Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

[cjab]

Please clarify a point for me.
Have you claimed that ὁ is functioning as a definite article for God?
Thanks!

Yes, in the specific case of Rom 9:5. In the examples I quoted the articles did not have any noun associated with them, so they functioned as purely anaphoric pronouns prior to participles. In Rom 9:5, the use of the article shows that Θεὸς denotes a known person or thing— being the "defining article". This is required in order to identify the one being blessed.

My argument is that is it irrelevant that the article associated with Θεὸς is followed by an intervening participle + participle clause (ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων). Grammatically, it's as if the text had just read ὁ Θεὸς (ὁ Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμή).

Trinitarians say that ὁ must be a relative, because ὁ ὢν is "usually" a relative. Hippolytus seems to see a middle ground by treating ὁ ὢν as anaphoric (the appositional rendition) and Θεὸς as without the article (anarthrous).

But as far as grammar is concerned, Rom 9:5 must surely read as if it had just said "ὁ Θεὸς" as a participle in the first attribitive position cannot separate a noun from its article. And Θεὸς requires an article in this context, in order to identify the one being blessed.

 

[Steven Avery]

Trinitarians say that ὁ cannot be a defining article here, but a relative. Hippolytus seeks a middle ground by seeing ὁ ὢν as anaphoric. But as far as grammar is concerned, Rom 9:5 must read as if it had said "ὁ Θεὸς."

Thanks for sharing, puzzling as it seems.

Anyway, I am skeptical that the opposition to your theory would be limited to “Trinitarians”. Do you have any reference at all from Ezra Abbot or others where they make this "ὁ Θεὸς” argument?

 

[cjab]

Thanks for sharing, puzzling as it seems.

Anyway, I am skeptical that the opposition to your theory would be limited to “Trinitarians”. Do you have any reference at all from Ezra Abbot or others where they make this "ὁ Θεὸς” argument?

The opposition to my "theory" is motivated by religious dogma alone. Rom 9:5 is a great verse on which to build all kinds of dogma, because of the various ways in which it can be read by those with an inclination to use it to substantiate their peculiar dogma. It stands to reason therefore that the best rendition of Rom 9:5 is inherently that which introduces no dogma at all, apart from what is clearly found elsewhere.

As for ἐπὶ πάντων, you have a choice between applying it to the Father (Eph 4:6), or applying it to antichrist (2 Thess 2:4). Take your pick.

My "theory" of participles as attributives is fully attested in most reputable grammars.

Whether 1st or 2nd attributive: there is no distinction in classification as attributive:

Participle in second attributive pos in Phil 4:7: ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν
The same participle in first attributive position in Eph 3:19: τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν τῆς γνώσεως ἀγάπην τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

Such participles + participle clauses, being attributive in function, act like English adjectives; and can be removed to see the underlying structure.

 

[John Milton]

Exactly the point.
If they wanted to give an apposition text they would have written
“(Christ is) God, blessed for ever” or simply
“God, blessed for ever”.
The later would make God an attribute of Christ, one of three.
over all
God (apposition)
blessed for ever

And it would disconnect God from blessed, its “natural association.” (Murray Harris)
The way they did write, there is no apposition.

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

You have to make word additions or add punctuation to claim the AV text says Christ is God.

And I am rather amazed that anyone can read the AV text and make your claim.

I am relatively sure you are misquoting Harris. Those remarks about "natural association" referred to the doxology reading if I recall. Please, verify this before I respond further. I don't have access to Harris.

 

[John Milton]

You lost the context of the discussion, which was the omission of “is” or a similar verb in the AV.

Wishful thinking, my dear man, wishful thinking.

Actually, that is the natural English reading.

Attributes of Christ, who is:
1) over all
2) God blessed for ever

This is how the phrases are laid out in the AV.

I know. And as I've already told you 2) means that Christ is God (noun) blessed (modifying God because it is an adjective) forever. It doesn't mean as you suppose that "Christ is [by] God blessed forever."

Both phrases end with a comma, in a section where Christ is described, they are equivalent grammatically.

Yes. They both separately modify Christ according to the AV rendering.

If the punctuation were the same, and “Angel” was the word instead of God, even you would see your grammatical foible and failure. (Although some groups see Christ as Gabriel, so they might similarly claim apposition by their doctrinal presupposition glasses!)

