* ALL Questions about Jesus Christ *

Did Jesus fight Satan for the keys to the kingdom?​

ANSWER

Keys are a symbol of control. Keys keep people in or out. If they do not have a key to a lock, they cannot enter or exit. Keys grant the holder access to interiors and their contents, and in ancient times the wearing of large keys was a mark of status in the community. In the New Testament, the word "Hades" has a twofold usage: in some cases it denotes the place of all the departed dead (the grave - Acts 2:27,31); in others, it refers to the place of the departed wicked (Hell - Luke 16:23; Revelation 20:13-14). Since Christ alone has conquered death and has Himself come out of grave, He alone can determine who will enter death and Hades and who will come out. He has the "keys." He has authority over death and the place of the dead.

Satan has never possessed these "keys." Satan has never had power to determine who goes to Heaven (the Kingdom) and who goes to Hell. Jesus did not have to fight Satan for the keys because the keys were never in Satan’s possession. God and God alone has power over death and Hell (Revelation 1:18). Jesus did not have to fight Satan for anything because Jesus’ death on the cross was His ultimate victory. Colossians 2:15 tells us, "...and having disarmed the powers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross."

For the Christian, there is no need to fear death and hell. Christ is in control of both, and the one who has faith in Christ will never enter hell. But it must be remembered, ONLY Christ has the keys to the Kingdom. This is why Jesus told us He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and that NO ONE can come to the Father except by Him (John 14:6).

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ by Stephen Wellum

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

​

Was Jesus ever angry?​

ANSWER

When Jesus cleared the temple of the moneychangers and animal-sellers, He showed great emotion and anger (Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-18; John 2:13-22). Jesus’ emotion was described as “zeal” for God’s house (John 2:17). His anger was pure and completely justified because at its root was concern for God’s holiness and worship. Because these were at stake, Jesus took quick and decisive action. Another time Jesus showed anger was in the synagogue of Capernaum. When the Pharisees refused to answer Jesus’ questions, “He looked around at them in anger, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts” (Mark 3:5).

Many times, we think of anger as a selfish, destructive emotion that we should eradicate from our lives altogether. However, the fact that Jesus did sometimes become angry indicates that anger itself, as an emotion, is amoral. This is borne out elsewhere in the New Testament. Ephesians 4:26 instructs us “in your anger do not sin” and not to let the sun go down on our anger. The command is not to “avoid anger” (or suppress it or ignore it) but to deal with it properly, in a timely manner. We note the following facts about Jesus’ displays of anger:

1) His anger had the proper motivation. In other words, He was angry for the right reasons. Jesus’ anger did not arise from petty arguments or personal slights against Him. There was no selfishness involved.

2) His anger had the proper focus. He was not angry at God or at the “weaknesses” of others. His anger targeted sinful behavior and true injustice.

3) His anger had the proper supplement. Mark 3:5 says that His anger was attended by grief over the Pharisees’ lack of faith. Jesus’ anger stemmed from love for the Pharisees and concern for their spiritual condition. It had nothing to do with hatred or ill will.

4) His anger had the proper control. Jesus was never out of control, even in His wrath. The temple leaders did not like His cleansing of the temple (Luke 19:47), but He had done nothing sinful. He controlled His emotions; His emotions did not control Him.

5) His anger had the proper duration. He did not allow His anger to turn into bitterness; He did not hold grudges. He dealt with each situation properly, and He handled anger in good time.

6) His anger had the proper result. Jesus’ anger had the inevitable consequence of godly action. Jesus’ anger, as with all His emotions, was held in check by the Word of God; thus, Jesus’ response was always to accomplish God’s will.

When we get angry, too often we have improper control or an improper focus. We fail in one or more of the above points. This is the wrath of man, of which we are told “Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires” (James 1:19-20). Jesus did not exhibit man’s anger, but the righteous indignation of God.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ by Stephen Wellum


More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

​

What is the Jesus Seminar?​

ANSWER

The "Jesus Seminar" was begun by New Testament "scholar" Robert Funk in the 1970s. It was Funk’s desire to rediscover the "historical Jesus" that was hidden, he believed, behind almost 2,000 years of Christian traditions, myths, and legends. The Jesus Seminar was created to examine the biblical gospels and other early Christian literature to discover who Jesus truly was and what He truly said. The Jesus Seminar was (and still is) comprised almost entirely of individuals who deny the inspiration, authority, and inerrancy of the Bible. The agenda of the Jesus Seminar is not to discover who the historical Jesus was. Rather, the purpose of the Jesus Seminar is to attack what the Bible clearly says about who Jesus is and what He taught.

The crowning publication of the Jesus Seminar is a work that goes through the four biblical gospels and the gospel of Thomas and proceeds to determine what Jesus truly said and taught. It divides Jesus’ words from the gospels into categories based on how likely it is that Jesus truly said them. Words in red indicate words that Jesus most likely said. Words in pink represent words that Jesus possibly said. Words in gray indicate words that Jesus likely did not say, but are close to what He might have said. Words in black represent words that Jesus definitely did not say. It is interesting to note that in this work from the Jesus Seminar there are more words in black than in red, pink, and gray combined. Almost the entire gospel of John is in black. It is also interesting that the gospel of Thomas is given a significantly higher percentage of red and pink words than the biblical gospels. It is absolutely ridiculous, even offensive, to think that a group of "scholars" today can more accurately determine what Jesus did and did not say than the authors of the gospels, who wrote in the same century in which Jesus lived, taught, died, and was resurrected.

The "scholars" of the Jesus Seminar do not believe in the deity of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the miracles of Christ, or the substitutionary atonement death of Christ. Perhaps most significantly, they deny that the Holy Spirit is the author of all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17), having moved the minds and hands of all the writers (2 Peter 1:20-21). Since the Jesus Seminar does not believe these Christian doctrines, they relegate anything that Jesus says in support of them as "black." Essentially, the agenda of the Jesus Seminar is, "I do not believe Jesus is God, so I am going to remove anything that records Jesus saying or teaching that He is God from the gospels." The claim that the purpose of the Jesus Seminar is to "discover the historical Jesus" is false and misleading. The true purpose of the Jesus Seminar is to promote the Jesus that the Jesus Seminar believes in instead of the Jesus of the Bible.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels by Darrell Bock

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

Patriot said:

Who is Jesus Christ?​

ANSWER


Unlike the question “Does God exist?” the question of whether Jesus Christ existed is asked by relatively few people. Most accept that Jesus was truly a man who lived in Israel 2,000 years ago. The debate begins with the discussion of Jesus’ full identity. Almost every major religion teaches that Jesus was a prophet or a good teacher or a godly man. But the Bible tells us that Jesus was infinitely more than a prophet, a good teacher, or a godly man.

C. S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity writes the following: “I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him [Jesus Christ]: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that option open to us. He did not intend to” (Macmillan, 1952, p. 55–56).

