Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

brianrw

Member
The only person here really supporting apposition is Barry, yet he is smart enough on this topic to basically put it only as a preference, throwing out euphony as a possible (weak) support. So he gives no real support to your aggressive position trying to say it is a grammatical imperative unless you throw in questionable punctuation.
I said the KJV translators utilized an apposition in the English translation, in response to your assertion that "God blessed" in "God blessed for ever" means "blessed by God," which the Greek doesn't support.

I'll let everyone else speak for themselves.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
I said the KJV translators utilized an apposition in the English translation

An obvious blunder on your part.

Only if they had placed a comma after God, or added specific words, you would have your apposition.
e.g. If they said “Christ is God blessed for ever”.

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.

EDITED PERSONAL COMMENT

I am at a complete loss to grasp why you are making everything so complex,

EDITED
 
Last edited by a moderator:

brianrw

Member
Only if they had placed a comma after God, or added specific words, you would have your apposition.
e.g. If they said “Christ is God blessed for ever”.
In English the comma is placed before, not after an apposition. Since you're really only interested in misrepresenting my views here rather than substantiating your own ("blessed by God"), I think it is sufficient to judge nothing constructive is about to follow.
 

Anthony

Active member
Do you think the Athenians in the Areopagus were meant to interpret Paul's words by referring to the OT scriptures?
They only had OT Hebrew /LXX until NT was documented. Matthew's gospel is the only book available in original Hebrew language.
 

Anthony

Active member
In English the comma is placed before, not after an apposition. Since you're really only interested in misrepresenting my views here rather than substantiating your own ("blessed by God"), I think it is sufficient to judge nothing constructive is about to follow.
The problem lies in not understanding the gospel message - that was taught to Abraham. Biblical languages will be of no use to anyone not understanding the the gospel message that was given to Abraham. The promise of inheritance was to Abraham and his Seed, Christ.

Then comes the question of how we define God as The Father and by what means Yeshua Messiah is The Son..

Without this basic understanding there cannot be anyone saved but only exhibition of the knowledge of Biblical languages - that's the work of the flesh without the Spirit.

Jews/scribes were experts in their language but yet many of them rejected their Messiah because they didn't understand the Spirit behind the scriptures.

It's marvelous that The Messiah dwelt and ministered from what used to be the northern house of Israel. His ministry was to seek for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Jews rejected Him because no prophet originated from Galilee.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
In English the comma is placed before, not after an apposition.

EDITED PERSONAL COMMENT

Here there is a comma before, but there is no apposition (unless you add words not in the text to make an apposition.)

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.

Here there is a comma after, creating an apposition

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

The comma after (awkwardly) makes God simply an attribute of Christ. Christ == God.

It breaks up the independent phrase, "God blessed for ever" which can either be a doxology to God, or an affirmation that Christ is "God blessed for ever." (blessed by God)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cjab

Well-known member
They only had OT Hebrew /LXX until NT was documented. Matthew's gospel is the only book available in original Hebrew language.
The Athenians in the Areopagus didn't have any scriptures as they were pagans. Therefore your attempt to interpret Paul's words by reference to the OT is absurd.
 

Anthony

Active member
The Athenians in the Areopagus didn't have any scriptures as they were pagans. Therefore your attempt to interpret Paul's words by reference to the OT is absurd.
You didn't get what I said. Paul and the believers had OT scriptures to quote from. The lost sheep of the house of Israel were among the heathens. First try to learn the true gospel and come to post here.
 

cjab

Well-known member
You didn't get what I said. Paul and the believers had OT scriptures to quote from. The lost sheep of the house of Israel were among the heathens. First try to learn the true gospel and come to post here.
Your teaching is gnostic. There is no NT allusion to the gospel being limited to the "lost" house of Israel. "All men everywhere" is who it applies to, and those who respond are grafted into the house of Israel as a "wild" vine is grafted into a cultivated vine. Rom 11:17.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
In English the comma is placed before, not after an appositio

Since this is obviously wrong in Romans 9:5, see post 309, the question is how you came up with this claim.
And let us see the examples, we can compare them with Romans 9:5.

