Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

brianrw

Member
(continued from the above post)
You have told me many things that turned out to be totally wrong. You tried to fake an apposition in the English AV text by linguistic head-fakes involving hyphens and commas.
No, I told you the truth. You received bad information from "Spin" that θεὸς εὐλογητὸς is two nouns strung together forming a prepositional clause "blessed by God." Since that's what you wanted to hear, you believed it uncritically over me. Also, you loaded all of this up into Harris' comment about the "natural association" and have since believed that's what Harris meant. Which, I have told you, it isn't.

I said that "God" is an apposition in the KJV followed by a predicate adjective "blessed" in the postposition, a thing common enough in Early Modern English. I actually told you the truth, but you maintain it's a compound adjective meaning "blessed by God," which the Greek doesn't allow. You got the same responses from others on Reddit that I myself gave you, but you treated them all the same, too. So, I think you need to get the right information. Otherwise, garbage in, garbage out.

Gryllus also shot down that reading of yours earlier on, but you seem to have missed that:
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.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
This is special pleading. The problem is you think an attributive participle cannot be modified by a prepositional phrase, when it can. It can take objects, too, among other uses. You're mistaking it as a regular adjective, requiring that it modify the head noun by itself, and incorrectly asserting that if it is modified by a prepositional phrase it must be taken as appositional. This simply isn't the case.

All of this betrays how incredibly novice an approach you are taking to it.


I favor a different variant than Wallace, the one found in almost all manuscripts. But his example is in the 3rd Attributive position.


Again, special pleading, because (for reasons noted above) you fail to understand the usage of the attributive participle.


No, Wallace doesn't. He translates the passage "the unique God who was near the heart of the Father" (p. 307), which is nearly the same as Ehrman's ("the unique God who is in the bosom of the Father"). In both cases, "unique" is adjectival. Wallace specifically mentions it in his grammar as an example of an attributive participle (ὁ ὢν) in the 3rd Attributive position, and comments that when the participle is used it should normally be translated like a relative pronoun. That's is not taking μονογενὴς as substantival.


Except that Ehrman is arguing something completely different, and not even against Wallace. You've quoted him out of context to support your own assertion, which is, of course, the fallacy of contextomy.

The problem is you've misread Ehrman's argument against the problematic translation “the unique one, who is also God, who is in the bosom of the Father" some have proposed for John 1:18, where ὁ μονογενὴς actually is taken as substantival (i.e., "the unique one") in apposition to θεὸς. You miss also that the participial phrase that follows forms a third distinct apposition as well since θεὸς is made to stand on its own. You misunderstand this above, saying "he (i.e. straw man Wallace) takes μονογενὴς in apposition to Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς." Of course, Wallace does no such thing at all.

Despite being corrected on this three times already, you're still not getting it. Worse yet, you're using that misunderstanding to make further problematic assertions about the Greek construction. To be clear, Ehrman is a witness on my side regarding John 1:18:

Given the fact that the established usage of the Johannine literature is known beyond a shadow of a doubt, there seems little reason any longer to dispute the reading found in virtually every witness outside the Alexandrian tradition. The prologue ends with the statement that, "the unique Son who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has made him known." (Ehrman, p. 82)

For the record, Ehrman (an agnostic) also believes that Romans 9:5 is an example of a place where Paul refers to Christ as "God."


Again, this just shows how little you understand about the participle. The present participle often signifies an action taking place simultaneous to the action of the main verb in the sentence. In this case, the main verb is ἐξηγέομαι, which is in the Aorist (ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο). I'm not saying that is how I would translate it, but it is indeed valid.

I'm not a huge fan of either individual or some of their interpretations. Still, they should not be misrepresented.
All I can say is that you have poor reading comprehension. Ehrman definitely says that Wallace understands the adjective μονογενὴς in John 1:18 substantivally.


Wallace specifically mentions it in his grammar as an example of an attributive participle (ὁ ὢν) in the 3rd Attributive position, and comments that when the participle is used it should normally be translated like a relative pronoun. That's is not taking μονογενὴς as substantival.

There is no point engaging in a discussion with you because you cannot read.

