Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς = ὁ .... Θεὸς can only denote the Father, per John 1:1b.
This is another error on your part. θεός can refer to any number of entities/people with or without the article. This is clear from many passages like Philippians 3:19, for example, where the phrase is used to refer to an abdomen: ὧν τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια, ὧν ὁ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία καὶ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ αἰσχύνῃ αὐτῶν, οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες.
So Hippolytus used this clause to refer to the Father, a long time prior to the arrival of the hardcore Trinitarans and pseudo-Sabellians post Nicea.
In the text you quoted above, didn't Hippolytus refer to Jesus using this phrase?
You've got nothing to say except to still critique me? It's you who's give up.
Never fear. I'm still ripping you a new one.
 
This is another error on your part. θεός can refer to any number of entities/people with or without the article. This is clear from many passages like Philippians 3:19, for example, where the phrase is used to refer to an abdomen: ὧν τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια, ὧν ὁ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία καὶ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ αἰσχύνῃ αὐτῶν, οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες.
False gods excepted, obviously.
In the text you quoted above, didn't Hippolytus refer to Jesus using this phrase?
One has to look further afield and consider his whole argument relating to Christ's position in the economy of God.


"And in saying, “God is in thee,” he referred to the mystery of the economy, because when the Word was made incarnate and became man, the Father was in the Son, and the Son in the Father, while the Son was living among men. This, therefore, was signified, brethren, that in reality the mystery of the economy by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin was this Word, constituting yet one Son to God."

In this sense, of "God is in thee", Christ may well be anarthrous Θεός, per Jn 1:1c, and per his economy (which in any event is what Christ conceded in John 10:34-36). But his was a strictly human Θεός : an economic Θεός.

Hence Hippolytus says: οὗτος ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, (anarthrous) Θεός ἐστιν in reference to Jesus.

Hippolytus either doesn't spot the reference to the Father in his alienated "ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς", or else he sees it clearly, but also treats it as a reference to the economy of God (i.e. the Father) comitted to Christ (1 Tim 1:4), the same qualifying Christ as anarthrous Θεός (i.e. the economy of God in Christ).

If this is Hippolytus' argument, or something like it, I'm not sure I agree with it, as it's far too subtle for Paul: such esotericism or casuistry is not his style. One has to ask, is this what Paul really mean here by his plain words? Paul repeats the same themes in his different letters, and Eph 4:6 sets the theme of Rom 9:5 also.

Still, Hippolytus does change Noetus' attributive into an apposition, but he's obviously more keen to make a sermon out of it, than a simplistic grammar point, which doubtless would cut no ice with Noetus and his followers, so I guess it's why he sticks with apposition.

Hippolytus does unambiguously set out to disagree with Noetus that Rom 9:5 means Christ = "God in person", because if it were so, Christ wouldn't then be "the son of God" - a point Hippolytus is keen to stress (unlike Trinitarians who only grudgingly accept it).


Never fear. I'm still ripping you a new one.
I note you've been remarkably silent on what Hippolytus teaches.
 
Last edited:
False gods excepted, obviously.
A single exception negates your premise, and I've given you an exception.
One has to look further afield and consider his whole argument relating to Christ's position in the economy of God.
No. One need only look where he calls the Christ, "ὁ θεὸς ἅνθρωπος γενόμενος." (And there is another "exception." Your position is untenable.)
In this sense, Christ may well be anarthrous Θεός, per Jn 1:1c, and per his economy (which in any event is what Christ conceded in John 10:34-36). But his was a strictly human Θεός : an economic Θεός.

Hence Hippolytus says: οὗτος ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, (anarthrous) Θεός ἐστιν in reference to Jesus.

Hippolytus either doesn't spot the reference to the Father in his alienated "ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς", or else he sees it clearly, but also treats it as a reference to the economy of God (i.e. the Father) comitted to Christ (1 Tim 1:4), the same qualifying Christ as anarthrous Θεός (i.e. the economy of God in Christ).

