Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

If we ask ourselves point blank, whether Paul, as we know his mind from his epistles, would express his sense of Christ's greatness by calling Him God blessed forever, it seems to me almost impossible to answer in the affirmative. Such an assertion is not on the same plane with the conception of Christ which meets us everywhere in the Apostle's writings ;
Notice the ambiguity.

If we call Christ “God blessed forever” it is akin to the doxologies to Christ mentioned by Meyer (who got tripped up by thinking of books as non-authentic and/or non-Pauline.). There is really nothing unusual.

Robertson-Nicoll is not writing about Christ who has these two separate attributes:
“God,
blessed forever.”
 
Last edited:
As Winer and Erasmus allowed for, "Paul" would never have written "Christ after the flesh who is God". That is high Trinitarianism at its highest ever, and was foreign to the apostles:

While this is definitely true, Paul could easily write that Christ is "over all", and that Christ is "God blessed for ever". There are many high Christology verses and doxologies that are consistent with these two.

However the "Christ ... who is God" is not in the New Testament, nor is there any verse that says "Christ is God". The posts above, including some quotes from cjab, show that this is a foreign intrusion attempt that misunderstands God in the New Testament.
 
Brian does not seem to know the basics of the Greek adjectival participle. I’m not surprised.

An adjectival participle can have one of three functions : it can either be attributive, or a substantive or a predicate. It cannot have more than one of the above three functions at the same time, but it must have at least one of the above three mentioned uses. This is not that difficult to follow.

So in Matthew 12:30 for instance the adjectival participle ὁ ὢν is functioning substantivally. It is therefore not functioning attributively or as a predicate. My point, which Brian is unable to grasp ( because he does not understand the grammar of asjectival participles) is that ὁ ὢν in the GNT always functions substantivally. The one or two counter examples I have seen are not convincing. So to argue that it is functioning attributively at Romans 9:5 is not in keeping with the NT precedent. Or at least not in keeping with how it normally functions in the GNT.
 
So in Matthew 12:30 for instance the adjectival participle ὁ ὢν is functioning substantivally. It is therefore not functioning attributively or as a predicate. My point, which Brian is unable to grasp ( because he does not understand the grammar of asjectival participles) is that ὁ ὢν in the GNT always functions substantivally. The one or two counter examples I have seen are not convincing. So to argue that it is functioning attributively at Romans 9:5 is not in keeping with the NT precedent. Or at least not in keeping with how it normally functions in the GNT.
In Matthew 12:30 there is no following noun, but in Rom 9:5 there is (unusually) i.e. theos. Surely that is an important distinction that could allow ὢν to act attributively along with its participle clause.
 
In Matthew 12:30 there is no following noun, but in Rom 9:5 there is (unusually) i.e. theos. Surely that is an important distinction that could allow ὢν to act attributively along with its participle clause.

Are you trying to take the following -- ὢν [ἐπὶ πάντων] Θεὸς -- as being in the first attributive position (article - participle - noun)?
 
That’s the same sort of thing Brian is doing, except he is taking ὁ ὢν in the second attributive position as follows — ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς. Both constructions are quite alien indeed to the grammar of the GNT with reference to ὁ ὢν.

Much more likely is that ὁ ὢν is functioning as either the Subject or the predicate (nominative) of the following sentence: ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς , εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.
 
That’s the same sort of thing Brian is doing, except he is taking ὁ ὢν in the second attributive position as follows — ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς. Both constructions are quite alien indeed to the grammar of the GNT with reference to ὁ ὢν.

Much more likely is that ὁ ὢν is functioning as either the Subject or the predicate (nominative) of the following sentence: ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς , εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.
I see no argument for a 2nd attributive position, because ὁ ὢν comes after a noun of a different gender and case. I can't see that Paul would have written it, had a 2nd attributive position been his intention, as there were many better ways of writing it.

As for ὁ ὢν 'functioning' in the first attributive position, e.g. per the participle in Eph 3:19, the fact is that it in that position, inarguably.

How one translates ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς as a phrase isn't that important except in terms of style, because its meaning is clear.

As many have remarked, the issue is where the punctuation lies. The real issue is why so many Greek 'fathers' didn't put it before ὁ ὢν. Were the church fathers systemically dishonest? Or is it that we have misunderstood them? Some at least always credited God the Father as "above all."
 
Let us look at what Murray Harris actually said about the “natural association” of God and blessed, on p. 166 of Jesus as God (later affirmed by spin.) It is unclear whether he is actually consistent but this paragraph is incredible! In the past Brian has ignored this paragraph and jumped all over the Harris map.

Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus - 2006 edition, originally 1992
by Murray J. Harris
https://books.google.com/books?id=U9VLAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA166

Not a few scholars who find a reference to Christ in Romans 9:5b, construe θεὸς with ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων,79 “(Christ,) who is God over all.” Alternatively, θεὸς could be taken as being in apposition to ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων (Prümm 140) “(Christ,) who, as God, is/rules over all.”80 Both of these constructions sever the natural association of θεὸς with εὐλογητὸς and cohere better with the word order ὁ ὢν θεὸς ἐπὶ πάντων. Also, as Cranfield notes (Romans 469), if Paul had said that Christ is “God over all,” he could have been misunderstood to suggest “that Christ is God to the exclusion of, or in superiority over, the Father."

