God: Who or What?

"But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles— to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'" -- Acts 26:16-18 (ESV)

Isn't it interesting? As Paul retells the story of his conversion experience he notes that when Jesus appeared to him, he appeared with instructions regarding Paul's life mission; i.e. to open the eyes of the spiritually blinded and turn them from "the power of Satan to God." He also said that in their turning to God, they would "receive forgiveness of sins ... by faith in me [Jesus]." So, we have Jesus appearing to Paul and speaking to him about pointing people to God through faith in Himself!

Clearly, God is referenced as a distinctly separate being from Jesus. Note that Jesus did not say that Paul would turn them from the power of Satan to Me! It is, of course, by faith in Jesus that men come to God. This is in complete agreement with what Jesus said himself in the gospels (which we noted in the last blog post (John 14:1-6).

It is very curious to me that people don't seem to pay much attention to the word "God" as it is used in the English language. For example, in today's Christian culture if someone is heard uttering the phrase "God damn", it is considered taking the Lord's name in vain. Now, let's think about that for a moment. It may be crude and improper to say such a thing, especially when it is directed toward another human being. We do not wish for God to damn anyone and it is vulgar to say it. However, we must ask ourselves, "in what way is using this term taking God's Name in vain?"

It seems to me many people have a serious misunderstanding of the definition of God! God, as it applies to OUR God, the Father of the lord Jesus Christ, is a designation for the Supreme Being - the Creator and Originator of Life. God's Name however, is Yahweh, or Jehovah! So sacred is that Name, that ancient Jews would not dare to speak it or even write it; hence the letters YHWH (known as the tetragrammaton), to avoid actually using the proper Name. In the King James Bible, where the tetragrammaton appeared, the translators supplied the term "LORD." The word God is descriptive of "what" He is, just as "man" describes what we are. Yahweh, on the other hand, is descriptive of "who" He is - it is His Name!

Now, here is where it gets confusing. If, as orthodoxy suggests, God is a tri-unity, then when we use the word God, it is understood that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is meant. In speaking, or writing the term God, we must already have in our minds a being who is three persons, yet only one (a concept that, of course, makes no logical sense at all). But if "God" describes the divine Trinity, what sense would it make for any New Testament writer to use it in the same sentence with the terms Father, Jesus, or Holy Spirit?

For example: In Rom 1:8 Paul says "I thank my God through Jesus Christ." Why would it be necessary for Paul to thank God "through" Jesus Christ, if Jesus is already God. If thanks was intended for one person of the Godhead, it would make better sense to simply say "I thank the Father", or "I thank Jesus", or "the Spirit." Or, if thanks were meant for two it might be said "I thank the Father, with Jesus", etc. Otherwise, it would be just as accurate to say "I thank God" without qualifying it further, knowing that the term "God" includes the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Now then, if when God and Jesus appear together the word God is taken as meaning "the Father" it would make sense to use the words together, i.e. "I thank the Father through Jesus Christ", but that raises another big problem! Using the word God to mean "Father" would not work because in Rom 1:7 and many other places in the NT, Paul greets Christians with the familiar greeting "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." In this case, if God already means "Father" it would not only be unnecessary to qualify God as "our Father", it would make the sentence extremely awkward. One would simply expect Paul to say Grace to you and peace from God.

Needless to say, this whole argument is rather silly! Just as silly, I would suggest, as the idea that the Bible actually instructs us in the idea that God is three persons in one, and that Jesus is both fully human AND fully God at the same time! Why must we complicate the relationship between God and Jesus when that relationship is plainly stated in Scripture (with the exception of a couple of verses) as Father and Son? The only reason that can be given is that the tradition of the Trinity has become so firmly seated that it is difficult to think outside the box that has been created for us. As we have seen, both here and in the last post from the book of Acts, neither Paul nor Luke seem to have had any concept of Jesus being God, or of God being a Trinity.

I hope this point about "God" makes sense to somebody. If not, please show me where I am wrong.

Gob bless,

Keith

"Innocent of blood"

Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. --Acts 20:26-27 (ESV)

While reading through the book of Acts I took notice of this phrase "innocent of the blood of all of you." These words, found in Acts 20:26 are a Hebrew idiom. It is likely that the saying has it's roots in Ezekiel 33, especially verse 8 where it says,

"If I say to the wicked, O wicked one, you shall surely die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked person shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand" Ezek 33:8 (ESV)

Paul declares his innocence of the blood of all men, i.e. that if any man would die a sinner, Paul himself would be free from guilt. Why? Because he "did not shrink from declaring... [to them] the whole counsel of God."

The "whole counsel" means all of God's purpose and plan. In other words, he left nothing out of his teaching and preaching that would keep men in ignorance, or lead them astray, regarding God or His plan of salvation for mankind.

That being the case, we should understand that Paul taught everything the Hebrew Scriptures revealed concerning the kingdom of God, salvation, and the penalty for sin. But he also must have explained fully the purpose and person of Jesus Christ, and who he is in relation to God and His awesome plan! This can be plainly observed in the surrounding context (verses 18-32) where he relates "the gospel of the grace of God" (v24), to "proclaiming the kingdom" (v25), to "the word of his grace" (v32). All of these phrases speak to what Paul said in verse 20, "...I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable..." Acts 20:20 (ESV).

