Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

APRIL 10, 2016/SILASZA

“And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.”  Mark 10:17-21

The man who approached Jesus had lot of respect for Jesus:

• He Runs
• He Kneels
• He calls Jesus ‘Good Master’

He see Jesus as an authoritative teacher and looks to him for an answer on the essential question of salvation.

The first thing Jesus does is, directs his attention to his God- Jesus directs the man’s thoughts to God the Father who is the source of eternal life and goodness. Jesus denied he was divine by this statement.

• Jesus states he has a God whom he follows
• The God of Jesus is the true source of goodness.

While Jesus was without sin, He attributes absolute goodness to God and that Jesus himself as a teacher of righteousness, did the will of his Father against his own will at times:

Mat 26:39  And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.“

God’s goodness directed Jesus. He was a well behaved and loved child.

Luk 2:40  And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom. And the favor of God was upon him.

Jesus’ victory has become an example for other fellow humans to  follow. Jesus himself in his life and as a human had a choice: Choose Good or evil. This is also seen through his recorded temptations. Jesus’ victory is that he chose good over evil in its entirety according to the reference of goodness that comes from God. He met God’s standard of Goodness and righteousness.

His victory is summed up thus:

“Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”  Hebrews 1:9

God exalted Jesus for this very reason, because he chose right over wrong. Jesus was not elevated because he was already God or divine but that he had victory over SIN in his own life.

Jesus never promoted a trinity as promoted today. The [orthodox] Christianity of today is “Roman” Christian and not the one Jesus preached. Can one God of the Trinity cannot be ‘more good’ than the other God of the Trinity?

Jesus also demanded similar righteousness and commitment from the rich young man who called Jesus – ‘Good Master’ – i.e. to give up his riches and follow after the example of Jesus.

The above article was taken from: 51 of 100

Is Jesus God in Acts 20.28? by Kermit Zarley

Is Jesus God in Acts 20.28?

Church fathers cited Acts 20.28 as an important New Testament (NT) text which supported their belief that Jesus was God. Some traditionalist Christians still do; but in recent times, their scholars have abandoned it as a support for Christ’s deity.

Luke relates that the Apostle Paul was journeying to Jerusalem when he met with the elders of the church at Ephesus. He said to them, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20.28).

Three problems about Jesus’ identity emerge from this verse. Two of them regard a question about the proper Greek text, and the other problem is grammatical.

The first textual problem with Acts 20.28 is that the Greek (Gr.) manuscripts (MSS) do not agree concerning one word, making it is a matter of textual criticism. The question is whether the Greek (Gr.) text should have the word theou (Gr. for “God”) or the word kuriou (Gr. for “Lord”). English versions slightly favor theou, as the following show:

• “the church of God” (AV, RVmg, RSV, NASB, TEV, JB, NEBmg, NIV, ESV)
• “the church of the Lord” (RV, RSVmg, NASBmg, NEB, NIVmg).

The manuscript (MS) evidence as well as other external witnesses, such as quotations of this verse in patristic writings, is about evenly divided on this matter, as the following show:

• ten ekklesia tou theou (Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, also Latin Vulgate)
• ten ekklesian tou kuriou (Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Bezae, also some versions).

...

The second textual problem with Acts 20.28 is whether the word idiou (“own”) in the Greek text should to be treated as an adjective or a noun. That is, is the correct text tou idiou haimatos (“his own blood”) or tou haimatos tou idiou (“the blood of his own;” some would also translate this “his own blood”)? The former reading lends itself to calling Jesus “God,” and, indeed, it is usually found in MSS that have theou.

...

If theou is authentic in Acts 20.28, there are two primary translations of this verse and three ways to understand it. These are as follows, with commentary appended:

1. “To shepherd the church of God which he purchased with his own blood.” This translation suggests that “God” refers to Jesus since the Father does not have blood. Traditionalist A. W. Wainwright admits, “it is difficult to imagine that the divinity of Christ should have been stated in such a blunt and misleading fashion.” Indeed, this reading led some church fathers to use the even more misleading phrase, “the blood of God.” This translation, however, can also be understood to mean that God the Father purchased the church with Jesus’ blood and that this blood belongs to both God the Father and Jesus Christ (cf. John 17.10).

2. “To shepherd the church of God which he purchased with the blood of his own (One/Son).” This rendering in the UBS’ Greek NT clearly makes “God” refer to the Father, “the blood” belongs to Jesus, and “his own” means the Father’s own Son, viz., Jesus Christ. This rendering, which is preferred by a majority of contemporary scholars, does not call Jesus “God.” Rather, it highlights the intimate union between the Father and his Son. The meaning of this translation is encapsulated in a new song sung to Jesus in heaven, “You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Revelation 5.9).

A very large majority of biblical exegetes in recent decades have treated Acts 20.28 as a passage that does not identify Jesus as God. Even most recent traditionalist commentators, especially those who have written extensively that the NT identifies Jesus as God, have concluded that Acts 20.28 does not do so. For instance, Raymond E. Brown, the preeminent Catholic NT scholar of the latter half of the 20th century, states, “we are by no means certain that this verse calls Jesus God.” Murray Harris deems it “unlikely, although not impossible.” And A. W. Wainwright admits, “this passage cannot be adduced as convincing evidence that Jesus was called God in New Testament times.”

To see a list of over eighty posts on this blog about the Bible not saying Jesus is God, click here. They are condensations of portions of my book, The Restitution of Jesus Christ. Buy this book at kermitzarley.com. I was a Trinitarian for 22 years before reading myself out of it in the Bible.

The above article was taken from:Is Jesus God in Acts 20.28?