79. Olshausen 326; Philippi 68; B. Weiss, Theology 1:393 and n. 5; Alford 2:405; Schlatter,
Gerechtigkeit 295; Nygren 358; Faccio 110, 135; O. Michel, Römer 229. See also table 4, no. 6.

80. Cf. Cassirer: “(Christ...,) he who rules as God over all things.”

Rejected as breaking the natural association of God and blessed!

“(Christ,) who is God over all.”
“(Christ,) who, as God, is/rules over all.”

We can call this the elephant in the living room.

This actually refutes numerous arguments on opposite sides.
 
Last edited:
As many have remarked, the issue is where the punctuation lies. The real issue is why so many Greek 'fathers' didn't put it before ὁ ὢν. Were the church fathers systemically dishonest? Or is it that we have misunderstood them? Some at least always credited God the Father as "above all."
A more basic question comes from the post above. Why did so many push “Christ, who Is God over all” when that should have have been rejected by:

New Testament dual addressing style - Christ and God distinct
God and blessed connected in the natural association, separating God from Christ
The unnatural word order
Sabellian implications, since God is naturally God the Father
Christ is the natural antecedent for “who is over all”, not the postcedent God

The answer, a doctrinal bandwagon fallacy, faux orthodoxy.
 
Last edited:
Christ is the natural antecedent for “who is over all”, not the postcedent God
Only if you insist on separating ὁ ὢν from θεὸς which isn't a natural thing to do in grammar (i.e. to separate a noun from its article).
Such relies on a fallacy that the participle ὢν is more entitled to the article than θεὸς. I cannot find anything in any grammar that suggests such is feasible, which amounts to a special pleading for ὢν as a substantive in a position where it doesn't even appear as one but as attributive in the first position following normal attributive rules.

By Eph 4:6 God the Father is the "only referent" of ἐπὶ πάντων.
faux orthodoxy.
I agree.
 
Only if you insist on separating ὁ ὢν from θεὸς.

Murray Harris above says if you want them connected you should have:

the word order
ὁ ὢν θεὸς ἐπὶ πάντων

In which case you do not have the God blessed natural association that is in the actual text.

=========

This is the same type of word order argument you made here:

Second you've overlooked that if Paul had intended to say (as you suggest), "Christ according to the flesh is God above all," then Paul's meaning is really "Christ is God according to the flesh and above all". Thus he would have written "Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν Θεὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων."
 
Last edited:
Murray Harris above says if you want them connected you should have:

the word order
ὁ ὢν θεὸς ἐπὶ πάντων

In which case you do not have the God blessed natural association that is in the actual text.

=========

This is the same type of word order argument you made here:
Personally I find arguments about the word order irritating.

Seems to me grammatically speaking the following could all have been used.

ὁ ὢν θεὸς ἐπὶ πάντων
ὁ θεὸς ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων
ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ πάντων ὢν
ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς ὢν
θεὸς ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων ὢν
θεὸς ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων

The main point isn't the word order, which I see as a diversion, but (1) why Christ is being posited as "above all" in contradistinction to the Father in Eph 4:6, which is unnatural, and (2) why ὁ ὢν is being held to be "naturally" separated from its alleged antecedent by another noun of a different case and gender, and (3) why it is insisted upon that ὁ ὢν be a relative when there are other examples of ὁ ὢν starting a new sentence. Why do the Trinitarian commentators not address these issues?
 
Last edited:
Personally I find arguments about the word order irritating
Depends.
You made one, and it was pretty good.
As for the one by Murray Harris, it is good as well, for one thing you need something to break the natural association of God and blessed.
 
Murray Harris above says if you want them connected you should have:

the word order
ὁ ὢν θεὸς ἐπὶ πάντων

In which case you do not have the God blessed natural association that is in the actual text.

=========

This is the same type of word order argument you made here:

The same could be said for the supposed second attributive position -- ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς, that the word order should be ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν Θεὸς ἐπὶ πάντων !
 
Depends.
You made one, and it was pretty good.
As for the one by Murray Harris, it is good as well, for one thing you need something to break the natural association of God and blessed.

Murray Harris seems to realize that to take ὁ ὢν in Romans 9:5 attributively (first attributive position) is odd. How does he understand the grammar here ?
 
Personally I find arguments about the word order irritating.

Seems to me grammatically speaking the following could all have been used.

ὁ ὢν θεὸς ἐπὶ πάντων
ὁ θεὸς ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων
ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ πάντων ὢν
ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς ὢν
θεὸς ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων ὢν
θεὸς ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων


The main point isn't the word order, which I see as a diversion, but (1) why Christ is being posited as "above all" in contradistinction to the Father in Eph 4:6, which is unnatural, and (2) why ὁ ὢν is being held to be "naturally" separated from its alleged antecedent by another noun of a different case and gender, and (3) why it is insisted upon that ὁ ὢν be a relative when there are other examples of ὁ ὢν starting a new sentence. Why do the Trinitarian commentators not address these issues?
The problem is that in none of your above variations (bold) is ὁ ὢν functioning attributively .
 
Back
Top