Anomalous relative pronoun in Rom 9:5

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
It is not the natural reading because:

Christ must be separated from “who is over all” by a very dubious stop.
God must be separated from its “natural association” (Murray Harris) as part of God blessed.

You should carefully read the many high Christology verses above.

And your silly personal attack is reported.
That’s a very dubious assertion. Enough.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
God is put next to blessed because of its natural association.
They work together as one unit.
This could be a compound adjective or a verbal phrase.

This works against the word God doing double-duty, looking backwards to being over all.

The same objection is also offered against the “Christ is God” apposition theory.
Too much heavy lifting for the word God.

You are welcome to disagree, understanding that personal attacks will be quickly reported.

As for the awkwardness of a stop after Christ, that has been covered in many commentaries.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
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.

The AV is following the Greek word order.

“God blesses Christ” (or Israel through Christ) is the most natural reading of the AV.
It definitely deserves careful consideration, even if generally bypassed in commentaries.

It seems to me that it is not usually considered because it does not please either of the two main sides in the doctrinal divide.

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

The “Christ is God” crew miss their claimed apposition. Anything less causes them pain, even though it is not a natural reading. And the New Testament writing emphasizes dual addressing in dozens of verses as the natural apostolic writing. And also the NT generally uses God for God the Father. “Christ is God" is actually unacceptable if God is "God the Father", to all but the Sabellians, who are considered heretics. This comes out in Hippolytus contra Noetus, without resolving the intrinsic difficulty of claiming the text says Christ is God. If not God the Father, what God is being expressed?

The “God is over all” crew do not like the high Christology of Christ over all and blessed for ever. The Unitarian/Socinian attempts are strained and awkward. They are reactive to the strained "Christ is God" reading.

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

And a bandwagon fallacy comes into play.

There is some irony in how a natural understanding is bypassed due to doctrinal shibboleths on opposite sides.

They get you coming and going, everybody must get stoned.
 
Last edited:

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
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.

The AV is following the Greek word order.

“God blesses Christ” (or Israel through Christ) is the most natural reading of the AV.
It definitely deserves careful consideration, even if generally bypassed in commentaries.

It seems to me that it is not usually considered because it does not please either of the two main sides in the doctrinal divide.

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

The “Christ is God” crew miss their claimed apposition. Anything less causes them pain, even though it is not a natural reading. And the New Testament writing emphasizes dual addressing in dozens of verses as the natural apostolic writing. And also the NT generally uses God for God the Father. “Christ is God" is actually unacceptable if God is "God the Father", to all but the Sabellians, who are considered heretics. This comes out in Hippolytus contra Noetus, without resolving the intrinsic difficulty of claiming the text says Christ is God. If not God the Father, what God is being expressed?

The “God is over all” crew do not like the high Christology of Christ over all and blessed for ever. The Unitarian/Socinian attempts are strained and awkward. They are reactive to the strained "Christ is God" reading.

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

And a bandwagon fallacy comes into play.

There is some irony in how a natural understanding is bypassed due to doctrinal shibboleths on opposite sides.

They get you coming and going, everybody must get stoned.
This won't work and shows that you depend on the English, not the Greek (although I think the English does not bear this interpretation either). "Blessed, " εὐλογητός, is passive in sense and must refer to nominative subject.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Above I wrote “God blesses Christ” not to show an active verb, which appears to be your critique. The sense would be more precisely, “Christ is blessed by God” == “Christ is God blessed”. Then you have your passive blessed.

Feel free to explain why you believe God/Christ (I.e. God who is Christ) must be blessed rather than simply Christ.
Thanks!

======

Presumably you are defending:
“God (who is Christ) (is) blessed for ever (by his people, or Paul, or creation, et al).

Is that correct?

======

As for the AV English, I think anyone who simply reads the text without brain-clutter will see “Christ is God blessed” as the cleanest interpretation. I’ve seen claims like the supposed need for a hyphen, but on closer examination that simply was not correct.
 
Last edited:

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
Above I wrote “God blesses Christ” not to show an active verb, which appears to be your critique. The sense would be more precisely, “Christ is blessed by God” == “Christ is God blessed”. Then you have your passive blessed.

Feel free to explain why you believe God/Christ (I.e. God who is Christ) must be blessed rather than simply Christ.
Thanks!
Well, the text doesn't exactly say that, does it? And remember I'm a member of the God squad -- I think the more natural reading is that all the nominatives have the same referent, who is Christ.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
I added a bit more above, trying to highlight your position.

So it looks like your objection is now hermeneutical rather than grammatical.

Your claim would be grammatical — if there was a comma after God.
Then you would have three definite attributions pointing back to the same referent, Christ:

over all
God
blessed for ever
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
By the way , you claim your reading is “natural” ? It demands that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων is an appositive to ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. Is that normal ?
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
I added a bit more above, trying to highlight your position.

So it looks like your objection is now hermeneutical rather than grammatical.

Your claim would be grammatical — if there was a comma after God.
Then you would have three definite attributions pointing back to the same referent, Christ:

over all
God
blessed for ever
Don't need a comma -- they weren't in use in the first century anyway. What we need to do is read according to the sense and rhythm of the text. That's what leads me to my conclusion. Others have come to a different view.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Baal forever.
You finally came clean.
How is taking ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων as an appositive to ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα "normal" ?
That's not how he explained it to you. This take is from your own imagination. You should be ashamed for implying that it came from Gryllus.
I thought you knew Biblical Koine.
He does. You don't.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
You finally came clean.

That's not how he explained it to you. This take is from your own imagination. You should be ashamed for implying that it came from Gryllus.

He does. You don't.
Could you show me where he explained anything to me concerning this issue?

Anyhow, you explain to me in your own words, clearly , and (hopefully) without any insults, how you think he is taking it, if not in the way I described it. (I virtually guarantee that he doesn't do so. Hope he proves me wrong) .

BTW., don't pretend as though there is something profound going on with his (and your) obfuscations with explaining the grammar here that I am somehow missing. You two thrive in the vague assertions niche. It's the magician's MO in you.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Could you show me where he explained anything to me concerning this issue?
He gave his explanation of the verse in this thread. It was there for your edification the whole time.
One way to do that is to render ὁ ὤν as relative clause. Now, you are right -- that makes it sound as though Christ is the antecedent, and to me, the string of nominatives all have the same referent, which is the first nominative, ὁ Χριστός.
Anyhow, you explain to me in your own words, clearly , and (hopefully) without any insults, how you think he is taking it, if not in the way I described it. (I virtually guarantee that he doesn't do so. Hope he proves me wrong) .
I've given the relevant portion above. You can click on it to see the full quote.
BTW., don't pretend as though there is something profound going on with his (and your) obfuscations with explaining the grammar here that I am somehow missing.
It is your inability to correctly identify the potential antecedent of the participial phrase that clearly demonstrates your ignorance of Greek.
You two thrive in the vague assertions niche. It's the magician's MO in you.
Hoist your white flag, RJM. Set it on high.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
He gave his explanation of the verse in this thread. It was there for your edification the whole time.


I've given the relevant portion above. You can click on it to see the full quote.

It is your inability to correctly identify the potential antecedent of the participial phrase that clearly demonstrates your ignorance of Greek.

Hoist your white flag, RJM. Set it on high.
That one sentence “explanation” is hardly clarifying. So once again, I am forced to speculate.

Here goes: So you think Gryllus is putting a period after τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, just like the Unitarians do? And that he believes like us Unitarians that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν is a sentence by itself, a doxology, but unlike us, he believes it is for Christ ? Is that it ?

Why can’t you or him just give us a clear explanation of how you are taking the grammar here ? Why obfuscate ?
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Why can’t you or him just give us a clear explanation of how you are taking the grammar here ? Why obfuscate ?
The only part of the grammar that I was commenting on was the antecedent of ὁ ὢν which is ὁ Χριστὸς. That is what Gryllus said. You wrongly identified the antecedent and attributed that error to Gryllus. Is that clear enough for you now? 🤣
 
Top