify the ambiguity with “found some uncleanness in her” by restating what He taught in the sermon on the mount in “whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”(8) This response by Jesus we can tell, by the response of the Apostles, was taken with more conviction and had hit a nerve in the heart behind most Jews reasons for divorce: “His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”” (Matt. 19:10). So we can see that Jesus put more emphasis on how it’s more lawful (right) to stay married rather than divorce, but if one must divorce, then it is permissible on the grounds of sexual immorality.
     Now, later on the Apostle Paul addresses again this topic of marriage and divorce. But first, let’s clear up a possible misinterpretation before moving forward. In Romans 7:1-3 and 1Corinthians 7:11, Paul is not saying by his silence in this passage that whoever gets a divorce is committing adultery, for we already know Jesus said divorce is permitted on the grounds of sexual immorality. Yet, the Apostle does add to the teaching on divorce in 1Corinthians 7. Paul says if a Christian is married to an unbeliever and the unbeliever decides to depart the marriage, the Christian is not bound in that type of divorce (1Cor. 7:15). Thus, as "narrow-minded" as this may sound to some, according to the New Testament, divorce is permitted only on the grounds of sexual immorality and the departure of an unbelieving spouse. Any other reasons cause the Christian to commit adultery. 

What about Remarriage? 
     The next question is, is it then ever acceptable for a Christian to remarry? According to the passages we just discussed, yes, either if there is (i)a divorce on the permitted grounds of sexual immorality or (ii)departure of an unbelieving spouse, or, according to Romans 7:2, (iii)if the spouse dies. Now on a more personal perspective, because Christians are justified by Christ alone through faith alone, if a Christian does divorce and remarry for other reasons and circumstances other than what the Scriptures state are permissible, while they may be charged under Scripture with committing adultery that has no bearing on their justification (i.e. their salvation status before God) nor God's love for them. Yes there will be consequences for the decisions and actions. But according to 1John 1:9, as long as they sincerely confess their sins Jesus is “faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” So their new marriage is fine, and hopefully will be better than the first after learning from the previous experience. Moreover, I believe that just as there are other extreme cases where divorce is permissible (e.g. a pattern of physical abuse, a spouse has been lost/missing for years, etc), if one get’s remarried after an extreme case that it too is permissible. 

The Aftermath
      Divorce, although permissible, and although it cannot separate you from God’s love for you (Rom. 8:31-39), it will always leave debris. D.J. Atkinson describe it this way, “The word “divorce” in the phrase “bill of divorcement” is related to the word for hewing down trees, even cutting off heads. It indicates the severing of what was once a living union. Divorce, then, is a kind of amputation. It cannot happen without damage to the partners concerned.”(9) I’ll go further and say, divorce cannot happen without damage to not only the partners but the families and, if present, the children as well. The debris of divorce from Christians affects the church in its witness to the world and hinders it from glorifying and representing Jesus in our families. Also, divorce in general affects society by diminishing the view and standard of marriage to the watching generations. 

Reflect and Respond well
      It is because of sin and the hardness of man’s heart that divorce is permissible. But it is permissible with consequences. These consequences are serious and have to be taken into thoughtful consideration, especially if you’re currently thinking about divorce. Divorce should not be an option, but I understand that it is and I understand sometimes it may be necessary. But there will still be consequences, so prayerfully respond well.
  Remarriage from a divorce while permissible is questionable without maturity from the one seeking to be remarried. Otherwise you’ll bring the same personal issues and character defects into the new marriage. Remarriage is as equally serious as an initial marriage. Please take this into thoughtful consideration. Be sure to clear up all the debris from your divorce or risk bringing those unhealthy damages into this new union and possibly contaminating it.
     God’s designed marriage, if done using His wisdom and led by His Spirit, is a beautiful, lifelong covenant of mutual intimacy, support, companionship, and maturity, best described and displayed in the mystery of Christ and His Church. Biblical courting, pre-marital counseling and mentoring, and not rushing into marriage are good ways to make sure time and godly discernment are properly vested before you say “I do” to a lifelong covenant relationship with another fallen human being. Please take this into thoughtful consideration.
    And for those already married, things like marriage counseling and mentoring, individual counseling, personal discipleship, and building relationships with other mature, godly married couples to help hold you accountable, pour into, and build up your marriage are great ways to assist in the success and joy of this lifelong covenant relationship. Please take this into thoughtful consideration.
     I’ll end with this, divorce is permissible and remarriage is permissible, and God loves you in it all and through it all. But God’s desire is it’s best that if you get married to stay married and only let Him separate what He has joined together.