If this is Hippolytus' argument, or something like it, I'm not sure I agree with it totally, as it's far too subtle for Paul: such esoterism not really being his style. Still, Hippolytus does change Noetus' attributive into an apposition.

After all, Hippolytus does seem to unambiguously set out to disagree with Noetus that Rom 9:5 means Christ = "God in person", because if it were so, Christ wouldn't then be "the son of God" - a point Hippolytus stresses.
I note you've been remarkably silent on what Hippolytus teaches.
I've told you why I'm silent repeatedly: I'm not interested in discussing theology.
 
I note that Hippolytus may see ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς as appositional, in a qualified sense, (i.e. of inferring God in Christ,) but not in the direct sense (i.e. of inferring God as Christ the man).

Hippolytus seems to see καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα as semi-paranthetical.

Thus he clearly reserves the right to grammatically disassociate ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς from what precedes it.

However he also says that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς is qualified by the natural sense of what precedes it, so as to invoke the "generation of God" by natural means - i.e. the idea of the theokotos which is hardly a Pauline concept.

Hi cjab,

I just want to point out that that these two phrases that you quote many times:

ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς

ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς

are really very different.
One has the phrase "God blessed" (the natural association), the other does not.
 
Last edited:
Hippolytus could have written ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς γεγέννηται. He didn't. He just wrote ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς γεγέννηται.

Romans 9:5
ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα· ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν

Romans 9:5 (AV)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.

You would have to demonstrate that the bold words are not grammatically connected. This is totally separate from the issue of whether Christ is God by apposition in Romans 9:5, where you are correct that the idea is unsound. Unsound doctrinally, unsound grammatically.

Oh, wait you are saying that Hippolytus totally left out ὁ Χριστὸς from that section? Unlike the Romans 9:5 text. If so, your point may be totally sound in terms of Hippolytus analysis. (Which is a biggy for brianrw but a nothing for John Milton.)

Hmmm... interesting.
 
Again, the Word is Christ.

What the Bible says is that the Word was made flesh (Jesus Christ.)

John 1:14 (KJV)
And the Word was made flesh,
and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth.
 
You would have to demonstrate that the bold words are not grammatically connected. This is totally separate from the issue of whether Christ is God by apposition in Romans 9:5, where you are correct that the idea is unsound. Unsound doctrinally, unsound grammatically.
There is nothing in the grammar that forbids taking ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς with ὁ Χριστὸς. (Or smaller sections of it, depending on how one understands the text).
 
There is nothing in the grammar that forbids taking ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς with ὁ Χριστὸς. (Or smaller sections of it, depending on how one understands the text).
Yes, the learned men of the AV have:

ὁ Χριστὸς …. ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων

And then separate

θεὸς εὐλογητὸς
 
There is nothing in the grammar that forbids taking ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς with ὁ Χριστὸς. (Or smaller sections of it, depending on how one understands the text).
There is nothing in the grammar that necessitates it either. The issue is, if you personally choose to link ὁ Χριστὸς to ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς, that you to stick to orthodox theology, as Hippolytus pretends to do, with his exegesis of divine economy centred in Christ. However he can't show anywhere else where ὁ Χριστὸς is linked directly to ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς, except by going back to Jn 1, so we should either see Hippolytus as using Rom 9:5 as a basis for a sermon, or else trying to interpret it around Jn 1.
Hi cjab,

I just want to point out that that these two phrases that you quote many times:

ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς

ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς

are really very different.
One has the phrase "God blessed" (the natural association), the other does not.
That's your opinion. I choose not to diassociate ὁ from Θεὸς as it is grammatically unsound (it's a standard participle construction in the first attributive position). I agree however that the AV translators seem to follow Hippolytus here.
A single exception negates your premise, and I've given you an exception.
Rubbish. Your exception is invalid as non-contextual.