If you just make up false rules in English, why would we trust your Greek analysis?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
I said the KJV translators utilized an apposition in the English translation, in response to your assertion that "God blessed" in "God blessed for ever" means "blessed by God," which the Greek doesn't support.

The apposition claim is clearly false.
Anyone can read the AV English text, and see . post #309.

As for whether "Christ is God blessed for ever" is acceptable with the Greek, there is a difference of position (you misrepresent spin by leaving out his reference to a nominalized verb.)

Here are the possibilities working with the AV text.

1) Christ ... (is) God blessed for ever
2) Christ .... (as) God is) blessed for ever (by creation, Paul, whatever)

The latter is awkward. Clearly in English (1) is superior.

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.

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

Those here who think the Greek text means a doxology to God usually go like this, totally separating Christ from the ending.

God (over all) (is) blessed for ever. ...

They have a different perspective and do add punctuation to the Greek that is questionable.
 

Anthony

Active member
Your teaching is gnostic. There is no NT allusion to the gospel being limited to the "lost" house of Israel. "All men everywhere" is who it applies to, and those who respond are grafted into the house of Israel as a "wild" vine is grafted into a cultivated vine. Rom 11:17.
My friend, read the scriptures Very carefully. Especially the one quoted by you Rom 11:17

17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, have been grafted in among them, and came to share the root and fatness of the olive tree,

Israel as an whole is represented by the Olive Tree.

The natural olive branches would be the Jews because Judea existed during the time of Messiah and the Apostles. That's the reason the reason the proselytes from many languages were coming to Jerusalem to keep the feasts of Israel.

On the other hand, the northern house of Israel didn't return from their Assyrian captivity (only a remnant were kept there by Assyrians). They were called Gentiles because they lived and mixed up with the heathens). However, Jews made them proselytes and established synagogues there as we can see Messiah visiting synagogues there in gospel accounts. There were many Samaritan proselytes.

The WILD OLIVE branches are being referred to them. Nevertheless, they are OLIVE branches separated long before the NT which became wild. Therefore, Paul uses the words very carefully and not as the Christendom which reads scriptures carelessly as having scales on their eyes.

No heathen nation has anything to do with the Olive Tree whether natural or wild.

Because of the unbelief of many Jews, they were cut off but some were grafted back (we can imagine person like Paul). In their place, the wild olive branches (the lost sheep of the house of Israel) were grafted.

Luke 2:34 and Simeon blessed them, and said to Miriam, his mother, “Behold, this child is set for the falling and the rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which is spoken against.

Regarding the Athenians - you got to see first Paul enterering a Synagogue there:

Acts 17:
16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw the city full of idols.

17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who met him.

If there was a Synagogue in Athens, Paul would forsee there would be more people in the city who would believe in the gospel. Market place is the best place to find them.

The preaching of Paul did bring fruits:

Acts 17:34 But certain men joined with him and believed, among whom also was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

The scriptures give us the clue but we must go through them carefully. The gospel message is only for the two houses of Israel united as one with middle wall between them being demolished in Messiah under the New Covenant - Heb 8:8-11.

Moreover, I will leave you with this scripture:

Luk 19: 2 There was a man named Zacchaeus. He was a chief tax collector, and he was rich.
9: 9 Yeshua said to him, “Today, salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham.
 

cjab

Well-known member
My friend, read the scriptures Very carefully. Especially the one quoted by you Rom 11:17

On the other hand, the northern house of Israel didn't return from their Assyrian captivity (only a remnant were kept there by Assyrians). They were called Gentiles because they lived and mixed up with the heathens). However, Jews made them proselytes and established synagogues there as we can see Messiah visiting synagogues there in gospel accounts. There were many Samaritan proselytes.