So, who did Jesus claim to be? Who does the Bible say He is? First, He is God in the flesh. Jesus said in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” At first glance, this might not seem to be a claim to be God. However, look at the Jews’ reaction to His statement. They tried to stone Him “for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). The Jews understood Jesus’ statement as a claim to be God. In the following verses, Jesus never corrects the Jews or attempts to clarify His statement. He never says, “I did not claim to be God.” When Jesus said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), He truly was claiming equality with God.

In John 8:58 Jesus claims pre-existence, an attribute of God: “‘Very truly I tell you,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’” In response to this statement, the Jews again took up stones to stone Jesus (John 8:59). In claiming pre-existence, Jesus applied a name for God to Himself—I AM (see Exodus 3:14). The Jews rejected Jesus’ identity as God Incarnate, but they understood exactly what He was saying.

Other biblical clues that Jesus is God in the flesh include John 1:1, which says, “The Word was God,” coupled with John 1:14, which says, “The Word became flesh.” Thomas the disciple declared to Jesus, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28), Jesus does not correct him. The apostle Paul describes Jesus as “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13). The apostle Peter says the same, calling Jesus “our God and Savior” (2 Peter 1:1).

God the Father bears witness of Jesus’ identity as well: “But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.’” (Hebrews 1:8; cf. Psalm 45:6). Old Testament prophecies such as Isaiah 9:6 announce the deity of Christ: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (emphasis added).

Why is the question of Jesus’ identity so important? Why does it matter whether Jesus is God? Several reasons:

• As C. S. Lewis pointed out, if Jesus is not God, then Jesus is the worst of liars and untrustworthy in every way.

• If Jesus is not God, then the apostles would likewise have been liars.

• Jesus had to be God because the Messiah was promised to be the “Holy One” (Isaiah 49:7). Since no one on earth is righteous before God (Psalm 53:1; 143:2), God Himself had to enter the world as a human.

• If Jesus is not God, His death would have been insufficient to pay the penalty for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). Only God Himself could provide an infinite, eternally valuable sacrifice (Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:21).

• God is the only Savior (Hosea 13:4; cf. 1 Timothy 2:3). If Jesus is to be the Savior, then He must be God.

Jesus had to be both God and man. As God, Jesus could satisfy God’s wrath. As a man, Jesus had the capability of dying. As the God-man, Jesus is the perfect Mediator between heaven and earth (1 Timothy 2:5). Salvation is available only through faith in Jesus Christ. As He proclaimed, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ by Stephen Wellum
More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

Click to expand...

lianbeng says Jesus Christ is Son of God lah!

What is the Jesus Family Tomb?​

ANSWER

In 1980, in Talpiot (a suburb of Jerusalem), Israel, a construction crew unearthed an ancient tomb. Inside the tomb was discovered ten (or nine) ossuaries (burial bone boxes). Inscribed on these bone boxes were names. The discovery of the ossuaries was not unusual, as thousands of ancient ossuaries have been discovered in ancient tombs in and around Jerusalem. What was somewhat unusual were the names that were inscribed on the ossuaries: Jesus son of Joseph, Maria, Mariamene, Matthew, Judas son of Jesus, and Jose (likely an abbreviation of Joseph). The similarities of these names to those of the biblical Jesus and His family have led TV director Simcha Jacobovici and movie producer James Cameron to produce “The Jesus Family Tomb” in book form and "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" as a movie/documentary. Jacobovici and Cameron are making the claims that the Jesus Family Tomb is indeed the family burial place of Jesus and His family, and that the presence of Jesus’ bones disproves His resurrection. Is there any validity to the claims of the Jesus Family Tomb?

First, before we examine the question biblically, it is important to understand that no influential archaeologist has come forward in agreement with the Jesus Family Tomb project. The curator for anthropology and archeology at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem from 1972 to 1997, Joe Zias, states that the project “makes a mockery of the archaeological profession.” Second, there is evidence that the tomb had been disturbed and vandalized. It cannot be verified what was, or what was not, vandalized or stolen. On an archaeological basis alone, there is serious reason to doubt the authenticity of the Jesus Family Tomb project.

Historically and culturally speaking, there is further reasoning to reject the ideas of the Jesus Family Tomb project. The names “Jesus, Maria, Matthew, Judas, and Joseph” were all very common names in 1st-century Israel. Some cultural historians estimate that as many as 25 percent of 1st-century Jewish women were named Mary (Miriam). The New Testament confirms this by mentioning six different women named Mary, including three who were prominent in Jesus’ life (Jesus’ mother, Mary Magdalene, and Mary of Bethany). It would not be uncommon for a 1st-century Jewish family to have the names Jesus (Yeshua), Mary (Miriam), Joseph, and Judas (Judah) – as all were very popular Jewish names (due to their background in the Hebrew Scriptures).

Biblically speaking, there are numerous reasons to reject the idea of the Jesus Family Tomb. First, the New Testament consistently states that Jesus’ family was from Nazareth (Matthew 2:13; Luke 2:4, 39, 51; John 1:45-46). If Jesus’ family had a tomb, it would have very likely been in Nazareth. Second, the Bible describes Jesus and his adopted father Joseph as carpenters (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3), likely making them financially poor and of a lower social status. The tomb discovered in Talpiot is the tomb of a wealthy family. Third, the New Testament states that Jesus’ body was buried in a tomb that belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, and that there were witnesses as to where Jesus was buried (Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:43-47; Luke 23:50-54; John 19:38-42).

The "Lost Tomb of Jesus" documentary advocates the concept that Jesus’ disciples stole His body from the tomb, and then buried it in His family tomb. If the disciples were going to steal Jesus’ body in an attempt to argue for a resurrection, why would they then bury Jesus’ body in His own family’s tomb, and even inscribe Jesus’ name on His ossuary? That does not make any sense whatsoever. If the disciples wanted to fake a resurrection, the last thing they would do would be to bury Jesus in His family tomb (which other people could easily examine) and write Jesus’ name on His ossuary (providing undeniable evidence that Jesus was not resurrected).

Now, let’s get to the crux of the matter. The true motivation of the Jesus Family Tomb project is to deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The subtitle of the book is “The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence That Could Change History.” Cameron, Jacobovici, and co-author Pellegrino have a clear agenda. They do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, that Jesus was God incarnate, or that Jesus was resurrected after His crucifixion. The discovery of the “Jesus Family Tomb” is simply a convenient basis for their argument, due to the similarities of the names on the ossuaries to the names of Jesus and His family. If it could be proved that the “Jesus Family Tomb” was indeed the tomb of the biblical Jesus of Nazareth and His family, the resurrection would be disproved, thus destroying the very foundation of the Christian faith (see 1 Corinthians chapter 15).

None of the suppositions of the Jesus Family Tomb project can be proved. In fact, the archaeological community is nearly unanimous in condemning the Jesus Family Tomb as a hoax, with no basis in history or archaeology. There is every reason to doubt the claims of the Jesus Family Tomb – archaeologically, historically, and biblically. The Christian faith has nothing to fear from honest and scientific archaeology.

In regards to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the true heart of this issue, there is much to be considered. Please examine our articles on “Why should I believe in Christ’s resurrection?,” “Biblical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus,” and “Why is the resurrection of Jesus Christ important?”