No. One need only look where he calls the Christ, "ὁ θεὸς ἅνθρωπος γενόμενος." (And there is another "exception." Your position is untenable.)
Your interpretation of Hippolytus is wrong (earlier mine was too - he's a tricky fellow). He sees θεὸς as anarthrous here (from οὗτος ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, Θεός ἐστιν). As anarthrous Θεός,he is synopsizing Jn 1 at this point.

In any event, your interpretation is 100% Sabellian, which presumably is why you don't wish to discuss theology.
 
You're not qualifying this statement, "anarthrous θεός," with anything meaningful. In an equative construction, the article is placed before the subject. The Word is Christ, it is one of his names (Revelation 19:13), and in John 1:1 he is called "God."
No, "God" isn't his "name". His name is "the Logos" or "the Logos of God" ....

"..... because Θεός as predicate
denotes property or essence (or authority etc), not an individual. Thus, no question arises
as to whether the Logos is the only God or one of many. As for the qualitative
use, apart from its liability to varying interpretations, it should
be rejected both because the existing θείος is not used, and because God
is a 'person' not an attribute. From the theological point, too, we see
that John's use of Θεός (instead of ό Θεός) was not only grammatically
correct, but also reflected his theological conception. At the beginning,
when the Logos was, God was already there. John does not confuse the
Two. The Logos was God and yet he was not the God (which he reserves
for the Father). But that does not make him a whit less God than the
Father, for later in his Gospel he is going to use the dialectic statements
that "I and the Father are One" and '"The Father is greater than I". The
third clause shows a beautiful balance between the two and is the result
of mature reflection on the problem of Godhead." per Chrys C. CARAGOUNIS (Jn 1:1).



Again, the Word is Christ.
As a matter of identity, yes. As a matter of jurisdiction, no.

The Word became Christ (i.e. flesh). This denotes Christ being "sent" by his Father. (You seem to be ignoring the jurisdictional translation.)

John 1:1 does just that. It's not my fault you are not familiar with a basic equative construction involving a predicate nominative.
See Chrys C. CARAGOUNIS - he's a Greek scholar (he's also Grecian). Whatever he says, I tend to believe. Take the issue up with him.

You've lost the point. It's time to move on.


Why don't you let Hippolytus speak for himself? Nowhere does Hippolytus ever contend that Jesus is a generated God. You seem to be missing the point of what he is saying--completely (cf. Against Noetus, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, etc.!). In other words, did you even bother to know Hippolytus' position before lazily misrepresenting it?
He is surprisingly sophisticated. It took me a while to figure out what he was saying.

And he does in the end disappoint, there's no doubt about that.

In similar fashion, you previously misidentified the beliefs of Noetus as those of Hyppolytus. You should be more careful:

Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven, (and entered) into the holy Virgin Mary, in order that, taking the flesh from her, and assuming also a human, by which I mean a rational soul, and becoming thus all that man is with the exception of sin, He might save fallen man, and confer immortality on men who believe in His name. (Against Noetus, 17​

πιστεύσωμεν οὖν, μακάριοι ἀδελφοί, κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀποστόλων ὅτι Θεὸς Λόγος ἀπ' οὐρανῶν κατῆλθεν εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον Μαρίαν, ἵνα σαρκωθεὶς ἐξ αὐτῆς, λαβὼν δὲ καὶ ψυχὴν τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν, λογικὴν δὲ λέγω, γεγονὼς πάντα ὅσα ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος ἐκτὸς ἁμαρτίας, σώσῃ τὸν πεπτωκότα Ἀδὰμ καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν ἀνθρώποις παράσχῃ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ.