____________________
1. Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic), 744
2. Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic), 744
3. Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic), 346
4. Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic), 346 (emphasis added)
5. James Orr, ed., International Standard Bible Encyclopedia via eSword, “Divorce in The Old Testament” (parenthetical remarks added)
6. Ervah—From arah; nudity, literally (especially the pudenda) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish) -- nakedness, shame, unclean(-ness). Arah—A primitive root; to be (causatively, make) bare.
7. Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714). Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible
8. Matthew 19:9 compare with Matthew 5:31-32
9. Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic), 348 (emphasis added)

2011

Authority, Inspiration, and Inerrancy of the Bible

A.W. Pink (1886-1952) said “Christianity is the religion of a Book.”(1) As a Christian how can one trust the reliability of the Bible? By addressing it’s authority, inspiration, and inerrancy.
     I’ll start with how the Bible is authoritative. The writers of and/or the main characters in the Bible—i.e. the prophets, the Apostles, Jesus, God, and others—claimed to either be speaking from God, for God, to God, or of God, so when the authoritative statements in the Bible were penned, the authority isn’t from the human authors but God. Maybe you’re thinking, “I can say God told me to write something too. Does that mean what I write is authoritative?” No, not without God confirming that He is the source of your revelation. Once God revealed Himself to and through the people in the Bible with signs, miracles, prophecies foretold and fulfilled, and so on, what the human authors recorded about Him or from Him in the Bible became authoritative because of the testimony of Himself. As a scholar wrote, “Because the Bible points beyond itself to God, it has a conferred authority. Yet the Bible has a real authority in itself as the authentic embodiment of God’s self-disclosure.”(2) The Bible is authoritative because of God’s undeniable revelation of Himself throughout it.
     So how can we trust these so-called “human authors”? That is a matter of inspiration. The human authors who penned the Bible were supernaturally led to record just what God wanted them to record for their time and times to come. The Apostle Peter wrote,

“And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”(3)

The Apostle Paul said,

“But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”(4)

And in another place Paul recorded, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”(5) Furthermore, Old Testament writers repeatedly stated, “Thus says the LORD” or “The LORD said”, when they spoke or kept record of what was said; indicating they were speaking and writing God’s word not their own. Hence, because of inspiration the Bible has dual authorship, God and humans.
     Does this mean that the Bible is perfect (without flaw) because God inspired it? Yes, that’s exactly what it means. Some of the characteristics of God revealed throughout the Scriptures are He’s all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfect. Just from these three characteristics how can a God who inspired what to be written in His book not keep it free from error? That’s logically incompatible. The Bible then is inerrant. Yet, there are those who disagree. They say if there is even one mistake found then it is not inerrant. But that would mean that God’s testimony of Himself is not true, and for centuries they have found no errors but more confirmations. Another disagreement is that this “inerrancy” view came in later centuries and was not adopted by the earlier saints, nor is “inerrancy” taught in the Bible. However, the earliest saints—i.e. the Apostles and the disciples after them (Clement of Rome, Augustine, etc)—acknowledged that (6)“Every Scripture is God-breathed”. And even Jesus Himself said, “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”(7) As we can see, while there are arguments against this, the arguments for the Bible being inerrant are much more solid. Because God has divinely inspired what was written in the original autographs it bears His character throughout it, one being His perfection.
     If a person who calls themselves a believer plays down the authority, inspiration, and inerrancy of the Bible, it is difficult to hold on to biblical certainty and conviction. As for me, these three ensure that what I believe stands true and solid, and because of that I can be totally open when reading, studying, and living what is in God’s Word.

----------
1. Arthur W. Pink, The Divine Inspiration of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Guardian Press, 1976), 5.
2. Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic), 153
3. 2Peter 1:19-21 (New King James Version)
4. 1Corinthians 2:10-13 (New King James Version)
5. 2Timothy 3:16-17 (New King James Version)
6. 2Timothy 3:16 (Amplified Bible)
7. Matthew 5:18 (English Standard Version)

Salvation: Does Baptism Save?