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

What does it mean that Jesus is the Lamb of God?​

ANSWER

When Jesus is called the Lamb of God in John 1:29 and John 1:36, it is referring to Him as the perfect and ultimate sacrifice for sin. In order to understand who Christ was and what He did, we must begin with the Old Testament, which contains prophecies concerning the coming of Christ as a “guilt offering” (Isaiah 53:10). In fact, the whole sacrificial system established by God in the Old Testament set the stage for the coming of Jesus Christ, who is the perfect sacrifice God would provide as atonement for the sins of His people (Romans 8:3; Hebrews 10).

The sacrifice of lambs played a very important role in the Jewish religious life and sacrificial system. When John the Baptist referred to Jesus as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), the Jews who heard him might have immediately thought of any one of several important sacrifices. With the time of the Passover feast being very near, the first thought might be the sacrifice of the Passover lamb. The Passover feast was one of the main Jewish holidays and a celebration in remembrance of God’s deliverance of the Israelites from bondage in Egypt. In fact, the slaying of the Passover lamb and the applying of the blood to doorposts of the houses (Exodus 12:11-13) is a beautiful picture of Christ’s atoning work on the cross. Those for whom He died are covered by His blood, protecting us from the angel of (spiritual) death.

Another important sacrifice involving lambs was the daily sacrifice at the temple in Jerusalem. Every morning and evening, a lamb was sacrificed in the temple for the sins of the people (Exodus 29:38-42). These daily sacrifices, like all others, were simply to point people towards the perfect sacrifice of Christ on the cross. In fact, the time of Jesus’ death on the cross corresponds to the time the evening sacrifice was being made in the temple. The Jews at that time would have also been familiar with the Old Testament prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah, who foretold the coming of One who would be brought “like a lamb led to the slaughter” (Jeremiah 11:19; Isaiah 53:7) and whose sufferings and sacrifice would provide redemption for Israel. Of course, that person was none other than Jesus Christ, “the Lamb of God.”

While the idea of a sacrificial system might seem strange to us today, the concept of payment or restitution is still one we can easily understand. We know that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) and that our sin separates us from God. We also know the Bible teaches we are all sinners and none of us is righteous before God (Romans 3:23). Because of our sin, we are separated from God, and we stand guilty before Him. Therefore, the only hope we can have is if He provides a way for us to be reconciled to Himself, and that is what He did in sending His Son Jesus Christ to die on the cross. Christ died to make atonement for sin and to pay the penalty of the sins of all who believe in Him.

It is through His death on the cross as God’s perfect sacrifice for sin and His resurrection three days later that we can now have eternal life if we believe in Him. The fact that God Himself has provided the offering that atones for our sin is part of the glorious good news of the gospel that is so clearly declared in 1 Peter 1:18-21: “For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.”

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ by Stephen Wellum

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

What is the meaning of Agnus Dei?​

ANSWER

Agnus Dei is a Latin term. Translated into English, it is “Lamb of God.”

The biblical basis for this imagery is found in John 1:29: “John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’” and in Revelation 5:9–14, where the Lamb who has been slain is worshiped: “‘You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.’ Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. In a loud voice they were saying: ‘Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!’ Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying: ‘To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!’ The four living creatures said, ‘Amen,’ and the elders fell down and worshiped.”

The imagery in Revelation 5 captures both the sacrifice and the victory of Christ, the Lamb. He is not only the slain Agnus Dei but also the victorious, risen, conquering Agnus Dei.

The term Agnus Dei has become semi-technical in church history and liturgy and can refer to two things:

1. A figure of a lamb with a halo and bearing a cross or banner. This symbol for Christ is often found in church artwork and stained glass windows.

2. A prayer to Christ, which is part of the Roman Catholic liturgy.

• In Latin: “Agnus Dei, qui tolis peccata mundi, miserere nobis. Agnus Dei, qui tolis peccata mundi, dona nobis pacem.”

• In English: “Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us. Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, grant us peace.”

Singer and songwriter Michael W. Smith has written and arranged a modern hymn that bears the name Agnus Dei. The song, which contains the refrain, “Worthy is the Lamb,” has become quite popular in churches.

While Catholics and Evangelicals agree that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, there is a difference in application that is worth noting:

In Roman Catholic theology, the Agnus Dei is a prayer for mercy as one would plead for leniency before a judge, not knowing the final outcome. For the faithful Catholic, this prayer is part of the cycle of sin, confession, and penance by which grace is gradually infused so that, over time, the sinner becomes righteous enough so that God may be justified in saving him or her.

For the Evangelical who has trusted in Christ for salvation, the Agnus Dei prayer as it is worded in the liturgy would take on a different meaning. The Evangelical knows that he or she has already been shown mercy and is at peace with God though faith in Christ. So, for him, this prayer would take on a tone of thanksgiving for the blessings already received. Perhaps the following wording would reflect better theology: “Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, thank you for your mercy on us. Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, thank you for your peace.”

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ by Stephen Wellum

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

What is the kenosis? What does it mean that Jesus emptied Himself?​

ANSWER

The term kenosis refers to the doctrine of Christ’s “self-emptying” in His incarnation. The word comes from the Greek of Philippians 2:7, which says that Jesus “emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men” (ESV). The word translated “emptied” is a form of kenoó, from which we get the word kenosis.

Notice that Philippians 2:7 does not specify what the Son of God “emptied” Himself of. And here we must be careful not to go beyond what Scripture says. Jesus did not empty Himself of His divine attributes—no such attributes are mentioned in the verse, and it is obvious in the gospels that Jesus possessed the power and wisdom of God. Calming the storm is just one display of Jesus’ divine power (Mark 4:39). In coming to earth, the Son of God did not cease to be God, and He did not become a “lesser god.” Whatever the “emptying” entailed, Jesus remained fully God: “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).

It is better to think of Christ’s “emptying” of Himself as a laying aside of the privileges that were His in heaven. Rather than stay on His throne in heaven, Jesus “made himself nothing” (as the NIV translates Philippians 2:7). When He came to earth, “he gave up his divine privileges” (NLT). He veiled His glory, and He chose to occupy the position of a slave.

The kenosis was a self-renunciation, not an emptying Himself of deity. Nor was it an exchange of deity for humanity. Jesus never ceased to be God during any part of His earthly ministry. He did set aside His heavenly glory. He also voluntarily refrained from using His divinity to make His way easier. During His earthly ministry, Christ completely submitted Himself to the will of the Father (John 5:19).

As part of the kenosis, Jesus sometimes operated within the limitations of humanity. God does not get tired or thirsty, but Jesus did (John 4:6; 19:28). God knows all things, but it seems that, at least once, Jesus voluntarily surrendered the use of His omniscience (Matthew 24:36). Other times, Jesus’ omniscience was on full display (Luke 6:8; John 13:11; 18:4).

There are some false teachers who take the concept of kenosis too far, saying that Jesus gave up all or some of His divine nature when He came to earth. This heresy is sometimes referred to as the kenosis theory, but a better term is kenoticism or kenotic theology, to distinguish it from biblical understanding of the kenosis.

