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.

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 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.

Alistair Begg is the senior minister at Parkview Church in Cleveland, Ohio.

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.

Bishop J. W. Hood (1831–1918) ministered to freed slaves in North Carolina and was the first African-American to publish a book of sermons.

James W. Hood—bishop in the African Methodist Episcopal Church during the Civil War—was the first black man in America to publish a book of sermons. Having spent most of his life in Pennsylvania, he moved to North Carolina near the end of the war to minister to freed slaves. Tensions ran high in the region, and he even received some death threats from slavery enthusiasts. As the following excerpt from his sermon, “Personal Consecration,” shows, this did nothing to rob him of his joy in serving the Lord. His infectious words apply most directly to those involved in Church ministry, but as Ephesians 6:6-7 and Colossians 3:23 counsel, Christians (even slaves) should count all their labor as service unto God.

I am aware of the fact that some professed Christians complain and whine about their troubles and vexations. They will have it that their lot is a hard one . . . But to the sound, healthy Christian, the service of God is really delightful. It must be so, for the true Christian loves the Lord with all his heart, and can it be hard work to serve one we love with all the heart? Does the lover find it hard work to serve his spouse? Does the bridegroom find it hard work to serve his bride? Does the loving mother find it hard work to serve her helpless infant? I anticipate the answer, there can be but one. In all these cases love makes the service delightful, and the more that can be done, the more happiness there is afforded . . .

Now if we love God with all our heart, it will be our chief delight to serve him. The angels don’t find it hard work to serve God, it is their delight. Jesus says: “My yoke is easy, and my burden light.” Solomon says, “her ways are ways of pleasantness.” If we have on a heavy yoke, it is not the yoke of Jesus; if your way is not pleasant, it is not the way to heaven . . . The truly pious find it joyful work to serve God; hence they sing, “Let the children of Zion be joyful in their king,” and again, “Rejoice in the Lord alway, and again I say rejoice.”

The devil, in his attempt to slander Job, by mistake uttered a very important truth. He said that Job did not serve God “for nought.” It is true. The Christian does not serve God for nought. He that serves God has the assurance of an abundant reward. The sinner toils in vain, and labors all his day to reap eternal woe. But he that serves God is assured of an inheritance with the saints. God grant you grace to “consecrate your service unto the Lord this day.”¹

In Luke 5, the Pharisees found the behavior of Jesus, who was eating and drinking with tax collectors, to be distasteful. Jesus was, so far, a rabbi in good standing with the religious community. But this conduct was threatening that good standing. Jesus was in, but He was associating with those who were out. 

“Why do you eat with and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” they asked the disciples.

Luke doesn’t want you to miss the irony, “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance,” answered Jesus. In other words, they accused Jesus of eating and drinking with sinners, but it’s only sinners who can repent.

The religious leaders were calling tax collectors, “sinners,” but recognizing that you are a sinner with nothing good in and of yourself was the one thing that made the tax collectors fit for salvation, and it was the one thing the religious leaders lacked.

So back to my original questions: Have you ever wondered why you feel inadequate and joyless with those who are morally superior to you or look down your nose at those who don’t quite cut it the way you do?

If you base your relationship with God in what you do or your behavior, then you’ll likely feel guilty, inadequate, or joyless when you are around people who are morally superior than you, who have things more together, who seem to more give of their time and money.

And then, everything you do in response will be guilt-based; so you can feel better about yourself and relieve your conscience.

Or, you completely give up and say, “I can’t do this religious thing anymore.”

But if you live believing that grace is what gets you in—based on what Jesus did, not on what you do—then you’ll be quick to rejoice in the goodness of others and you’ll labor to honor God with your behavior out of thankfulness and joy, not out of guilt or to feel better about yourself.

Let’s answer the second question.

If you believe what gets you in is based on what you do and who you are associated with, then you’ll always look down your nose at those who don’t quite cut it the way you do. Why does that happen? Because if you base your worth on what you do and your behavior, then that is also how you will find worth in other people. When your relationship with God is not based on grace, then hardly anything else in life will be either.

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.

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.