There would still be no grammatical problem. It would mean "blessed angel forever," and it would still modify Christ.

The reason for reading the AV as an apposition by commentators is a trivial bandwagon fallacy.

No. It's because they know what the English and the Greek says, and they can see how the translators of the AV rendered equivalent phrases. Therefore, they all know how the phrase should be understood.

Ignoring the doctrinal difficulties (see Thomas Hubeart), the commentators, as usual, are fishing for verses that give them “Christ is God.” By mangling the AV interpretation in this way, they can say to Socinians, Unitarians and others “aha, look, the NT directly says Christ is God”. Without proper nuance or context, like you have in 1 Timothy 3:16, “God was manifest in the flesh” (AV-TR).

This is stupid. There are three verses that clear call Jesus God. They are John 1:1, John 20:28, and Hebrews 1:8. The Socinians and Unitarians are, by your own classifications, the ones who haven't to insist on "proper nuance or context" because they don't like what the text obviously says. They can't accept it in the three clear passages I cited above, and they surely can't accept it when the passages are ambiguous like the others they fight over.

In fact, the Unitarians that I have interacted with on this forum have focused on justifying this particular doctrine to the exclusion of all else, including proper Christian behavior. (I can't remember if Caroljeen claimed to be a Unitarian or not, but if she did as far as I can remember she is an exception.) One need only look at the thread topics in this forum to see that this is true.

 

[cjab]

There are three verses that clear call Jesus God. They are John 1:1, John 20:28, and Hebrews 1:8.

Unitarianism in the modern age is not just about who ὁ Θεὸς is, but is either indistinguishable from socinianism, or else posits the pre-existent Christ as a conception rather than a reality. Caroljeen is not a socinian, and neither am I.

John 1:1 The Logos, not Jesus, is being referred to.
John 20:28, The human Θεὸς is not the same as the ὁ Θεὸς in heaven, by Jesus own concession in John 10:34-36, but is another way of saying "son of God" but using OT terminology.
Heb 1:8 All we know is that the LXX uses the article before Θεὸς to infer a form of address. Also see Jesus's remarks in John 10:34-36. Also, the risen Christ is being included in this reference to Θεὸς, so Θεὸς as the Logos is also relevant.

None are effective to indicate that Paul would have in his doctrinal teaching deferred to the human savior as Θεὸς or ὁ Θεὸς; or that such a rendition is not highly controversial in the context of Romans which uses the "son of God" terminology as does John.

Every reference to Θεὸς; has to be construed in its own context, to see what is meant by the word.

By promulgating endless confusion between the Father and the Son, you only show how doctrinally motivated by high Trinitarianism you really are.

 

[John Milton]

John 1:1 The Logos, not Jesus, is being referred to.

John identifies the word as Jesus. They have the same identity. You are trying to make a distinction that the text does not allow.

John 20:28, The human Θεὸς is not the same as the ὁ Θεὸς in heaven, by Jesus own concession in John 10:34-36, but is another way of saying "son of God" but using OT terminology.

You are assuming that the resurrected Jesus is what we call "human." Given that he could appear spontaneously in closed rooms at least part of your assumption is wrong.

Heb 1:8 All we know is that the LXX uses the article before Θεὸς to infer a form of address.

So, the text calls Jesus God as I said.

Also see John 10:34-36.

None of these are in the least effective to indicate that Paul would have in his doctrinal teaching deferred to the human savior as Θεὸς or ὁ Θεὸς.

As I said, look at all the qualifications and made up reasons you give for why the Biblical authors couldn't mean what they clearly wrote.

 

[cjab]

John identifies the word as Jesus. They have the same identity. You are trying to make a distinction that the text does not allow.

If Θεὸς is used in an identity sense in Jn 1:1c, it is to denote the Logos as wielding the Father's power directly, and being in the form of the Father. Neither applied to Jesus the man.

You are assuming that the resurrected Jesus is what we call "human." Given that he could appear spontaneously in closed rooms at least part of your assumption is wrong.

I assume the resurrected Christ could do as he wished in the natural world, within the confines of his resurrected humanity, because of the power given to him just to effect his resurrection.

He surely did not assume full powers until ascension.

So, the text calls Jesus God as I said.

The OT text does call Jesus God, but this isn't formal NT doctrinal teaching but an OT prophecy,

It is partly justified by the Greek LXX requiring an article to create a form of address, where the Hebrew text contains no article, partly by OT conventions (cf. John 10:34-36) and partly by the reference to the Logos in heaven (ascended Christ).

As I said, look at all the qualifications and made up reasons you give for why the Biblical authors couldn't mean what they clearly wrote.

Paul would not have deferred to Jesus as "God" here, or made any further reference to Jesus, as he wasn't the topic of Rom 9.

 

[Caroljeen]

In fact, the Unitarians that I have interacted with on this forum have focused on justifying this particular doctrine to the exclusion of all else, including proper Christian behavior. (I can't remember if Caroljeen claimed to be a Unitarian or not, but if she did as far as I can remember she is an exception.) One need only look at the thread topics in this forum to see that this is true.

Definitely not a Unitarian. I'm Oneness. I believe Jesus Christ is God himself in the flesh.

 

[Steven Avery]

2) means that Christ is God (noun) blessed (modifying God because it is an adjective) forever. It doesn't mean as you suppose that "Christ is [by] God blessed forever."

Take this sentence:

Concerning the nations Israel rules,
who is the apple of his eye,
God blessed for ever.

By your “logic” this sentence would be an apposition calling Israel God.

Amazing.

 

[Steven Avery]

Definitely not a Unitarian. I'm Oneness. I believe Jesus Christ is God himself in the flesh.

And I placed a thread on Romans 9:5 on the Apostolic Friends Forum.

 

[John Milton]

If Θεὸς is used in an identity sense in Jn 1:1c, it is to denote the Logos as wielding the Father's power directly, and being in the form of the Father. Neither applied to Jesus the man.

Again, Jesus's identity does not change based on his condition. You can't escape this fact, nor can you escape that he is called God while as the Logos and as a man.

I assume the resurrected Christ could do as he wished in the natural world, within the confines of his resurrected humanity, because of the power given to him just to effect his resurrection.

He surely did not assume full powers until ascension.

Key words: "I assume."

The OT text does call Jesus God, but this isn't formal NT doctrinal teaching but an OT prophecy,

How cute. Here you go imply that the New Testament doesn't call Jesus God as it clearly does in the passages I've cited.

It is partly justified by the Greek LXX requiring an article to create a form of address, where the Hebrew text contains no article, partly by OT conventions (cf. John 10:34-36) and partly by the reference to the Logos in heaven (ascended Christ).

He's called God.

Paul would not have deferred to Jesus as "God" here, or made any further reference to Jesus, as he wasn't the topic of Rom 9.

I've already given you a nice theological summary of how you cannot talk about the blessings of Israel as Paul describes them in Romans 9 without talking about the Christ. But by all means keep making assertions that are false.

 

[John Milton]

Take this sentence:

Concerning the nations Israel rules,
who is the apple of his eye,
God blessed for ever.

By your “logic” this sentence would be an apposition calling Israel God.

Amazing.

There is no Greek text behind this to eliminate some of the options as there is with Romans 9:5. Your "logic" failed to consider this very important fact. It's amazing you keep making the same error after so many corrections.

 

[Steven Avery]

I answered you earlier on the verb. The ellipsis “is Christ” could not include the verb without a wooden duplication of Christ. Plus, it is not a doxology, which was your context in discussing the verb. And this is a far greater difficulty for apposition and doxology interpretations.

Why do you think that the position that appears to be the oldest and most widely held is the one with the greatest difficulties?

You lost the context of the discussion, which was the omission of “is” or a similar verb in the AV.

Wishful thinking, my dear man, wishful thinking.

Smarmy writing is especially inapropriate when you are simply wrong.
So I have to take a few minutes to reconstruct the conversation.
An apology is in order.

 

[Steven Avery]

There is no Greek text behind this to eliminate some of the options as there is with Romans 9:5. Your "logic" failed to consider this very important fact. It's amazing you keep making the same error after so many corrections.

You just lost the argument, since the discussion was about the English text of the AV, and what the translators, the learned men, actually wrote.

brianrw, btw, considers the English text authoritative, so this refutation using Israel as the subject applies to his positions as well that much more directly.

Since you now agree, after seeing the Israel analogous text, that "God blessed for ever" in the AV is not grammatically an apposition saying God is Christ, we can go back and see where you went astray.