When it comes to the kenosis, we often focus too much on what Jesus gave up. The kenosis also deals with what Christ took on. Jesus added to His divine nature a human nature as He humbled Himself for us. Jesus went from being the glory of glories in heaven to being a human being who was put to death on the cross. Philippians 2:7–8 declares, “Taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!” In the ultimate act of humility, the God of the universe became a human being and died for His creation.

The kenosis is the act of Christ taking on a human nature with all of its limitations, except with no sin. As one Bible scholar wrote, “At His incarnation He remained ‘in the form of God’ and as such He is Lord and Ruler over all, but He also accepted the nature of a servant as part of His humanity” (J. J. Müller, The Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and to Philemon, p. 82).

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ by Stephen Wellum

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

What was the meaning and importance of the transfiguration?​

ANSWER

About a week after Jesus plainly told His disciples that He would suffer, be killed, and be raised to life (Luke 9:22), He took Peter, James, and John up a mountain to pray. While praying, His personal appearance was changed into a glorified form, and His clothing became dazzling white. Moses and Elijah appeared and talked with Jesus about His death that would soon take place. Peter, not knowing what he was saying and being very fearful, offered to put up three shelters for them. This is undoubtedly a reference to the booths that were used to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles, when the Israelites dwelt in booths for 7 days (Lev. 23:34–42). Peter was expressing a wish to stay in that place. When a cloud enveloped them, a voice said, “This is My Son, whom I have chosen, whom I love; listen to Him!” The cloud lifted, Moses and Elijah had disappeared, and Jesus was alone with His disciples who were still very much afraid. Jesus warned them not to tell anyone what they had seen until after His resurrection. The three accounts of this event are found in Matthew 17:1-8, Mark 9:2-8, and Luke 9:28-36.

Undoubtedly, the purpose of the transfiguration of Christ into at least a part of His heavenly glory was so that the “inner circle” of His disciples could gain a greater understanding of who Jesus was. Christ underwent a dramatic change in appearance in order that the disciples could behold Him in His glory. The disciples, who had only known Him in His human body, now had a greater realization of the deity of Christ, though they could not fully comprehend it. That gave them the reassurance they needed after hearing the shocking news of His coming death.

Symbolically, the appearance of Moses and Elijah represented the Law and the Prophets. But God’s voice from heaven – “Listen to Him!” - clearly showed that the Law and the Prophets must give way to Jesus. The One who is the new and living way is replacing the old – He is the fulfillment of the Law and the countless prophecies in the Old Testament. Also, in His glorified form they saw a preview of His coming glorification and enthronement as King of kings and Lord of lords.

The disciples never forgot what happened that day on the mountain and no doubt this was intended. John wrote in his gospel, “We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only” (John 1:14). Peter also wrote of it, “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to Him from the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with Him I am well pleased.’ We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with Him on the sacred mountain” (2 Peter 1:16-18). Those who witnessed the transfiguration bore witness to it to the other disciples and to countless millions down through the centuries.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ by Stephen Wellum

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

What trials did Jesus face before His crucifixion?​

ANSWER

The night of Jesus’ arrest, He was brought before Annas, Caiaphas, and an assembly of religious leaders called the Sanhedrin (John 18:19-24; Matthew 26:57). After this He was taken before Pilate, the Roman Governor (John 18:28), sent off to Herod (Luke 23:7), and returned to Pilate (Luke 23:11-12), who finally sentenced Him to death.

There were six parts to Jesus’ trial: three stages in a religious court and three stages before a Roman court. Jesus was tried before Annas, the former high priest; Caiaphas, the current high priest; and the Sanhedrin. He was charged in these “ecclesiastical” trials with blasphemy, claiming to be the Son of God, the Messiah.

The trials before Jewish authorities, the religious trials, showed the degree to which the Jewish leaders hated Him because they carelessly disregarded many of their own laws. There were several illegalities involved in these trials from the perspective of Jewish law: (1) No trial was to be held during feast time. (2) Each member of the court was to vote individually to convict or acquit, but Jesus was convicted by acclamation. (3) If the death penalty was given, a night must pass before the sentence was carried out; however, only a few hours passed before Jesus was placed on the Cross. (4) The Jews had no authority to execute anyone. (5) No trial was to be held at night, but this trial was held before dawn. (6) The accused was to be given counsel or representation, but Jesus had none. (7) The accused was not to be asked self-incriminating questions, but Jesus was asked if He was the Christ.

The trials before the Roman authorities started with Pilate (John 18:23) after Jesus was beaten. The charges brought against Him were very different from the charges in His religious trials. He was charged with inciting people to riot, forbidding the people to pay their taxes, and claiming to be King. Pilate found no reason to kill Jesus so he sent Him to Herod (Luke 23:7). Herod had Jesus ridiculed but, wanting to avoid the political liability, sent Jesus back to Pilate (Luke 23:11–12). This was the last trial as Pilate tried to appease the animosity of the Jews by having Jesus scourged. The Roman scourge was a terrible whipping designed to remove the flesh from the back of the one being punished. In a final effort to have Jesus released, Pilate offered the prisoner Barabbas to be crucified and Jesus released, but to no avail. The crowds called for Barabbas to be released and Jesus to be crucified. Pilate granted their demand and surrendered Jesus to their will (Luke 23:25). The trials of Jesus represent the ultimate mockery of justice. Jesus, the most innocent man in the history of the world, was found guilty of crimes and sentenced to death by crucifixion.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

The Murder of Jesus by John MacArthur


More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

Why did Jesus command people to not tell others of the miracles He performed?​

ANSWER

After healing a man of leprosy (Mark 1:41-42), "Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: ’see that you don’t tell this to anyone...'" (Mark 1:43-44). To our way of thinking, it would seem that Jesus would want everyone to know about the miracle. But Jesus knew that publicity over such miracles might hinder His mission and divert public attention from His message. Mark records that this is exactly what happened. In this man’s excitement over his being miraculously healed, he disobeyed. As a result, Christ had to move His ministry away from the city and into the desert regions (Mark 1:45) “As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places. Yet the people still came to Him from everywhere.”

In addition, Christ, though he had cleansed the leper, still required him to be obedient to the law of the land — to go at once to the priest, and not to make delay by stopping to converse about his being healed. It was also possible that, if he did not go at once, evil-minded men would go before him and prejudice the priest and prevent his declaring the healing to be true because it was done by Jesus. It was of further importance that the priest should pronounce it to be a genuine cure, that there might be no prejudice among the Jews against its being a real miracle.

Finally, Jesus did not want people focusing on the miracles He performed, but rather the message He proclaimed and the death He was going to die. The same is true today. God would rather that we be focused on the healing miracle of salvation through Jesus Christ instead of focusing on other healings and/or miracles.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ by Stephen Wellum

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

Was Jesus crucified on a cross, pole, or stake?​

ANSWER

The cross is arguably the most beloved symbol in all of Christianity. It adorns our churches and cathedrals, our jewelry, our books and music, and is used in numerous marketing logos. The empty cross symbolizes the work performed there by our Savior who went to death willingly to pay the penalty for our sins. Among Jesus’ last words before He died were “It is finished” (John 19:30). The Law was fulfilled, the Messianic prophecies pertaining to His first advent were accomplished, and redemption was complete. It is no wonder that the cross has come to symbolize all that is the greatest story ever told—the story of the sacrificial death of Christ.