Interestingly, today, 68.4% of all religious-based non-governmental organizations are either
Christian (57.4%) or Jewish (11%). Where the legacy of the biblical tradition is weakest, so
is charitable giving. In his recent survey of the data, Who Really Cares: America’s Charity
Divide, Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks maintains that:

There is so little private charity in Europe that it is difficult to find information on the subject—so irrelevant is it that few researchers have even bothered to investigate . . . Specifically, no Western European population comes remotely close [to] the United States in per capita private charity. The closest nation, Spain, has average giving that is less than half that of the United States. Per person, Americans give three and a half times as much as the French, seven times as much as the Germans, and fourteen times as much as the Italians.

Some Europeans argue that their high taxes pay for what Americans cover with private funds. Brooks points out, however, that

One technical problem arises with this argument: The average tax burden in all European countries is not higher than it is in the United States. A British family, for instance, relinquishes an average of 10.8 percent of its household income to the government in income taxes. This is lower than what an average American family pays—11.3 percent.

This data should not be an occasion for American triumphalism, but a solemn warning about what ignorance of the Bible and the erosion of the Judeo-Christian tradition may mean for the world’s poor.

A stained glass image of Saint Patrick inside the Cathedral of Christ the Light, Oakland, CA.

One night in fifth-century Wales, everyone in Calpurnius’ house was in bed asleep—everyone except Patrick, who sat on the edge of his bed. His head was swirling with the dream that had stirred him from a sound slumber. In the dream, a man he had known in Ireland handed Patrick a letter. Accepting it, Patrick read the title, “The Voice of the Irish,” and simultaneously heard voices crying out, “Holy boy, we beg you to come and walk among us once more.” Moved to tears, Patrick was unable to read further. Upon awakening, he realized he had received a mandate from the Lord: He was to return to Ireland, where he had once been enslaved, and bring Christianity to the people.

Little is known about this man now called Saint Patrick. He was born near the end of the fourth century in Wales and grew up in a wealthy, nominally Christian family. But when he was sixteen, raiders pillaged his town and took him captive to Ireland. There, Patrick became a slave to a Druid high priest named Milchu,who made Patrick a shepherd. During this period of isolation and brutality, Patrick came to know the Lord. He wrote of his experience:

“[T]here the Lord opened my mind to an awareness of my unbelief, in order that . . . I might . . . turn with all my heart to the Lord my God . . . And [the Lord] watched over me . . . and he protected me, and consoled me as a father would his son.”

After six years of enslavement, Patrick dreamed that God told him about a ship waiting to take him to freedom. He escaped that very night, traveling over 200 miles to reach the Irish coast, from where a ship, indeed, brought him back to his native Britain.

Patrick had changed. He was now twenty-two years old, fluent in Irish and toughened by trying experiences. At home, he felt restless and made plans to enter the ministry. He traveled to Auxerre, France, where he studied under Saint Germain for some fifteen years. Saint Germain believed in Patrick’s vision and helped him to his appointment as the second bishop to Ireland. It was a fortuitous appointment, for Patrick’s understanding of the Irish culture and language made him adept at winning converts, and he soon developed a following.

Still, the going was tough. Patrick was evangelizing people who warred for a living and whose native religion, Druidism, required human sacrifice. The Druid religious leaders were not at all tolerant of Christianity, and though Patrick converted many of them, others arrested and kidnapped him a number of times. The churches and schools he established were under constant threat of raids and enslavement, but they prospered nonetheless.

Through it all, Patrick remained steadfast: “[D]aily I expect to be murdered or betrayed or reduced to slavery if the occasion arises. But I fear nothing.” The persecution was real, but by God’s grace and after every reversal, Patrick escaped and returned to his evangelical mission.

Of the thousands taken captive by the Irish, the vast majority remained in captivity, living out their days in bitterness and travail. Others gained their freedom within Ireland but conformed to their captors’ culture. A handful managed to escape to their native lands but continued in a pagan lifestyle. And then there was Patrick, one of thousands, who, in the darkness of captivity, turned to God and set his heart on reaching Ireland for Christ. As Catholic journalist Anita McSorley writes,

“It doesn’t take a scholar to recognize how [Patrick] was able to do this. [He] was so certain that he had been specifically called by God to do exactly what he did . . . In this certainty, Patrick finds his strength . . . to overcome every obstacle . . .”

And that strength was sufficient. When he died, he had traversed the entire terrain of Ireland and preached the gospel with great effect, as he was happy to recall:

“So, [that is] how in Ireland, where they never had any knowledge of God but, always, until now, cherished idols and unclean things, they are lately become a people of the Lord, and are called children of God . . .”

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