The WILD OLIVE branches are being referred to them. Nevertheless, they are OLIVE branches separated long before the NT which became wild. Therefore, Paul uses the words very carefully and not as the Christendom which reads scriptures carelessly as having scales on their eyes.
You're just preaching a variant of British Israelism

No heathen nation has anything to do with the Olive Tree whether natural or wild.
Why then did Paul boast that the gospel was preached over the whole world? Go do a search for "all nations" in the KJV,

Rom 1:5 "By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name"

Because of the unbelief of many Jews, they were cut off but some were grafted back (we can imagine person like Paul). In their place, the wild olive branches (the lost sheep of the house of Israel) were grafted.

Luke 2:34 and Simeon blessed them, and said to Miriam, his mother, “Behold, this child is set for the falling and the rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which is spoken against.

Regarding the Athenians - you got to see first Paul enterering a Synagogue there:

Acts 17:
16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw the city full of idols.

17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who met him.

If there was a Synagogue in Athens, Paul would forsee there would be more people in the city who would believe in the gospel. Market place is the best place to find them.

The preaching of Paul did bring fruits:

Acts 17:34 But certain men joined with him and believed, among whom also was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

The scriptures give us the clue but we must go through them carefully. The gospel message is only for the two houses of Israel united as one with middle wall between them being demolished in Messiah under the New Covenant - Heb 8:8-11.

Moreover, I will leave you with this scripture:

Luk 19: 2 There was a man named Zacchaeus. He was a chief tax collector, and he was rich.
9: 9 Yeshua said to him, “Today, salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham.
Abraham has spiritual children as well as literal descendants.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
One major feature is the "natural association" (Murray Harris) of God and blessed, both nominative singular masculine in the Greek text so they are naturally linked. Ironically, most of the attempts on the verse have no such linkage. The NSM connection is only pointed out by spin, I have not seen it from any other writer, although it is hinted at with the Harris "natural association."

As spin on BCHF put it:
"propose a grammatical reason for separating the two NSMs and placing the first with a phrase it has no apparent grammatical connection with, I'll be willing to read it, but I won't hold my breath".

The AV shows the Greek word order.

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.

One try is popular on the low Christology view, where Christ is twisting in the wind, and the whole latter part focuses on God.
... Christ, who is over all God, (as God is) blessed for ever (by creation, etc.)
......... (i.e. God who is over all),

Another try is popular among the Trinitarians, trying to claim an apposition, thus whatever applies to Christ applies to God and vica versa.
... Christ who is over all, (Christ is) God, (and as God is) blessed for ever (by creation, etc)

Historically this is given a lot of support by church writers, despite the awkwardness of trying to make Christ == God, yet what God? not God the Father. Plus it goes against the common dual addressing of the New Testament, including Paul.

Both efforts break the natural connection of God and blessed, and are awkward.

The third attempt was given by spin on BCHF
... Christ, who is over all, (Christ is) God blessed for ever.

spin
"God is the one doing the blessing and the Christ is the one blessed."

Note: I saw this understanding simply from the AV text, before reading the BCHF analysis from spin.

Some claim that #3 is impossible in the Greek. However it is the natural reading of the AV text and was given a solid push by the gentleman on the BCHF forum. (Who is not really an AV text supporter.) It should be given careful consideration from the good old tabula rasa.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
One major feature is the "natural association" (Murray Harris) of God and blessed, both nominative singular masculine in the Greek text so they are naturally linked. Ironically, most of the attempts on the verse have no such linkage. The NSM connection is only pointed out by spin, I have not seen it from any other writer, although it is hinted at with the Harris "natural association."

As spin on BCHF put it:
"propose a grammatical reason for separating the two NSMs and placing the first with a phrase it has no apparent grammatical connection with, I'll be willing to read it, but I won't hold my breath".

The AV shows the Greek word order.

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.

One try is popular on the low Christology view, where Christ is twisting in the wind, and the whole latter part focuses on God.
... Christ, who is over all God, (as God is) blessed for ever (by creation, etc.)
......... (i.e. God who is over all),

Another try is popular among the Trinitarians, trying to claim an apposition, thus whatever applies to Christ applies to God and vica versa.
... Christ who is over all, (Christ is) God, (and as God is) blessed for ever (by creation, etc)

Historically this is given a lot of support by church writers, despite the awkwardness of trying to make Christ == God, yet what God? not God the Father. Plus it goes against the common dual addressing of the New Testament, including Paul.