This may come as a surprise to many, but the precise shape of the object on which Jesus was crucified cannot be proved explicitly from the Bible. The Greek word translated “cross” is stauros, meaning “a pole or a cross used as an instrument of capital punishment.” The Greek word stauroo, which is translated “crucify,” means “to be attached to a pole or cross.” Outside of the Bible, the same verb was also used in the context of putting up a fence with stakes. Though stauros can mean either “pole” or “stake,” many scholars argue that Jesus most likely died on a cross in which the upright beam projected above the shorter crosspiece. But a biblical, airtight case cannot be made for either a cross or a pole/stake. The Romans were not picky in regards to how they would crucify people. Historically, we know the Romans crucified people on crosses, poles, stakes, upside-down crosses, X-shaped crosses (such as the apostle Andrew is said to have been martyred on), walls, roofs, etc. Jesus could have been crucified on any of these objects, and it would not have affected the perfection or sufficiency of His sacrifice.

Certain cults, most notably the Jehovah’s Witnesses, are adamant that Jesus did not die on a cross and that the cross is in fact a pagan symbol. Their insistence on this point is curious, given the ambiguity of the Greek word. But they have worded their New World Translation to say that Jesus died on a “torture stake” rather than a cross. Given that the Jehovah’s Witnesses also deny the deity of Christ and His bodily resurrection, it stands to reason that they should object to other details of traditional Christianity.

Arguing against the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ teaching that Jesus died on a “torture stake” are some indirect clues in the New Testament. One of these is found in John 21. Jesus gives Peter a glimpse of the manner of his death: “‘When you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.’ Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God” (verses 18–19). The fact that Peter (who tradition says was crucified) would “stretch out” his hands indicates that Roman crucifixion usually involved outspread arms such as would be positioned on a crosspiece.

The other clue that Jesus was crucified on a cross is found in John 20. Thomas, in his famous moment of doubt, said, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe” (verse 25). Note Thomas’s mention of the nails (plural) that had scarred Jesus’ hands. If Jesus had been crucified on a stake or a pole, only one nail would have been used. The fact of two nails in the hands suggests a traditional cross.

Completely lost in arguments over the shape of the cross is its significance to us. Jesus said, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it” (Matthew 16:24–25). The cross/stake/pole was an instrument of death. By telling us to take up our cross and follow Him, Jesus says that, in order to be His true followers, we must die to self. If we call ourselves “Christians,” then we must deny ourselves and give up our lives for His sake. This may take the extreme form of being martyred for our faith, but even in the most peaceful political settings, we must be willing to lose the self—crucifying self-righteousness, self-promotion, selfish ambitions—in order to be His followers. Those who are not willing to do so are “not worthy” of Him (Matthew 10:38).

So, did Jesus die on a cross? We believe He did. Could it have been a pole or stake instead? Possibly, if we ignore Thomas’s words in John 20:25. But even more important than the shape of the object on which Jesus was crucified is that Jesus shed His blood for our sins and that His death purchased for us eternal life.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ by Stephen Wellum

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

What do John 1:1,14 mean when they declare that Jesus is the Word of God?​

ANSWER

The answer to this question is found by first understanding the reason why John wrote his gospel. We find his purpose clearly stated in John 20:30-31. “Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” Once we understand that John’s purpose was to introduce the readers of his gospel to Jesus Christ, establishing Who Jesus is (God in the flesh) and what He did, all with the sole aim of leading them to embrace the saving work of Christ in faith, we will be better able to understand why John introduces Jesus as “The Word” in John 1:1.

By starting out his gospel stating, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” John is introducing Jesus with a word or a term that both his Jewish and Gentile readers would have been familiar with. The Greek word translated “Word” in this passage is Logos, and it was common in both Greek philosophy and Jewish thought of that day. For example, in the Old Testament the “word” of God is often personified as an instrument for the execution of God’s will (Psalm 33:6; 107:20; 119:89; 147:15-18). So, for his Jewish readers, by introducing Jesus as the “Word,” John is in a sense pointing them back to the Old Testament where the Logos or “Word” of God is associated with the personification of God’s revelation. And in Greek philosophy, the term Logos was used to describe the intermediate agency by which God created material things and communicated with them. In the Greek worldview, the Logos was thought of as a bridge between the transcendent God and the material universe. Therefore, for his Greek readers the use of the term Logos would have likely brought forth the idea of a mediating principle between God and the world.

So, essentially, what John is doing by introducing Jesus as the Logos is drawing upon a familiar word and concept that both Jews and Gentiles of his day would have been familiar with and using that as the starting point from which he introduces them to Jesus Christ. But John goes beyond the familiar concept of Logos that his Jewish and Gentile readers would have had and presents Jesus Christ not as a mere mediating principle like the Greeks perceived, but as a personal being, fully divine, yet fully human. Also, Christ was not simply a personification of God’s revelation as the Jews thought, but was indeed God’s perfect revelation of Himself in the flesh, so much so that John would record Jesus’ own words to Philip: "Jesus said unto him, 'Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, "Show us the Father"?'" (John 14:9). By using the term Logos or “Word” in John 1:1, John is amplifying and applying a concept with which his audience was familiar and using that to introduce his readers to the true Logos of God in Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God, fully God and yet fully man, who came to reveal God to man and redeem all who believe in Him from their sin.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ by Stephen Wellum

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

What is the doctrine of eternal Sonship and is it biblical?​

ANSWER

The doctrine of eternal Sonship simply affirms that the second Person of the triune Godhead has eternally existed as the Son. In other words, there was never a time when He was not the Son of God, and there has always been a Father/Son relationship within the Godhead. This doctrine recognizes that the idea of Sonship is not merely a title or role that Christ assumed at some specific point in history, but that it is the essential identity of the second Person of the Godhead. According to this doctrine, Christ is and always has been the Son of God.

Yes, the eternal Sonship is biblical and is a view that is widely held among Christians and has been throughout church history. It is important, however, to remember when discussing the doctrine of eternal Sonship that there are evangelical Christians on both sides of this debate. This is not to say that this is not an important doctrine, because it is; it simply acknowledges the fact that there are orthodox or evangelical Christians that hold or have held both views. Those that deny the doctrine of eternal Sonship are not denying the triune nature of God or the deity or eternality of Christ, and those that embrace the eternal Sonship of Christ are not inferring that Jesus Christ was anything less than fully God.

Throughout church history the doctrine of eternal Sonship has been widely held, with most Christians believing that Jesus existed as God’s eternal Son before creation. It is affirmed in the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) which states: "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end." It was also later reaffirmed in the fifth century in the Athanasian Creed.