But the most telling verse in this regard, I think, is verse 21.

"testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." Acts 20:21 (ESV)

Here Paul makes a clear distinction between the person of God (The Father) and the person of Jesus (Lord and Christ). The gospel as Paul preached it included both repentance toward God AND faith in the Lord Jesus! Now this may seem insignificant to a "hardcore" trinitarian, but to me it speaks volumes! Here, as in many other places in Paul's own writing, if Luke wanted to suggest that Paul understood God as a trinity, or that Jesus and the Father were the same being wouldn't he just say so? Why not simply say, repentance and faith toward Jesus Christ who is God Almighty -or- who is a divine person within the multi-personal One God?

Certainly there are places where Paul mentions the Father, the Son, and the Spirit together in the same verse or passage, but the appearance of these terms in the same sentence do not constitute oneness of essence. Nowhere in Paul's writing does he couple God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ together as though they were one being. Rather, he always separates the persons, distinguishing between Father, Son, and Spirit, but never suggests, or even hints, that they are one being or one essence! This Scripture (Acts 20:21) simply reveals that Paul taught what the Lord Jesus himself taught.

"...The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." Mark 1:15 (ESV)
"...Believe in God; believe also in me." John 14:1 (ESV)
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6 (ESV)

Repentance toward God means to change your mind toward God and believe the good news about His coming kingdom. Faith in Jesus means putting your trust in Jesus as God's appointed Messiah whom God commissioned to provide the way for us to get into God's kingdom!

The following verses in Paul's letters are very enlightening! If you take the time to read through them, it is easy to see Paul's view of the relationship between God and Christ.

(Rom 1:7; Rom 5:1; 5:11; 6:23; 7:25; 8:39; 10:9; 15:6; 15:30; 16:20; 1Cor 1:2-3; 1:9; 6:11; 8:6; 12:3; 15:57; 2Cor 1:2-3; 11:31; 13:14; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2-3; 1:17; 5:20; 6:23; Phil 1:2; 2:11; Col 1:3; 3:17; 1Thess 1:1-3; 2:15; 3:11-13; 4:1; 5:9; 5:23; 2Thess 1:1-2; 1:8; 1:12; 2:16; 1Tim 1:2; 2Tim 1:2; Philemon 1:2

Now, going on in Acts chapter 20, we come across a phrase in verse 28 which has been the cause of much confusion. But, as is the case with most Scriptures which seem to be contradictory, there are reasonable explanations to clear them up.

"Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood." Acts 20:28 (ESV)

The way this verse reads, it sounds as though Paul is saying that it was God's own blood that was shed for the Church. This, of course, supports the trinitarian view, that Jesus is God. However, there are other renderings of the verse which clarify this issue and make much more sense.

The key to the correct translation of this verse is in the last phrase, "with his own blood." This is the way it is translated in ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV and many others. However, Darby's translation renders the phrase "with the blood of his own." This completely changes how we understand the verse. "His own" would refer to Jesus, who is God's own Son! CEV also translates it such, as does the NET. The NCV says "death of his own Son" which, essentially means the same thing!

Although the translators of the ESV chose to render the verse "with his own blood", they do note the alternate reading of "with the blood of his own." NLT also has a footnote providing the alternate reading "with the blood of His own (Son)". Also, footnotes in HCSB show clearly that some MSS read "church of the Lord" while others read "of the Lord and God". NIV and TNIV both have notes showing the alternate "of the Lord". The NKJV also notes in the margin that "M-Text reads of the Lord and God." As you can see, all authorities, regardless of their choice of translation, recognized the overwhelming evidence on this verse. The footnote in the NET reads as follows:

Or “with his own blood”; Grk “with the blood of his own.” The genitive construction could be taken in two ways: (1) as an attributive genitive (second attributive position) meaning “his own blood”; or (2) as a possessive genitive, “with the blood of his own.” In this case the referent is the Son, and the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. --note 114 on Acts 20:28, NET

The translators of the NET Bible are honest here, I believe. Although they are without doubt trinitarian in their understanding of Scritpure, they apparently understand that rendering the Greek "his own blood" is of no value in making sense of this verse. Given the wide variety of MSS reading's, it cannot be said with certainty that 'his own blood" is the correct translation. In fact, where it is translated such, it is only a preference based on the predisposition to belief in a trinity. I suggest that it is both fair and reasonable that the phrase should most naturally be read as "with the blood of his own."!

It is most informative to read through the book of the Acts of the Apostles. If read with "new eyes" it becomes apparent that we have strayed from the message believed and preached by the early Christians. Most certainly Paul was careful to include all vital information about God, His kingdom, and the Christ. He was free from any guilt - innocent of the blood of all men - because he left nothing to imagine or infer! Paul clearly taught that God was both "The Father" of Jesus and "The God" of Jesus, and that God made Jesus both "Lord" and "Christ", the Head of the Church, and appointed him King of the coming kingdom!