Yes, this part of Hippolytus is totally unacceptable. Θεὸς Λόγος = not found in the bible, τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον Μαρίαν = not found in the bible.
καὶ ψυχὴν τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν = assuming a human?????????? (don't see it)


)​
The word of prophecy passes again to Immanuel Himself . . . For he means that He increased and grew up into that which He had been from the beginning, and indicates the return to the glory which He had by nature. This, if we apprehend it correctly, is (we should say) just restored to Him. For as the only begotten Word of God, being God of God, ‘emptied Himself,’ according to the Scriptures, humbling Himself of His own will to that which He was not before, and took unto Himself this vile flesh, and appeared in the ‘form of a servant,’ and ‘became obedient’ to God the Father, ‘even unto death,’ so hereafter He is said to be ‘highly exalted’; and as if well-nigh He had it not by reason of His humanity, and as if it were in the way of grace, He receives the ‘name which is above every name,’ according to the word of the blessed Paul. But the matter, in truth, was not a giving, as for the first time, of what He had not by nature; far otherwise. But rather we must understand a return and a restoration to that which existed in Him at the beginning, essentially and inseparably. And it is for this reason that, when He had assumed, by divine arrangement, the lowly estate of humanity, He said, ‘Father, glorify me with the glory which I had,’ etc.
You can't restore something to someone if that thing is inherently essential and inseparable.

"God of God" = not in the bible.
"begotten Word of God" = not in the bible.

For He was co-existent with His Father before all time, and before the foundation of the world, always had the glory proper to Godhead. (Commentary Fragment)​
I accept this much.



You seem to like to assert a lot, but you certainly are not careful in how you approach these things.
I accept that I find Hippolytus taxing, somewhat garrulous and imprecise himself. The more I read of him, the more suspicious I am of him. It doesn't surprise me that I don't find myself agreeing with him on Rom 9:5.
 
That's your opinion. I choose not to diassociate ὁ from Θεὸς as it is grammatically unsound (it's a standard participle construction in the first attributive position). I agree however that the AV translators seem to follow Hippolytus here.

If I remember right, we discussed this distant supposed definite article before.

Curious - In your opinion, would this be valid?

ὁ Χριστὸς ... ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων ὁ Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς ....
 
If I remember right, we discussed this distant supposed definite article before.

Curious - In your opinion, would this be valid?

ὁ Χριστὸς ... ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων ὁ Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς ....
ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων ὁ Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς on its own would be valid, but unconventional, as convention dictates that ὁ Θεὸς is the subject in such cases, not the predicate (e.g. Eph 4:6. 2 Cor 11:31 etc). (Somestimes ὁ Θεὸς as subject comes after an anarthrous predicate e.g. Jn 4:24/)

On its own it would mean "the one above all is [the] God (i.e. the Father) blessed for ever."

As preceded by "ὁ Χριστὸς" is could mean (if no period) "Christ who is above all is [the] God (i.e. the Father) blessed for ever" i.e. rank Sabellianism.

As preceded by "ὁ Χριστὸς ..." for the reasons I have already articulated about τὸ κατὰ σάρκα clauses being usually parenthetical (nor extending after τὸ κατὰ σάρκα unless there is an obvious reason for it), I decline to comment as to the possibility of a relative.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the learned men of the AV have:

ὁ Χριστὸς …. ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων

And then separate

θεὸς εὐλογητὸς
The learned men of the AV were evidently referring back to the Christ. εὐλογητός is an adjective θεὸς is the noun it modifies. As such the phrase would mean "God blessed (bless-ed) forever" as in "Praise our blessed God." (The order of the adjectives doesn't matter, but in modern English we almost exclusively put blessed with this meaning first.) You seem to be putting the two together to give a different meaning than the text supports.
 