There is considerable biblical evidence to support the eternal Sonship of Christ. First of all, there are many passages that clearly identify that it was “the Son” who created all things (Colossians 1:13-16; Hebrews 1:2), thereby strongly implying that Christ was the Son of God at the time of creation. When one considers these passages, it seems clear that the most normal and natural meaning of the passages is that at the time of creation Jesus was the Son of God, the second Person of the Triune Godhead, thus supporting the doctrine of eternal Sonship.

Second, there are numerous verses that speak of God the Father sending the Son into the world to redeem sinful man (John 20:21; Galatians 4:4; 1 John 4:14; 1 John 4:10) and giving His Son as a sacrifice for sin (John 3:16). Clearly implied in all the passages that deal with the Father sending/giving the Son is the fact that He was the Son before He was sent into the world. This is even more clearly seen in Galatians 4:4-6, where the term “sent forth” is used both of the Son and the Spirit. Just as the Holy Spirit did not become the Holy Spirit when He was sent to empower the believers at Pentecost, neither did the Son become the Son at the moment of His incarnation. All three Persons of the Triune Godhead have existed for all eternity, and their names reveal who they are, not simply what their title or function is.

Third, 1 John 3:8 speaks of the appearance or manifestation of the Son of God: “the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil.” The verb “to make manifest” or “appeared” means to make visible or to bring to light something that was previously hidden. The idea communicated in this verse is not that the second Person of the trinity became the Son of God, but that the already existing Son of God was made manifest or appeared in order to fulfill God’s predetermined purpose. This idea is also seen in other verses such as John 11:27 and 1 John 5:20.

Fourth, Hebrews 13:8 teaches that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever.” This verse again seems to support the doctrine of eternal Sonship. The fact that Jesus’ divine nature is unchanging would seem to indicate that He was always the Son of God because that is an essential part of His Person. At the incarnation Jesus took on human flesh, but His divine nature did not change, nor did His relationship with the Father. This same truth is also implied in John 20:31, where we see John’s purpose in writing his gospel was so that we might “believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” It does not say that He became the Son of God but that He is the Son of God. The fact that Jesus was and is the Son of God is an essential aspect of Who He is and His work in redemption.

Finally, one of the strongest evidences for the eternal Sonship of Christ is the triune nature of God and the eternal relationship that exists among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Particularly important is the unique Father/Son relationship that can only be understood from the aspect of Christ’s eternal Sonship. This relationship is key to understanding the full measure of God’s love for those whom He redeems through the blood of Christ. The fact that God the Father took His Son, the very Son He loved from before the foundation of the world, and sent Him to be a sacrifice for our sins is an amazing act of grace and love that is best understood from the doctrine of eternal Sonship.

One verse that speaks of the eternal relationship between the Father and Son is John 16:28. "I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again, and going to the Father." Implied in this verse is again the fact that the Father/Son relationship between God the Father and God the Son is one that always has and always will exist. At His incarnation the Son “came from the Father” in the same sense as upon His resurrection He returned “to the Father.” Implied in this verse is the fact that if Jesus was the Son after the resurrection, then He was also the Son prior to His incarnation. Other verses that support the eternal Sonship of Christ would include John 17:5 and John 17:24, which speak of the Father’s love for the Son from “before the foundation of the world.”

After one considers the many arguments for the doctrine of eternal Sonship, it should become clear that this is indeed a biblical doctrine that finds much support in Scripture. However, that is not to imply that arguments cannot be made against the doctrine as well, or that all Christians will agree to this doctrine. While it has been the view of the majority of Christian commentators throughout history, there have been several prominent Christians on the other side of the issue as well.

Those that deny the doctrine of eternal Sonship would instead hold to a view that is often referred to as the Incarnational Sonship, which teaches that while Christ preexisted, He was not always the Son of God. Those that hold this view believe Christ became the Son of God at some point in history, with the most common view being that Christ became the Son at His incarnation. However, there are others who believe Christ did not become the Son until sometime after His incarnation, such as at His baptism, His resurrection, or His exaltation. It is important to realize that those who deny the eternal Sonship of Christ still recognize and affirm His deity and His eternality.

Those who hold this view see the Sonship of Christ as not being an essential part of Who He is, but instead see it as simply being a role or a title or function that Christ assumed at His incarnation. They also teach that the Father became the Father at the time of the incarnation. Throughout history many conservative Christians have denied the doctrine of eternal Sonship. Some examples would include Ralph Wardlaw, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Finis J. Dake, Walter Martin, and at one time John MacArthur. It is important to note, however, that several years ago John MacArthur changed his position on this doctrine and he now affirms the doctrine of eternal Sonship.

One of the verses commonly used to support Incarnational Sonship is Hebrews 1:5, which appears to speak of God the Father’s begetting of God the Son as an event that takes place at a specific point in time: “Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee. And again. I will be a Father to Him. And He shall be a Son to Me.” Those who hold to the doctrine of incarnational Sonship point out two important aspects of this verse. 1—that “begetting” normally speaks of a person’s origin, and 2—that a Son is normally subordinate to his father. They reject the doctrine of eternal Sonship in an attempt to preserve the perfect equality and eternality of the Persons of the Triune Godhead. In order to do so, they must conclude that “Son” is simply a title or function that Christ took on at His incarnation and that “Sonship” refers to the voluntary submission that Christ took to the Father at His incarnation (Philippians 2:5-8; John 5:19).

Some of the problems with the Incarnational Sonship of Christ are that this teaching confuses or destroys the internal relationships that exist within the Trinity, because if the Son is not eternally begotten by the Father, then neither did the Spirit eternally proceed from the Father through the Son. Also, if there is no Son prior to the incarnation, then there is no Father either; and yet throughout the Old Testament we see God being referred to as the Father of Israel. Instead of having a triune God eternally existing in three distinct Persons with three distinct names, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, those who hold to the doctrine of incarnational Sonship end up with a nameless Trinity prior to the incarnation, and we would be forced to say that God has chosen not to reveal Himself as He truly is, but only as He was to become. In other words, instead of actually revealing who He is, the Triune God instead chose to reveal Himself by the titles He would assume or the roles that He would take on and not who He really is. This is dangerously close to modalism and could easily lead to false teachings about the nature of God. One of the weaknesses of the doctrine of incarnational Sonship is that the basic relationships existing among the members of the Trinity are confused and diminished. Taken to its logical conclusion, denying the eternal Sonship of Christ reduces the Trinity from the relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to simply Number One, Number Two and Number Three Persons—with the numbers themselves being an arbitrary designation, destroying the God-given order and relationship that exists among the Persons of the Trinity.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ by Stephen Wellum

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

If His name was Yeshua, why do we call Him Jesus?​

ANSWER

Some people claim that our Lord should not be referred to as “Jesus.” Instead, we should only use the name “Yeshua.” Some even go so far as to say that calling Him “Jesus” is blasphemous. Others go into great detail about how the name “Jesus” is unbiblical because the letter J is a modern invention and there was no letter J in Greek or Hebrew.



Yeshua is the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Joshua.” Iesous is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Jesus.” Thus, the names “Joshua” and “Jesus” are essentially the same; both are English pronunciations of the Hebrew and Greek names for our Lord. (For examples of how the two names are interchangeable, see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV. In both cases, the word Jesus refers to the Old Testament character Joshua.)

