Unitarianism vs Trinitarianism

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
19,473
13,535
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
We are told by the church, from the 4th century on - A.D. 381 being the key date - that God is the Trinity.

Why are we not told this in scripture? Why is God never called the Trinity in the Bible?
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
19,473
13,535
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
The one God, in the Bible, is the God of Israel; the God of Jerusalem.
 

RLT63

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2022
4,051
2,600
113
Montgomery
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The one God, in the Bible, is the God of Israel; the God of Jerusalem.
2 Peter 1:1 Notes
tn The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. In fact, the construction occurs elsewhere in 2 Peter, strongly suggesting that the author’s idiom was the same as the rest of the NT authors’ (cf., e.g., 1:11 [“the Lord and Savior”], 2:20 [“the Lord and Savior”]). The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, theos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, sōtēr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on the application of Sharp’s rule to 2 Pet 1:1, see ExSyn 272, 276-77, 290. See also Titus 2:13 and Jude 4.
Titus 2:13
13 as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Matthias

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
18,228
7,599
113
56
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ.
This proves that the deity of Christ is EXTREMELY unclear, given the ‘clearest’ statement has the equally valid reference of 2 people.
 

RLT63

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2022
4,051
2,600
113
Montgomery
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This proves that the deity of Christ is EXTREMELY unclear, given the ‘clearest’ statement has the equally valid reference of 2 people.
It's one of the clearest, not the only one.
Notes on John 1:1
tn The preposition πρός (pros) implies not just proximity, but intimate personal relationship. M. Dods stated, “Πρός…means more than μετά or παρά, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another” (“The Gospel of St. John,” The Expositors Greek Testament, 1:684). See also Mark 6:3, Matt 13:56, Mark 9:19, Gal 1:18, 2 John 12.
sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.
tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (theos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
18,228
7,599
113
56
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It's one of the clearest, not the only one.
You missed my point. The Bible says many times God, the Father and Jesus - 2 Beings. This time it omits the Father and trinitarians claim the and refers to one person.

John 1:1 does not even reference Jesus but you credit it anyway.
 

RLT63

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2022
4,051
2,600
113
Montgomery
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You missed my point. The Bible says many times God, the Father and Jesus - 2 Beings. This time it omits the Father and trinitarians claim the and refers to one person.

John 1:1 does not even reference Jesus but you credit it anyway.
The editors of the NET Bible and I disagree with you
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
19,473
13,535
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
2 Peter 1:1 Notes
tn The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. In fact, the construction occurs elsewhere in 2 Peter, strongly suggesting that the author’s idiom was the same as the rest of the NT authors’ (cf., e.g., 1:11 [“the Lord and Savior”], 2:20 [“the Lord and Savior”]). The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, theos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, sōtēr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on the application of Sharp’s rule to 2 Pet 1:1, see ExSyn 272, 276-77, 290. See also Titus 2:13 and Jude 4.
Titus 2:13
13 as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

See Moulton-Howard-Turner, Grammar, Vol. III for the trinitarian argument against the Rule (“Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure…”) you’re offering for my consideration.

Raymond Brown (my favorite Roman Catholic scholar) lists the passages in a section of his book Jesus God and Man as “dubious”.

I personally wouldn’t hang my hat on a faulty Rule and a dubious rendering, especially vs. the Messiah’s own Jewish monotheism.

Here’s something for you to consider though: just because the Rule isn’t a sure thing and the rendering you prefer is dubious doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s wrong. For the sake of discussion, let’s say that it’s right.

In Jewish monotheism someone who absolutely isn’t God himself can be - and sometimes is - still called God; the Jewish law of agency. It doesn’t prove that Jesus is the God of Israel / the God of Jerusalem.

There are no passages of scripture where “God” can be demonstrated to mean the Trinity. If there was, church history would look nothing like what it does.

There are very few passages of scripture put forward by trinitarian scholarship as identifying Jesus as God.

We know that neither Jesus nor the Trinity is identified as the God of Israel / the God of Jerusalem in the Bible. If they were, church history would look nothing like it does.

There are passages of scripture which you yourself have commented support my position.

We know, or should, that the God of Israel / the God of Jerusalem in scripture is only one person. The security for this is Jesus - his God is the God of Israel / the God of Jerusalem.

In addition to Jesus himself being a unitarian man, I have OT and NT history in my favor.

The transition period - the Ante-Nicene centuries - works better for me than it does for you - the church is slowly moving away from Jewish monotheism but hasn’t yet delivered trinitarianism. The mere fact that it is acknowledged and documented in church history as a transition from the unitarianism of Israel to post-biblical trinitarianism grounds my position in historical precedence.

What you have in your favor is the teaching of the church since the 4th century - Nicaea* (325), Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451).

It boils down to Dr. Brown’s excellent question about legitimacy.

* As church history comfirms, Nicaea didn’t secure trinitarianism; Constantinople did.
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
18,228
7,599
113
56
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The editors of the NET Bible and I disagree with you
Of course. You have to retreat to opinion because the facts are not on your side.

P1. Hosea 11:9 explicitly says God is not a man.
P2. Jesus is a man (explicitly stated numerous times)
C. ?

Trinitarians want to subordinate explicit text to verses they say imply that a man is God.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
19,473
13,535
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
The one God, in the Bible, is the God of Israel; the God of Jerusalem.

The Bible taught me that the one God (the God of Israel / the God of Jerusalem) is the God and Father of Jesus.

The church taught me that the one God is the Trinity.

Church history taught me that the church transitioned from unitarianism to trinitarianism.

Dr. Brown asked me to consider whether or not the transition - a seismic theological shift and transformation in the identification of the one God - was legitimate or not. (Dr. Brown affirms that it was. I affirm that it wasn’t.)
 

RLT63

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2022
4,051
2,600
113
Montgomery
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
See Moulton-Howard-Turner, Grammar, Vol. III for the trinitarian argument against the Rule (“Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure…”) you’re offering for my consideration.

Raymond Brown (my favorite Roman Catholic scholar) lists the passages in a section of his book Jesus God and Man as “dubious”.

I personally wouldn’t hang my hat on a faulty Rule and a dubious rendering, especially vs. the Messiah’s own Jewish monotheism.

Here’s something for you to consider though: just because the Rule isn’t a sure thing and the rendering you prefer is dubious doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s wrong. For the sake of discussion, let’s say that it’s right.

In Jewish monotheism someone who absolutely isn’t God himself can be - and sometimes is - still called God; the Jewish law of agency. It doesn’t prove that Jesus is the God of Israel / the God of Jerusalem.

There are no passages of scripture where “God” can be demonstrated to mean the Trinity. If there was, church history would look nothing like what it does.

There are very few passages of scripture put forward by trinitarian scholarship as identifying Jesus as God.

We know that neither Jesus nor the Trinity is identified as the God of Israel / the God of Jerusalem in the Bible. If they were, church history would look nothing like it does.

There are passages of scripture which you yourself have commented support my position.

We know, or should, that the God of Israel / the God of Jerusalem in scripture is only one person. The security for this is Jesus - his God is the God of Israel / the God of Jerusalem.

In addition to Jesus himself being a unitarian man, I have OT and NT history in my favor.

The transition period - the Ante-Nicene centuries - works better for me than it does for you - the church is slowly moving away from Jewish monotheism but hasn’t yet delivered trinitarianism. The mere fact that it is acknowledged and documented in church history as a transition from the unitarianism of Israel to post-biblical trinitarianism grounds my position in historical precedence.

What you have in your favor is the teaching of the church since the 4th century - Nicaea* (325), Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451).

It boils down to Dr. Brown’s excellent question about legitimacy.

* As church history comfirms, Nicaea didn’t secure trinitarianism; Constantinople did.
What about Tituss 2:13? Different author same words
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
19,473
13,535
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
What about Tituss 2:13? Different author same words

Same problem.

Raymond Brown - “dubious”

A. Passages with textual variants
1. Galatians 2:20
2. Acts 20:28
3. John 1:18

B. Passages where obscurity arises from syntax
1. Colossians 2:2
2. 2 Thessalonians 1:12
3. Titus 2:13
4. 1 John 5:20
5. Romans 9:5
6. 2 Peter 1:1
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
19,473
13,535
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
While I’ve got Raymond E. Brown at my fingertips @RLT63 :

Texts where Jesus is clearly called God
1. Hebrews 1:8-9
2. John 1:1
3. John 20:28

fwiw, I agree with Brown on Hebrews 1:8-9 and John 20:28. Neither of them causes any difficulty at all for Jewish unitary monotheism.
 

RLT63

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2022
4,051
2,600
113
Montgomery
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Same problem.

Raymond Brown - “dubious”

A. Passages with textual variants
1. Galatians 2:20
2. Acts 20:28
3. John 1:18

B. Passages where obscurity arises from syntax
1. Colossians 2:2
2. 2 Thessalonians 1:12
3. Titus 2:13
4. 1 John 5:20
5. Romans 9:5
6. 2 Peter 1:1
Too bad the "improvements" to this site eliminated the feature that linked the verses you posted to an online Bible. I will have to look them up
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
19,473
13,535
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
“...it’s own conception of the Trinity was looked upon by the Fathers themselves as a combination of Jewish monotheism and pagan polytheism, except that to them this combination was a good combination; in fact, it was to them an ideal combination of what is best in Jewish monotheism and of what is best in pagan polytheism, and consequently they gloried in it and pointed to it as evidence of the truth of their belief. We have on this the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa - one of the great figures in the history of the philosophic formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity - and his words are repeated by John of Damascus - the last of the Church Fathers.