Both efforts break the natural connection of God and blessed, and are awkward.

The third attempt was given by spin on BCHF
... Christ, who is over all, (Christ is) God blessed for ever.

spin
"God is the one doing the blessing and the Christ is the one blessed."

Note: I saw this understanding simply from the AV text, before reading the BCHF analysis from spin.

Some claim that #3 is impossible in the Greek. However it is the natural reading of the AV text and was given a solid push by the gentleman on the BCHF forum. (Who is not really an AV text supporter.) It should be given careful consideration from the good old tabula rasa.
Eph 3:19 (γνῶναί) τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν τῆς γνώσεως ἀγάπην, (to know) the love that surpasses knowledge, is grammatically identical, as far as participle usage is concerned, to ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς &etc, the God who is above all &etc.

The only way to translate this simple participle-as-attributive construction in Rom 9:5 as per Eph 3:19 is to make ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς &etc the beginning of a new sentence, or insert a colon or semi-colon before ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς.

Christ is always distinct from God in terms of personhood, albeit united in spirit. It is the idea of spiritual unity between, Christ, the Jews and God that is being conveyed in Rom 9:4-5.

"[my brothers] who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom Christ came according to the flesh; God who is over all blessed for ever. Amen"
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Ephesians 3:19
And to know the love of Christ,
which passeth knowledge,
that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

One of the dozens of examples of New Testament dual addressing.

It is wild that the identity people try so hard to go for apposition rather than dual addressing in Romans 9:5 and often Titus 2:13.

Christ is always distinct from God in terms of personhood, albeit united in spirit. It is the idea of spiritual unity between, Christ, the Jews and God that is being conveyed in Rom 9:4-5.

"[my brothers] who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom Christ came according to the flesh; God who is over all blessed for ever. Amen"

I pretty much agree on the spiritual unity.

Ephesians 5:5 is a good example of spiritual unity, see John Calvin's Commentary.

Ephesians 5:5 (AV)
For this ye know, that no whoremonger,
nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater,
hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Your form of the Romans 9:5 verse is what I put as #1 above. The awkward (low Christology) attempt to totally separate Christ from God in Romans 9:5.
 

brianrw

Member
Eph 3:19 (γνῶναί) τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν τῆς γνώσεως ἀγάπην, (to know) the love that surpasses knowledge, is grammatically identical, as far as participle usage is concerned, to ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς &etc, the God who is above all &etc.

The only way to translate this simple participle-as-attributive construction in Rom 9:5 as per Eph 3:19 is to make ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς &etc the beginning of a new sentence, or insert a colon or semi-colon before ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς.

Christ is always distinct from God in terms of personhood, albeit united in spirit. It is the idea of spiritual unity between, Christ, the Jews and God that is being conveyed in Rom 9:4-5.

"[my brothers] who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom Christ came according to the flesh; God who is over all blessed for ever. Amen"
This is not an accurate representation of the language. And as noted in the other thread, the purpose of the article here is not as a substantivizer; rather, in ὁ ὢν the article is relatival in character, and especially when joined to an equative verb we naturally expect it to take an antecedent. It is functionally equivalent to ὅς ἐστι.

The punctuation you proposed was introduced by Erasmus. Thus as Beza noted in the 16th century against Erasmus,

And no one who meets the Greek utterance afresh is unaware that the article placed before the participle is often constructed in place of a pronoun together with a finite verb, so that ὁ ὢν means nothing else than ὅς ἐστι. He, however, devised two other punctuations, contrary to the fidelity of all the manuscripts which we have observed (God knows by what conscience. Far be it from me to insult even the living, let alone the dead), that they might be outright rejected. One is that, attaching a period after πάντων, what follows constitutes a new clause. Thus, Ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων. Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, “…who is over all. God be blessed forever.” The other, he says, is to finish the sentence after σάρκα, then connecting the following words in this way: Ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς, εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. “God, who is above all, be blessed forever.” (Annotation on Romans 9:5)​
This statement is still true today--of the manuscripts, the translation, and (as he previously notes) of its commentators.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
Ephesians 3:19
And to know the love of Christ,
which passeth knowledge,
that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

One of the dozens of examples of New Testament dual addressing.