Changing the language of a word does not affect the meaning of the word. We call a bound and covered set of pages a “book.” In German, it becomes a buch. In Spanish, it is a libro; in French, a livre. The language changes, but the object itself does not. As Shakespeare said, “That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet” (Romeo and Juliet, II:i). In the same way, we can refer to Jesus as “Jesus,” “Yeshua,” or “YehSou” (Cantonese) without changing His nature. In any language, His name means “The Lord Is Salvation.”

As for the controversy over the letter J, it is much ado about nothing. It is true that the languages in which the Bible was written had no letter J. But that doesn’t mean the Bible never refers to “Jerusalem” or “Judah.” And it doesn’t mean we cannot use the spelling “Jesus.” If a person speaks and reads English, it is acceptable for him to spell things in an English fashion. Spellings can change even within a language: Americans write “Savior,” while the British write “Saviour.” The addition of a u (or its subtraction, depending on your point of view) has nothing to do with whom we’re talking about. Jesus is the Savior, and He is the Saviour. Jesus and Yeshuah and Iesus are all referring to the same Person.

The Bible nowhere commands us to only speak or write His name in Hebrew or Greek. It never even hints at such an idea. Rather, when the message of the gospel was being proclaimed on the Day of Pentecost, the apostles spoke in the languages of the “Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene” (Acts 2:9–10). In the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was made known to every language group in a way they could readily understand. Spelling did not matter.

We refer to Him as “Jesus” because, as English-speaking people, we know of Him through English translations of the Greek New Testament. Scripture does not value one language over another, and it gives no indication that we must resort to Hebrew when addressing the Lord. The command is to “call on the name of the Lord,” with the promise that we “shall be saved” (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:32). Whether we call on Him in English, Korean, Hindi, or Hebrew, the result is the same: the Lord is salvation.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ by Stephen Wellum

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

If His name was Yeshua, why do we call Him Jesus? | GotQuestions.org​

Got Questions Ministries




Yeshua, Yahushua, Iesous, or Jesus, what is Jesus’ real name? In this video we’ll look at the name Yeshua meaning, the name Iesous meaning, and the name Jesus meaning, to explain the differences between the Hebrew and Greek. Today, Pastor Nelson with Bible Munch answers the questions, “If His name was Yeshua, why do we call Him Jesus?”


*** Curious about Bible Munch? Go check them out! / biblemunch

Is Yeshua Hamashiach the proper Hebrew name/title for Jesus Christ?​

ANSWER

Yeshua Hamashiach means “Jesus the Messiah.” The name Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Yeshua, which is the shortened form of the name Yehoshua. From this Hebrew word we also get the name Joshua (Joshua 5:15) or Hoshea (Numbers 13:8; Deuteronomy 32:44). The name means “salvation” and is found more than often throughout the Old Testament. This is the name from which we get the Greek word Iesous, prounounced “yay-sus,” or as we say it, “Jesus.”

According to Messianic Jewish scholar Dr. Michael Brown, “The original Hebrew-Aramaic name of Jesus is yeshuˈa, which is short for yehōshuˈa (Joshua), just as Mike is short for Michael. The name yeshuˈa occurs 27 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, primarily referring to the high priest after the Babylonian exile, called both yehōshuˈa (see, e.g., Zechariah 3:3) and, more frequently, yeshuˈa (see, e.g., Ezra 3:2). So, Yeshua’s name was not unusual; in fact, as many as five different men had that name in the Old Testament. And this is how that name came to be ‘Jesus’ in English” (Brown, Michael L. “What Is the Original Hebrew Name for Jesus? And Is It True That the Name Jesus Is Really a Pagan Corruption of the Name Zeus?” Ask Dr. Brown. Jan 3, 2013. Web. Dec 27, 2016).

The Hebrew term Mashiach (or Messiah in English; Cristos, or Christ, in Greek) means “anointed one” and referred to a person who was set apart to serve Yahweh. In the Old Testament, God’s mashiachs were anointed with oil to symbolize the presence and authority of the Holy Spirit (Leviticus 4:3; 1 Samuel 12:14; 2 Samuel 19:21). God had promised Israel an ultimate Mashiach, or Messiah, and gave over 300 prophecies about this Anointed One so that they would recognize Him when He came (Isaiah 53:1; Psalm 22:27; 10:1–4; Daniel 9:25; 7:13). Jesus fulfilled every one of them, thus deserving the title Yeshua Hamaschiach for the Jewish people.

However, Jesus came into the world to offer salvation and forgiveness to everyone who calls upon His name (John 3:16–18; Acts 2:21). Surrounding His throne for all eternity will be people from “every nation, tribe, and tongue” (Revelation 7:9). God is not offended by our languages or our differences. Throughout the Bible, Yahweh even identified Himself by different names as He dealt with people in different ways (Exodus 3:14; Isaiah 48:12; Revelation 1:8). Jesus called Himself the “Son of Man” (Matthew 26:24; Luke 22:22), and others called Him “Teacher” (Matthew 8:19) and “Rabbi” (John 1:49). He never corrected anyone’s pronunciation or use of a messianic title, as long as the person came to Him in faith.

So the name we use for the Son of God, when we come to Him in faith, appears to be unimportant to Him. He hears our hearts, anyway, regardless of the words our mouths are speaking (Luke 9:47). In the words of Dr. Brown, “Do not be ashamed to use the name JESUS! That is the proper way to say his name in English—just as Michael is the correct English way to say the Hebrew name mi-kha-el and Moses is the correct English way to say the Hebrew name mo-sheh. Pray in Jesus’ name, worship in Jesus’ name, and witness in Jesus’ name. And for those who want to relate to our Messiah’s Jewishness, then refer to him by His original name Yeshua—not Yahshua and not Yahushua—remembering that the power of the name is not in its pronunciation but in the person to whom it refers, our Lord and Redeemer and King” (ibid.).

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ by Stephen Wellum

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

What does Immanuel mean?​

ANSWER

Immanuel is a masculine Hebrew name meaning “God with us” or “God is with us.” The name Immanuel appears in the Bible three times, twice in the Old Testament book of Isaiah (7:14 and 8:8), and once in the Gospel of Matthew (1:23).

An alternate spelling of the name Immanuel is Emmanuel, which comes from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. Immanuel, spelled with an I, is the translation of the original Hebrew name into English, whereas Emmanuel, spelled with an E, is a translation of a translation (from Hebrew to Greek to English).

In the book of Isaiah, a child born in the time of King Ahaz was given the name Immanuel as a sign to the king that Judah would receive relief from attacks by Israel and Syria: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). The name Immanuel betokened the fact that God would establish His guiding and protecting presence with His people in this deliverance. A second, far-reaching implication of Isaiah’s prophecy about a child named Immanuel concerned the birth of Jesus Christ, Israel’s Messiah.

Seven hundred years after King Ahaz, a virgin from Nazareth named Mary was engaged to Joseph. Before they were married, an angel visited Joseph to confirm that Mary had conceived a child through the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20–21). When the child was born, they were to name Him Jesus. Matthew, understanding the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy, delivers this inspired revelation: “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel’ (which means ‘God with us’)” (Matthew 1:22–23).