About a week ago, a brother from my church called me asking for some assistance. His problem was that a new convert in his small group had been targeted by another religious group. The religious group eventually planted its claws in this new convert and he was telling my brother (the small group leader) that he was confused about his salvation. The religious group told him that baptism is a requirement for his salvation, but his small group leader was telling him that is false teaching. The religious group told my brother to meet and discuss this issue with the new convert. So, I and another brother from my church (Lance Evans) started to prepare an outline to specifically defend what the Bible says about salvation and baptism and give it to our brother to use. I wanted to share this outline with everyone (which has been cleaned up and turned into a blog), so we all can see the truth about this matter.

Most Christians are familiar with what apologetics is—the rational defense of our Faith for those outside our Faith. But what do we call it when we have to soundly defend the truths of our Faith from others who claim to be sharing truth from within the same Faith? This “defense within” is called polemics. This outline is a polemical writing meant to defend the truth about salvation from the false teaching of salvation through baptism.
____________________________
1. Putting Acts 2:38 in Context

*Acts 3:19 - Once again Peter addresses a different crowd about salvation and leaves out water baptism, but mentions repentance and faith.
*Acts 8:35-37 - Phillip clearly makes it plain to the Ethiopian Eunuch that belief proceeds water baptism.
*Acts 10:34, 42-27 - Peter clearly makes it plain that belief proceeds water baptism.
*Acts 16:30-33 - Paul and Silas clearly make it plain that belief proceeds water baptism.

In Acts alone we see 2 Apostles and 2 church elders who have taught that believing is what saves and baptism proceeds but is not a necessity for salvation.

2. Putting 1Peter 3:21 in Context
(The same Peter in Acts 2:38 now speaking in his own Letter/Epistle)

*What is Peter not saying? Peter is not saying water baptism saves a person, because that would contradict the point Peter makes in verses 18-20; which is Jesus died for sin to save people from God’s judgment on sin, just as the Ark saved Noah and the 8 souls from the water, the water didn’t save anyone—the water was God’s judgment on the world (Gen. 6).
*The Ark is an Old Testament prefigure of Jesus. And just as the Ark carried them through the water, our Ark—Jesus, after we believe in Him as shown by multiple people in the multiple passages in Acts—leads us to the water in baptism (Rom. 6).
*This point, belief in Jesus first for salvation and then baptism proceeds, goes along with Peter’s introduction in 1Peter 1:17-25. If he showed us in chapter one that it is the blood of Christ and the Word of God that redeems us, why would Peter teach a blatant contradiction in chapter 3 that baptism saves us?

3. The Apostles learned their theology on salvation from the Old Testament & Jesus who affirmed it (i.e. the theology of salvation) in the New Testament.

*Matt. 26:26-28 - Jesus confirming that it’s through His blood where we receive the forgiveness of sins.
*The Old Testament clearly teaches that God required blood (of animals) to provide forgiveness for the people. Hebrews chapter 9 all to 10:18 talks about the blood of Jesus being the fulfillment of that Old Testament requirement for the forgiveness of the sins of those who believe. If the blood of Jesus does this, what need/function is there for baptism? There is nothing left to do! The blood Jesus shed when He died as a sacrifice/atonement for sin has paid it all. God’s wages for sin has been paid in full!
*This clears up what Mark and Matthew penned in the last chapter of their gospels (Mk. 16:16-17, Matt. 28:18-20). These two learned their theology from Jesus and the Old Testament (Mark from Peter and the Old Testament, but Peter learned his from the Old Testament and Jesus). Thus, this understanding is essential because in both we see belief still precedes the act of baptism, and if belief is absent (not baptism, but belief) the person is not saved.

4. Putting Eph. 2:1-9 in Context

*Anything added to the grace of God freely given in the life and death of Jesus Christ, and our faith (our believing) in what God’s grace through Jesus Christ has done, is works! God’s grace and our faith is it for salvation. Baptism is a work! Furthermore, before Apostle Paul nailed this point in chapter 2, he actually introduced his letter to Ephesus by making it clear that it’s through God’s grace in Jesus’ blood and our belief in what God did through Jesus that we have forgiveness and redemption (Eph. 1:7, 13-14, cf. Col. 1:13-14).

