The Evangelical Universalist Forum

An interesting experiment in Romans


What I did - dowloaded the ESV book of Romans, pasted in into WordPad, then did a global find and replace function.
Find: God
Replace with: the Father

I like it!! The word ‘god’ has lost its reference for many of us - this slight change adds a color to the reading that makes it more meaningful, to me at least. I don’t mean for this to be disrespectful of the text - do you think that Paul would mind??

Here’s a sample paragraph or two.

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with the Father through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of the Father. Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because the Father’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but the Father shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of the Father. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to the Father by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in the Father through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.


Brilliant :exclamation: I loaded the ‘Good News Bible’ into my E-Sword and I’ll be honest, I really like it. It has the same flavor your passages do. I personally am committed to seeing God as ‘our father’ and that commitment has made me to look at and re-think common evangelical ideas about how we view Christ and salvation. As a side note… I know I have said it before, but the JB Phillips translation of the New Testament so speaks to me. :smiley:

Thanks Dave.


Well, in over 95% of cases in which “God” occurs in the New Testament, it refers to the Father.


That was my thinking too - and also, that the word ‘god’ is not a word that has much ‘content’ in society as a whole - it’s more of a generic term that people use without thinking. I actually was thinking of replacing ‘God’ in Romans with ‘Yahweh’, but it just sounds strange to my ear. All in all, “Father” does seem to capture the theological meaning and give more ‘content’ than the generic word.


Dave, I fellowshipped with what is known as ‘sacred namer’ believers. They would not use any names but YAHWAH and YASHUA. Tough bunch. Brings back bad memories of unending conflict and stress.

I like ‘Father’ :laughing:


“Yahweh” is the Hebrew tetragram with vowels inserted, for which the Hebrews later substituted “THE LORD.” I understand the thinking was that the Law required that they do not take His name (Yahweh) in vain, and to make sure they didn’t, they would not ever say the sacred name again.

“Yeshuah” is the Hebrew word for “Joshuah.” The Greek word is “ιησους” (yāsous) which is transliterated into English characters as “Jesus.”
The people with whom you fellowshipped must have been “Christian Judaisers.” There are quite a few of them.


You may be correct but There are all sorts of fringe ideas floating around out there. The folks I knew did use the spelling Yashua, and I have no understanding as to why…

The basic idea is if you did not use the proper name of God and the Messiah, you could receive no blessing, as there was only one name by which we could be saved. They did not call themselves Christian Judaisers… They proclaimed they were Sacred Name followers. There are quite a few of them in the US. Not sure about up in your neck of the woods. Makes for some interesting dialog to say the least. :laughing: But having said that, it is their right and privilege to believe as such. I was working in the music industry and had an opportunity to record music wth a couple of these folks. Salt of the earth… Though I did not hold to their views they did not seem to hold that against me as far as work was concerned. :smiley:
Interesting to say the least. :astonished:


I guess they had in mind Acts 4:12 which reads in the ESV:

However, we are not saved by a name. We are saved by a person.

Unfortunately, the ESV has translated [size=150]ἐν ὡ[/size] as “by which.” I believe it should be translated as “in whom” or “by whom.”

Suppose you go to a store and ask for your money back on a defective item that you purchased. The clerk tells you that he cannot return your money?

“WHAT! Why not? Aren’t you George Simmons, a clerk in this store?”
“Yes, I am.” But I cannot return your money. You’ll have to see James Miller, the manager. There is no other name in the whole store by whom you can receive a refund.

George Simmons is not suggesting that a NAME “James Miller” will give him the refund, but rather the man who bears that name.
The same with Peter telling Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, that we can be saved only by the man who bears the name “Jesus” who is the Anointed One from Nazareth.


Don said:

I am on your side here. I appreciate your explanation, but never did agree with the folks who ‘had to say the right names’ :laughing: