The Real John Milton
Well-known member
That’s a very dubious assertion. Enough.
Anomalous relative pronoun in Rom 9:5
- Thread starter cjab
- Start date
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.
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.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
Nonsense.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
You mean the God-man squad.
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
You mean it for ill, but I will take it as a compliment and a blessing. Theanthropos forever!
Gryllus Maior
Well-known member
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.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Barry and TRJM are representing well the two positions I highlighted in post #64.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
Baal forever.
Anyhow, you evaded my question. How is taking ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων as an appositive to ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα "normal" ? I thought you knew Biblical Koine.
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.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
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
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.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
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
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? ?
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
Lol, you have no idea what you are talking about.