There is nothing in the grammar that necessitates it either. The issue is, if you personally choose to link ὁ Χριστὸς to ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς, that you to stick to orthodox theology, as Hippolytus pretends to do, with his exegesis of divine economy centred in Christ. However he can't show anywhere else where ὁ Χριστὸς is linked directly to ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς, except by going back to Jn 1, so we should either see Hippolytus as using Rom 9:5 as a basis for a sermon, or else trying to interpret it around Jn 1.
People can refer to things in unique and different ways and can even refer to different people and things with the same descriptors. Why do you persist in your logical deficiencies?
Rubbish. Your exception is invalid as non-contextual.
There lie your true colors. You know that your assertion is false, but you continue making it anyway. Then, when you are confronted with a clear passage like John 20:28 ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου where Jesus is clearly referred to as God you make up "contextual" reasons to throw it out. It's not just your arguments that are rubbish.
Your interpretation of Hippolytus is wrong (earlier mine was too - he's a tricky fellow). He sees θεὸς as anarthrous here (from οὗτος ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, Θεός ἐστιν). As anarthrous Θεός,he is synopsizing Jn 1 at this point.
He uses the article with θεός to refer to Jesus in the portion I just quoted. Stop making false and ignorant statements.
In any event, your interpretation is 100% Sabellian, which presumably is why you don't wish to discuss theology.
I've not been discussing my interpretation. Perhaps you can stay on topic?
 
There lie your true colors. You know that your assertion is false, but you continue making it anyway. Then, when you are confronted with a clear passage like John 20:28 ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου where Jesus is clearly referred to as God you make up "contextual" reasons to throw it out. It's not just your arguments that are rubbish.
I've never denied a usage of θεός reserved for humans, per John 10:34-36. It's just that those human Θεοί are not ἐπὶ πάντων, but rather consigned to being "sons of God," excercising the economy of God. In respect of Jesus this is especially true, as Hippolytus concedes the orthodox point that "God is in Christ." Perhaps you could address this issue, before you assert that Christ is the Father.

In fact your interpretation ὁ θεός = ὁ Χριστὸς makes nonsense of many passages in the bible, including 2 Corinthians 5:19.

He uses the article with θεός to refer to Jesus in the portion I just quoted. Stop making false and ignorant statements
Only by your interpretation. The part that I quoted makes it perfectly clear he sees Θεὸς as anarthrous, as per the AV.

I've not been discussing my interpretation. Perhaps you can stay on topic?
Your interpretation of Christ as ὁ Θεὸς has two inferences re Jn 1:1: either Christ and the Father are different aspects of one Θεὸς (Sabellianism) or else there are τώ Θεοί in heaven (polytheism).

Again you decline to address the unpalatable consequences of your speculations.
 
Last edited:
I've never denied a usage of θεός reserved for humans, per John 10:34-36. It's just that those human Θεοί are not ἐπὶ πάντων, but rather consigned to being "sons of God," excercising the economy of God. In respect of Jesus this is especially true, as Hippolytus concedes the orthodox point that "God is in Christ." Perhaps you could address this issue, before you assert that Christ is the Father.
I've never asserted that Christ is the Father. What I've asserted (and proven, by the way) is that ὁ θεός is not always a reference to the Father.
In fact your interpretation ὁ θεός = ὁ Χριστὸς makes nonsense of many passages in the bible, including 2 Corinthians 5:19.
I've never claimed this. I said ὁ θεός can = ὁ Χριστὸς. And this makes nonsense of nothing in the Bible.
Only by your interpretation. The part that I quoted makes it perfectly clear he sees Θεὸς as anarthrous, as per the AV.
That's not my interpretation. It's what he wrote.
Your interpretation of Christ as ὁ Θεὸς has two inferences re Jn 1:1: either Christ and the Father are different aspects of one Θεὸς (Sabellianism)
I haven't offered an interpretation of Christ. You don't know what you're talking about.
or else there are τώ Θεοί in heaven (polytheism).
Butchered Greek like this shows why no one should take you seriously even with a citation. (Hint: οἱ)
Again you decline to address the unpalatable consequences of your speculations.
When something is proven, it isn't speculation. I've proven my assertion. It's not my fault it is inconvenient for you. (And I still have no interest in discussing theology with you.)
 
ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων ὁ Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς on its own would be valid,

And I believe this is how you would expect to see Θεὸς with a definite article.
Interested in comments from others.

as convention dictates that ὁ Θεὸς is the subject in such cases, not the predicate (e.g. Eph 4:6. 2 Cor 11:31 etc). (Somestimes ὁ Θεὸς as subject comes after an anarthrous predicate e.g. Jn 4:24/)

On its own it would mean "the one above all is [the] God (i.e. the Father) blessed for ever."