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

As for the Greek, you are welcome to give your exact reason for thinking there is a Christ-God apposition, but that would be a different discussion.

And I remember that Gryllus Maior only indicated that he saw it as his preference in the Greek, but by no means a fact on the ground (my words.) He even used euphony as part of his reason.

In fact, you have indicated that the Greek can be translated without an apposition as well, negating your own claim that going to the Greek would establish the meaning.

Your cagey approach has been to avoid giving actual English translations of the text, except to point to various contradictory Committee translations. Since some of those do not have an apposition, like the RSV I posted, you are battling against John Milton in your current apposition-in-the-Greek claim.

 

[John Milton]

Definitely not a Unitarian. I'm Oneness. I believe Jesus Christ is God himself in the flesh.

Thanks for the clarification; I get the two groups confused. Oneness are often just as bad (and again I'm talking exclusively about the ones I've interacted with on this forum, not generally), but I always want to note the exceptions. In my interactions with you, you have consistently shown a Christ-like spirit.

 

[John Milton]

Smarmy writing is especially inapropriate when you are simply wrong.

Then stop writing.

So I have to take a few minutes to reconstruct the conversation.
An apology is in order.

Yes, you should apologize because in my post, I addressed your claim about the verb. You appear to have intentionally omitted that discussion. This can be seen by following my remarks in the original post.

They left it out because it wasn't what they meant. The addition of "is Christ" dramatically changes the meaning of what they wrote.

I'll take that apology whenever you are ready to give it.

 

[cjab]

Again, Jesus's identity does not change based on his condition. You can't escape this fact, nor can you escape that he is called God while as the Logos and as a man.

Endless confusion and an inability to see what scripture is actually saying.

Key words: "I assume."

How cute. Here you go imply that the New Testament doesn't call Jesus God as it clearly does in the passages I've cited.

He's called God.

I've already given you a nice theological summary of how you cannot talk about the blessings of Israel as Paul describes them in Romans 9 without talking about the Christ. But by all means keep making assertions that are false.

A theology that demands people call Jesus "God" is a theology that demands worship of Christ according to the flesh.

 

[John Milton]

You just lost the argument, since the discussion was about the English text of the AV, and what the translators, the learned men, actually wrote.

And I've told you what they wrote was perfectly acceptable. What isn't acceptable is your understanding of what they wrote. What you understand does not match what they intended. As is clear by looking at the parallel passages where they supply the words needed to make their understanding clear.

brianrw, btw, considers the English text authoritative, so this refutation applies to his positions as well.

I've only referenced possible, not authoritative. If he considers the text authoritative, it doesn't follow that he accepts your erroneous interpretation of that text authoritative. Once again, logic, not your friend.

Since you now agree that "God blessed for ever" in the AV is not grammatically an apposition saying God is Christ, we can correct your various false claims above.

Now you are back to lying.

2) means that Christ is God (noun) blessed (modifying God because it is an adjective) forever. It doesn't mean as you suppose that "Christ is [by] God blessed forever."

See there I said plainly the Christ is God. Blessed God. That's what the text says. Even worse for you, that's how you understood the AV.

Attributes of Christ, who is:
1) over all
2) God blessed for ever

Even you recognize Christ is "God blessed forever." The only problem is you think this means "who is blessed [by] God forever. Which cannot be correct because "blessed" is an adjective. For the construction θεὸς εὐλογητὸς there are two possibilities. 1) It means God is blessed, but you've ruled this out, ironically along the same logical lines that you refuse to accept as refuting the sense you prefer as I've already pointed out. 2) blessed God where blessed is an adjective modifying God. Since you reject 1) that leaves you with 2) which does not agree with your intended sense.

 

[Steven Avery]

Then stop writing.
Yes, you should apologize because in my post, I addressed your claim about the verb. You appear to have intentionally omitted that discussion. This can be seen by following my remarks in the original post.
I'll take that apology whenever you are ready to give it.

You switched the discussion from the verb to a general discussion of historical positions, apparently about apposition interpretations. (If you had another meaning, feel free to clarify.)

Why do you think that the position that appears to be the oldest and most widely held is the one with the greatest difficulties?

There was no rhyme or reason for the switch.
When I pointed it out, you gave the smarmy response.

There is no "widely held" position about the verb, which was the actual discussion.