The Christian conception of God, argues Gregory of Nyssa, is neither the polytheism of the Greeks nor the monotheism of the Jews and consequently it must be true, for ’the truth passes in the mean between these two conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet, accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality.’”

(Henry Austryn Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 362-363, Second Edition, Revised)

Gregory! What have you done? Jewish monotheism - the monotheism held by Jesus of Nazareth - is heresy. You destroyed the dogma of the Messiah with your trinitarian conception of God.

What will the Messiah say about that when you meet?

Jewish monotheism - the unitary monotheism held not only by Jesus of Nazareth but also by the apostles and the first Christians. The theology of the church changed as the balance in the church changed from Jewish to Gentile. How do we know that happened? By reading Church history.

I read an article - a trinitarian article - this afternoon titled, “What is apostasy and how can I recognize it?” The article takes us, not by accident, to a particular time and place.

“In A.D. 325, the Council of Nicaea convened primarily to take up the issue of Arius and his teaching. Much to Arius’ dismay, the end result was his excommunication and a statement in the Nicene Creed that affirms Christ’s divinity. ‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance of the Father.’

Arius may have died centuries ago, but his spiritual children are still with us to this day in the form of cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and others who deny Christ’s true essence and person. …

It is critical, now more than ever, that every believer pray for discernment, combat apostasy, and contend for the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints.”


When was the faith described in this article delivered to the saints? We don’t have to guess, as the article clearly identifies the date and the location.

Look again at the language contained in the Nicene Creed. It’s important that you do. Listen to it carefully. It’s the language of trinitarianism; it’s not the language of primitive Christianity. A shift has occurred; a massive theological shift. The church of the 4th century doesn’t sound like the church of the 1st century. It doesn’t even sound quite like the church of the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

Where did Dr. Harold O.J. Brown want his readers to be in relation to the shift? Not the Jewish unitary monotheism of Jerusalem; the trinitary monotheism of Nicaea, Constantinople and Chalcedon. Dr. Brown sounded an alarm to the church, warning that it is drifting away from historical orthodox trinitarianism - Return to Chalcedon! Return to Nicaea!

If the reader is persuaded that Dr. Brown’s alarm is legit then the reader should give heed to it.

Which came first: Jewish unitary monotheism or trinitary monotheism? Which form of monotheism was in-place at the time when Jude wrote about the faith which was once and for all delivered to the saints? It wasn’t the unitarianism of Arius, neither was it the trinitarianism of the (revised) Nicene Creed; it was the ancient Jewish unitary monotheism of Israel.

“I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore, be on the alert …” (Acts 20:29-31).

Paul - writing in the middle of the 1st century - sounded the alarm.

Paul’s alarm is the alarm I’m persuaded is legit. It’s his 1st century alarm, not Dr. Brown’s 20th century alarm, that I’m giving heed to.

Please read again the closing sentence of the linked article. It’s important that you do.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
19,473
13,535
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.”

(Proverbs 22:6)

Written by King Solomon. Unitarian.

I wasn’t trained up as a child to be unitarian. I was trained up as a child to be trinitarian.

A day came when I had to ask myself a question: Was I properly trained up as a child?

What if a child is trained up in the way he shouldn’t go? When he is old will he be able to depart from it? Yes, but it’s not easy to depart from what we are taught as children.

Was Solomon trained up right as a child? Yes, but he strayed from what he was taught about the one God. He didn’t remain true to the God of Israel.

Was Jesus trained up right as a child? Yes, and he didn’t stray from what he was taught about the one God. He remained true to the God of Israel.

What Solomon wrote about is a general principle.

Was I properly trained up as a child? Was I properly trained up to believe in the God of Israel?

I thought I was. The [Southern Baptist] Church told me that I was. I still here it’s voice and it still tells me that I was.

What does Solomon‘s voice tell me? Even more decisively, what does Jesus’ voice tell me? They tell me that I wasn’t.

The voice of Jesus (Jerusalem) is stronger than the voice of the [Southern Baptist] Church (Nicaea).
 

RLT63

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2022
4,051
2,600
113
Montgomery
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Same problem.