As preceded by "ὁ Χριστὸς" is could mean (if no period) "Christ who is above all is [the] God (i.e. the Father) blessed for ever" i.e. rank Sabellianism.

With all the glorious scriptures about Christ, I do not see any difficulty in his being over all.

Your last sentence is assuming apposition between Christ and God, filling it in with ellipses.
However in the AV text, using the same Greek, there is no apposition, there is no Sabellianism.

Romans 9:5 (AV)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.
 
Last edited:
The learned men of the AV were evidently referring back to the Christ. εὐλογητός is an adjective θεὸς is the noun it modifies. As such the phrase would mean "God blessed (bless-ed) forever" as in "Praise our blessed God." (The order of the adjectives doesn't matter, but in modern English we almost exclusively put blessed with this meaning first.) You seem to be putting the two together to give a different meaning than the text supports.

Romans 9:5 (AV)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.

Looking at the text, I see three different possible interpretations of the AV text.

====================

1 - God (is) blessed for ever (by Creation, his people, Angels, or something) - doxology to God text, separating Christ and God

2 - (Christ is) God (who is) blessed for ever (by Creation, his people, Angels, or something) - apposition text

3 - God blessed (is Christ) for ever.

====================

(3) is the closest to the AV text and context, and the most natural, and has the simplest, contextual ellipsis.
(2) is the most awkward

There is some disagreement as to whether the Greek allows (3). And it is not a common interpretation, although it was implied at one spot in our Hippolytus discussion. However, Romans 9:5 interpretation is largely bandwagon fallacy driven, with opposing doctrinal sides trying to get points. Since (2) is a type of middle ground, it is usually bypassed or overlooked.

Murray Harris said that God and blessed have a "natural association".
They both are nominative, singular, masculine.
The apposition texts lose this connection. And they try to have the word God do a very awkward double-duty.

btw, overall, I appreciate your approach to the topic.
 
Last edited:
Romans 9:5 (AV)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.

I see three different possible interpretations of the AV text.
Just looking at the English.
Just out of curiosity, why do you think there are three possibilities? When the AV translators have a doxology in view, they are 100% consistent in supplying the verb (if memory serves me correctly). If you are interested, it might be worth your time to compare this verse to the following in the AV:
Rom. 1:25; 11:36; 16:27
II Cor. 1:3; 11:31
Gal. 1:1:4-5
Eph. 1:3; 3:21
Php. 4:20
I Tim. 1:17; 6:16
II Tim. 4:18
Heb. 13:21
I Pet. 1:3; 4:11; 5:11
II Pet. 3:18
3 - God blessed (is Christ) for ever.

====================

The third is the closest to the AV text and context, and the most natural, and has the simplest, contextual ellipsis.
The question is how do you understand "God blessed"? I think you understand it as a verbal rather than God being described as blessed. Can you clarify this?
btw, overall, I appreciate your approach to the topic.
I'm glad.
 
Just out of curiosity, why do you think there are three possibilities? When the AV translators have a doxology in view, they are 100% consistent in supplying the verb (if memory serves me correctly). If you are interested, it might be worth your time to compare this verse to the following in the AV:
Rom. 1:25; 11:36; 16:27
II Cor. 1:3; 11:31
Gal. 1:1:4-5
Eph. 1:3; 3:21
Php. 4:20
I Tim. 1:17; 6:16
II Tim. 4:18
Heb. 13:21
I Pet. 1:3; 4:11; 5:11
II Pet. 3:18

Yes, I noticed that, OT also. Good catch!

I even wrote about it on a post on my PBF forum, with some overlap on verses.

Romans 9:5 - God blessed for ever - no verb "is"

And I can't url it since it is my own spot. Easy to find.
This is a major reason to reject the doxology (1) and the apposition (2) above in my previous post, (at least from the English text).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top