5. Putting John 3:3-8 in Context

*The context of the term “water” in John 3:5 is ambiguous (to some extent). It could mean water as in physical birth (flesh v.6), baptism (but that would be a work added to grace and faith which contradicts scripture, so that’s out), or water as the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit in Titus 3:5-6. The point Jesus is making in John 3:3-8 is the same point he reiterates in John 6:63, the Spirit gives Life (eternal life), the Flesh profits nothing. The water is not what gives life to the person dead in sins and trespasses, but rather the Holy Spirit.

Scripture does not, will not, nor cannot contradict Scripture. Whatever verse/passage is pulled out, it MUST stay in line (agree with) the whole scope of Scripture, not just part. If not, then whatever the interpretation of that verse/passage is should not be taken as biblically sound and thus not accepted, since the whole biblical context doesn’t agree with it. We can conclude with this, water baptism does not save a person. Salvation is through the grace of God in the blood of Jesus and our believing in what He’s done—death/atonement and resurrection. Anything more than this is a false gospel!

1/2011

Questions & Answers: The Bible

Here are a few questions in regards to the Bible, but with a different spin. I've combined some coursework I did in college. Just wanted to share it. It's good info!

Do you agree that the Bible is a divine-human book? Why?
Yes, I agree that the Bible is a divine-human book. Obviously humans wrote the different “books” of the Bible. And in their respected books they claim that this holy book is by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God. Thus you have a divine-human book, though it’s the divine that gives it true value and importance.

What explanation can be given for the fact that God’s name does not appear in the Book of Esther?
In light of the story of Esther being during a time where the people were in another land, it is understandable why there was a “fear of using God’s name in a document written in a foreign country—the name might be profaned or the story changed by the simple substitution of a pagan god’s name” (Geisler). Another reason is the author of Esther is not obviously clear, so it is possible that “the book was compiled from the Persian royal records (9:20; 10:2)” (Geisler) and they would not have transcribed the name of the Jewish God in their records. However, even though the “name” of God may not appear the presence of God is apparent.

Distinguish between the meaning of inspiration and canonization.
Inspiration is saying the nature of the Scriptures are the divinely authoritative truth of the one and only God (Geisler, pp 13-15). Canonization is saying which of the scriptural writings are actually inspired (Geisler, pp 16-17).

Why ought one conclude that there are thirty-nine (no more and no less) books in the Old Testament canon?
Because Jesus Himself affirmed that the thirty-nine books in the Old Testament was the Law and the Prophets (Geisler, pp 16). Also, the Jewish Talmud attest to the same Old Testament books as Jesus (Geisler, pp 16).

How do the numerical discrepancies show that our copies of Scripture were very faithfully copied?
The Jewish scribes who copied the errors down “through the centuries were undoubtedly aware it was wrong”, yet “out of reverence for the text before them and in faithfulness to their task to copy accurately what was in the manuscript they did not tamper with the text.” (Geisler, pp 139)

What is textual criticism?
Textual criticism is a discipline that focuses on bringing about “the most accurate text possible based upon available manuscript evidence.”(Tools of Inductive Bible Study).

How is it possible to have a high view of the authority of Scripture and a positive view of textual criticism at the same time?
God’s sovereignty! I trust my God, who brought His Word to us through the first human authors, to keep His Word faithful for us through the succeeding scribes and translators.

What is translation?
The reproducing “of a text that is in one language (the source language), as fully as possible, in another (the receptor language).” (Strauss, Distorting Scripture? 1998, p. 77)

Why is translation not a simple exercise?
Because translating one language into another language is not as easy as copying one language word-for-word into another language, especially from copies and without the original authors present for assistance.

Describe the two main approaches to translation. Which approach do you feel most comfortable with? Why?
The “more formal” approach (word-for-word) and the “more functional” approach (thought-for-thought). The “more formal” approach tries to stay as close as possible to the original in structure and words. The “more functional” tries to stay as close as possible in expressing the meaning of the original text though in today’s language. I feel most comfortable with both. I think both are needed in trying to get a more holistic understanding and picture.

Now what other belief/religion can put their "holy book" through this type of scrutiny? None of them. Christianity, not its false offshoots (i.e. Jehovah Witness, Christian Science, Mormons, Black Israelites, etc), is the most solid and vetted belief. This gives Jesus Christ and His claims more and more credence. Thus, the remarks that the Christian Faith is foolish, is foolish.

--------------

Geisler, N. (1977). A Popular Survey of the Old Testament. Baker Academic, Grands Rapids:MI.

2009