Raymond Brown - “dubious”

A. Passages with textual variants
1. Galatians 2:20
2. Acts 20:28
3. John 1:18

B. Passages where obscurity arises from syntax
1. Colossians 2:2
2. 2 Thessalonians 1:12
3. Titus 2:13
4. 1 John 5:20
5. Romans 9:5
6. 2 Peter 1:1
Galations 2:20
tn The NA Greek text, NRSV, NJB, TEV, HCSB, and a few others place the phrase “I have been crucified with Christ” at the end of v. 19, but most English translations place these words at the beginning of v. 20.
tn Here δέ (de) has been translated as “So” to bring out the connection of the following clauses with the preceding ones. What Paul says here amounts to a result or inference drawn from his co-crucifixion with Christ and the fact that Christ now lives in him. In Greek this is a continuation of the preceding sentence, but the construction is too long and complex for contemporary English style, so a new sentence was started here in the translation.
tn Grk “flesh.”
tn Or “I live by faith in the Son of God.” See note on “faithfulness of Jesus Christ” in v. 16 for the rationale behind the translation “the faithfulness of the Son of God.”
tc A number of significant witnesses (P B D* F G) have θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ (theou kai Christou, “of God and Christ”) instead of υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ (huiou tou theou, “the Son of God”), found in the majority of mss, including several important ones (א A C D Ψ 0278 33 1175 1241 1739 1881 2464 M lat sy co). The construction “of God and Christ” appears to be motivated as a more explicit affirmation of the deity of Christ (following as it apparently does the Granville Sharp rule). Although Paul certainly has an elevated Christology, explicit “God-talk” with reference to Jesus does not normally appear until the later books (cf., e.g., Titus 2:13, Phil 2:10-11, and probably Rom 9:5). For different arguments but the same textual conclusions, see TCGNT 524.
sn On the phrase because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, ExSyn 116, which notes that the grammar is not decisive, nevertheless suggests that “the faith/faithfulness of Christ is not a denial of faith in Christ as a Pauline concept (for the idea is expressed in many of the same contexts, only with the verb πιστεύω rather than the noun), but implies that the object of faith is a worthy object, for he himself is faithful.” Though Paul elsewhere teaches justification by faith, this presupposes that the object of our faith is reliable and worthy of such faith.
 

RLT63

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2022
4,051
2,600
113
Montgomery
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Same problem.

Raymond Brown - “dubious”

A. Passages with textual variants
1. Galatians 2:20
2. Acts 20:28
3. John 1:18

B. Passages where obscurity arises from syntax
1. Colossians 2:2
2. 2 Thessalonians 1:12
3. Titus 2:13
4. 1 John 5:20
5. Romans 9:5
6. 2 Peter 1:1
Acts 20:28
tn Or “Be on your guard for” (cf. v. 29). Paul completed his responsibility to the Ephesians with this warning.
tn Grk “in which.”
tn Or “guardians.” BDAG 379-80 s.v. ἐπίσκοπος 2 states, “The term was taken over in Christian communities in ref. to one who served as overseer or supervisor, with special interest in guarding the apostolic tradition…Ac 20:28.” This functional term describes the role of the elders (see v. 17). They were to guard and shepherd the congregation.
tc The reading “of God” (τοῦ θεοῦ, tou theou) is found in א B 614 1175 1505 al vg sy; other witnesses have “of the Lord” (τοῦ κυρίου, tou kuriou) here (so P A C* D E Ψ 33 1739 al co), while the majority of the later minuscule mss conflate these two into “of the Lord and God” (τοῦ κυρίου καὶ [τοῦ] θεοῦ, tou kuriou kai [tou] theou). Although the evidence is evenly balanced between the first two readings, τοῦ θεοῦ is decidedly superior on internal grounds. The final prepositional phrase of this verse, διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου (dia tou haimatos tou idiou), could be rendered “through his own blood” or “through the blood of his own.” In the latter translation, the object that “own” modifies must be supplied (see tn below for discussion). But this would not be entirely clear to scribes; those who supposed that ἰδίου modified αἵματος would be prone to alter “God” to “Lord” to avoid the inference that God had blood. In a similar way, later scribes would be prone to conflate the two titles, thereby affirming the deity (with the construction τοῦ κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ following the Granville Sharp rule and referring to a single person [see ExSyn 272, 276-77, 290]) and substitutionary atonement of Christ. For these reasons, τοῦ θεοῦ best explains the rise of the other readings and should be considered authentic.
tn Or “acquired.”
tn 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. See further C. F. DeVine, “The Blood of God,” CBQ9 (1947): 381-408.
sn That he obtained with the blood of his own Son. This is one of only two explicit statements in Luke-Acts highlighting the substitutionary nature of Christ’s death (the other is in Luke 22:19).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.