It is wild that the identity people try so hard to go for apposition rather than dual addressing in Romans 9:5 and often Titus 2:13.
???? I said "grammatically identical, as far as participle usage is concerned." You might want to defer to the Greek,

I pretty much agree on the spiritual unity.

Ephesians 5:5 is a good example of spiritual unity, see John Calvin's Commentary.

Ephesians 5:5 (AV)
For this ye know, that no whoremonger,
nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater,
hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Your form of the Romans 9:5 verse is what I put as #1 above. The awkward (low Christology) attempt to totally separate Christ from God in Romans 9:5.
You're obviously not concerned to address Greek grammar here. We appear to be talking at cross purposes.
 

cjab

Well-known member
This is not an accurate representation of the language. And as noted in the other thread, the purpose of the article here is not as a substantivizer; rather, in ὁ ὢν the article is relatival in character, and especially when joined to an equative verb we naturally expect it to take an antecedent. It is functionally equivalent to ὅς ἐστι.
I know what you note, and what you expect, but the syntax of participle usage in Rom 9:5 "ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς" is identical to that in Eph 3:19 (γνῶναί) τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν τῆς γνώσεως ἀγάπην. Let's have a closer look.

Article + participle + noun
Eph 3:19
τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν....................... ἀγάπην

Rom 9;5
ὁ ὢν....... Θεὸς

A participle in this position is attributive.

Then we also have a (fairly irrelevant) direct object or prepositional phrase relating to the particple
Eph 3:19
τῆς γνώσεως (the knowledge - direct object)

Rom 9;5
ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων
ἐπὶ πάντων (above all - prepositional phrase)


Where you're wrong is in pretending that there is a closer association between ὁ & ὢν, than as between ὁ & Θεὸς.
A participle is not a noun, like an infinitive is. Here the participle coming in between an article and a noun is what is important,


The punctuation you proposed was introduced by Erasmus. Thus as Beza noted in the 16th century against Erasmus,

And no one who meets the Greek utterance afresh is unaware that the article placed before the participle is often constructed in place of a pronoun together with a finite verb, so that ὁ ὢν means nothing else than ὅς ἐστι. He, however, devised two other punctuations, contrary to the fidelity of all the manuscripts which we have observed (God knows by what conscience. Far be it from me to insult even the living, let alone the dead), that they might be outright rejected. One is that, attaching a period after πάντων, what follows constitutes a new clause. Thus, Ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων. Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, “…who is over all. God be blessed forever.” The other, he says, is to finish the sentence after σάρκα, then connecting the following words in this way: Ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς, εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. “God, who is above all, be blessed forever.” (Annotation on Romans 9:5)​
This statement is still true today--of the manuscripts, the translation, and (as he previously notes) of its commentators.
Obviously ὁ ὢν isn't interchangable with ὅς ἐστι, because Paul uses ὅς ἐστι, 18 times, and uses ὁ ὢν only twice, both times in doxologies (also in 2 Cor 11:31), which suggests that ὁ ὢν relates to the doxlogy and not what comes before it. The reason I suggest for this is that he knows that ὁ ὢν was effectively the Greek name for God, and equivalent of YHWH. This is why Paul intentionally uses ὅς ἐστι in preference to ὁ ὢν.

In both Rom 9:5 and in 2 Cor 11:31, ὁ ὢν is being directly associated with Θεὸς. Of that there can be no doubt whatsoever.

Beza is wrong. In any case he is plainly wrong (cf. John 3:31) where what he says doesn't hold true in all cases.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
???? I said "grammatically identical, as far as participle usage is concerned." You might want to defer to the Greek,

The identity people are ahe appositionists. Not you. :)

Identity - “God” = “Christ”
 
Last edited:
Top