Jesus fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecy because He was literally “God with us”; He was fully human yet still fully God. Christ came to live in Israel with His people, as Isaiah had foretold. Matthew recognized Jesus as Immanuel, the living expression of the Incarnation—the miracle of the Son of God becoming a human and making His home among us so that He could reveal God to us. Jesus was God with us, manifested in human flesh (1 Timothy 3:16).

The Gospel of John beautifully describes the Incarnation: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. . . . No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known” (John 1:14–18).

In Jesus, God walked with us and talked with us as He did with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Christ’s arrival showed all humanity that God is faithful to fulfill His promises. Jesus was not just a sign of God with us, like the child born in the time of Ahaz. Jesus was God with us in Person.

Jesus is Immanuel. He is not a partial revelation of God with us; Jesus is God with us in all His fullness: “For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body” (Colossians 2:9, NLT). Jesus left the glories of heaven and took on the form of a servant so that He could identify with us in our day-to-day human struggles (Philippians 2:6–11; Hebrews 4:15–16).

Immanuel is our Savior (1 Timothy 1:15). God sent His Son to live among us and die for us on the cross. Through Christ’s shed blood, we can be reconciled to God (Romans 5:10; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Colossians 1:20). When we are born of His Spirit, Christ comes to live in us (2 Corinthians 6:16; Galatians 2:20).

Our Immanuel will be with us forever. After His resurrection from the dead, before Jesus returned to the Father, He made this promise: “I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20, NLT; see also Hebrews 13:5). Nothing can ever separate us from God and His love for us in Christ (Romans 8:35–39).

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ by Stephen Wellum

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

​

Why wasn’t Jesus named Immanuel?​

ANSWER

In the prophecy of the virgin birth, Isaiah 7:14, the prophet Isaiah declares, “The Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” This prophecy had an initial fulfillment during Isaiah’s day, but it ultimately refers to the birth of Jesus, as we see in Matthew 1:22–23: “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel’ (which means ‘God with us’).” This does not mean, however, that the Messiah’s actual given name would be Immanuel.

There are many “names” given to Jesus in the Old and New Testaments, and Immanuel is one of them. Isaiah elsewhere prophesied of the Messiah, “He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6). Jesus was never called by any of those “names” by the people He met in Galilee or Judea, but they are accurate descriptions of who He is and what He does. The angel said that Jesus “will be called the Son of the Most High” (Luke 1:32) and “the Son of God” (verse 35), but neither of those was His given name.

The prophet Jeremiah writes of “a King who will reign wisely” (Jeremiah 23:5), and he gives us the name of the coming Messiah: “And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness’” (Jeremiah 23:6, ESV). Jesus was never called “The Lord Our Righteousness” as a name, but we can call Him that! He brings the righteousness of God to us. He is God in the flesh, and the One who makes us righteous (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21).

George Herman Ruth was named George, of course. But we can call him other things, and we’re talking about the same person: “Babe,” “the Bambino,” “the Sultan of Swat,” or “the Colossus of Clout.” The names for Babe Ruth multiplied due to his personal history and his signature talent on the ballfield. In a similar way, we can call Jesus by His given name, but we can also call Him “Immanuel.” Or “Wonderful,” “Counselor,” “Prince of Peace,” or “The Lord Our Righteousness.” The names of Jesus Christ multiply due to His divine nature and miraculous work.

To say that Jesus would be called “Immanuel” means Jesus is God, that He dwelt among us in His incarnation, and that He is always with us. Jesus was God in the flesh. Jesus was God making His dwelling among us (John 1:1, 14). God keeps His promises. The virgin Mary bore a son. Two thousand years ago, in Bethlehem, we see that baby born and lowered into the hay for a resting place. That baby, as incredible as it seems, is God. That Baby is God with us. Jesus, as our Immanuel, is omnipotence, omniscience, perfection, and the love that never fails—with us.

No, Joseph did not name Jesus “Immanuel,” but Jesus’ nature makes Him truly Immanuel, “God with us.” Isaiah told us to watch for Immanuel, the virgin-born Son of God. He will save us; He will reconcile people to God and restore creation to its original beauty. We know Him as Jesus, but we can also call Him “God with us,” because that’s exactly who He is.

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ by Stephen Wellum

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!

The Jesus Papers - what are they?​

ANSWER

In 2006, author Michael Baigent released a book entitled The Jesus Papers. The subtitle of the book is Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up in History. The supposed cover-up exposed by The Jesus Papers is that Jesus survived the crucifixion and was alive as late as AD 45. The Jesus Papers themselves are documents that "prove" the conspiracy theory, including documents supposedly written by Jesus Himself.

The gist of the book is that Jesus and Pontius Pilate made a secret agreement that Jesus would not be killed, but rather would be crucified and then rescued. Pilate did not want to crucify Jesus—likely the only concept in which The Jesus Papers and the biblical gospels agree. However, Pilate was under great pressure to please the Jewish authorities and prevent a riot. So, during one of the private discussions between Jesus and Pilate, they arranged the scheme. Further biblical evidence of this conspiracy, according to The Jesus Papers, is the fact that Jesus "died" so quickly, and that Pilate allowed Jesus’ body to be removed from the cross after only a few hours.

There are many, many problems with this conspiracy theory. (1) It is highly unlikely that anyone could survive crucifixion. While the historian Josephus records a friend of his surviving crucifixion, the odds would be astoundingly low. (2) Each of the four biblical gospels specifically records Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection three days later. Jesus "gave up His spirit" (John 19:30; Luke 23:46). (3) If Jesus had survived the crucifixion, the disciples would have clearly seen that Jesus had not been resurrected. The wounds of crucifixion would have rendered Jesus crippled for months. Why would the disciples all be willing to die horrendous deaths for a belief in Jesus’ resurrection, which they all knew to be a lie? (4) Why would Pontius Pilate, a brutal Roman governor, be willing to negotiate a deal with a "trouble-maker" from Galilee? Pilate ordered the torture and crucifixion of hundreds of people. He would have had no good reason to spare Jesus’ life.

Like most conspiracy theories, The Jesus Papers is high on conspiracy and low on evidence. Even the author admits that it is an unprovable theory. Further, the author admits that neither he nor anyone else has ever actually seen the supposed document that proves Jesus survived the crucifixion. There is not even a shred of evidence for The Jesus Papers theory, whether in the Bible or in history. The real issue here is the authority of Scripture. The Bible is the very Word of God, given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit to the men who penned it (2 Timothy 3:16). Its prophecies, histories and science are 100 percent accurate, and its authenticity has been miraculously preserved through countless translations over thousands of years. Most of all, unlike frauds like The Jesus Papers and The DaVinci Code, the power of God to transform lives exists in its pages. God’s extraordinary plan for the salvation of mankind is the central theme of His book. Jesus died on the cross, as the atoning sacrifice for our sins, just as the Bible says He did (1 John 2:2).

FOR FURTHER STUDY​

God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ by Stephen Wellum

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!