Show us how ὁ ὢν would be in the 3rd attributive position if μονογενὴς in John 1:18 is not taken substantivally.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Here is Daniel Wallace's Net Bible Notes on John 1:18 --


As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo" hn Jo logo") means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

In Net Bible (see above) Wallace asserts that θεός is in apposition to μονογενής (which he thinks is functioning substantivally) and that ὁ ὤν is itself in apposition to θεός. He is saying that there are three descriptions of Christ here: μονογενής (the Unique one), Θεὸς (God), ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς (the one who is in the bosom of the Father), all in apposition.
 

cjab

Well-known member
I didn't exactly say "interchangeable," but both times it means "who is."
It seems apparent that you are seeing in the English and Latin way of writing dependent phrases using relative pronouns a "meaning" to ὁ ὢν which the words themselves, considered in isolation, do not bear.

Thus the passage in Exodus 3:14 Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν doesn't mean "I am who is."

New Testament​

It also operates relatively in more than two places in the whole of the NT: John 1:18 (ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς), 3:13 (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, as found in nearly all manuscripts), 12:27 (ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ὢν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ), 2 Cor. 11:31 (ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ οἶδεν ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας).

There are also several examples in Revelation: 1:8 (ὁ κύριος ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ὁ παντοκράτωρ), 4:8 (ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος), 5:5 (ὁ λέων ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰούδα), 11:17 (ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν). However, John's usage is somewhat idiosyncratic (Cf. 1:4 χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος; 16:5 δίκαιος εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν ὁ ὅσιος (NA/UBS)), so it's harder to form conclusions.
How ὁ ὢν "operates" is dependent on the clause or sentence in which it is found. What you can't do is pre-empt a relational/dependency context where one isn't inferred by the sentence or clause in which it is found. Thus pretending that ὁ cannot relate to θεὸς in Rom 9:5 because of the need to pre-empt a relational sense to ὁ ὢν is nonsense.

Certainly I can credit ὁ ὢν as introducing a dependent clause, by apposition, being well evidenced in the Greek NT, where ὁ by itself would otherwise have been used for adjectives, but that is only one usage amongst others for ὁ ὢν, as evidenced by Ex 3:14.

It's like insisting on just one meaning to English words which have multiple meanings, such as "bat", depending on the context. "The one" would also have different referents, depending on the context.

*BTW ὢν is omitted in the mGNT (Nestle-Aland) in Rev 5:5.


Old Testament​

In at least two instances in the Greek OT ὁ ὢν is used where we find a relativizer (אֲשֶׁר) in Hebrew:

הָעָם אֲשֶׁר אַחֲרֵי עָמְרִי (1 Kings 16:22)​
ὁ λαὸς ὁ ὢν ὀπίσω Αμβρι​
The people who are following Omri (=The followers of Omri)​
אֶֽהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶֽהְיֶה (Exodus 3:14)​
ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν.
I am Who Is​
I am "who is" is NONSENSE in English, and you know it.

As I have said elsewhere, attributive participle can be used substantively when the head noun is implied.

Inscription​

For an example outside the GNT and GOT, it also occurs in an ancient funeral inscription of Abercius, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, from about the mid-2nd century:

οὔνομα Ἀβέρκιος ὁ ὧν μαθητὴς ποιμένος ἁγνοῦ (Inscription of Abercius)​
My name is Abercius, who is a disciple of the holy Shepherd​

Translation of the Attributive Participle as a Relative Clause​

As every grammar within my reach will tell you (I noted A.T. Robertson, Funk, I think also Mounce, Wallace elsewhere so will not repeat them here),


An attributive participle should normally be translated with a relative clause (e.g., “the Father who sent Him,” τὸν πατέρα τὸν πέμψαντα αὐτόν). (Köstenberger, Andreas J.; Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, Revised Edition, p. 327).


The best way to translate an attributive participle is by means of a relative clause. A relative clause is one that begins with a relative pronoun (“who,” “which,” or “that”). (Black, David Alan. Learn to Read New Testament Greek, p. 150).​

These all fall well within the range of usage of the attributive participle, the same rules hold true with other attributive participles, and frankly I've never seen this or the usage of the attributive participle functioning like a relative clause disputed, as you and The Real John Milton have disputed it. There's no reason to treat ὁ ὧν as an exception to the rule.
First you have to work out what the participle is attributive to, and that is where you have gone wrong with Rom 9:5, because it is attributive of Θεὸς, There is no special participle rule for ὢν, which is what you infer.
 

brianrw

Member
In Net Bible (see above) Wallace asserts that θεός is in apposition to μονογενής (which he thinks is functioning substantivally) and that ὁ ὤν is itself in apposition to θεός. He is saying that there are three descriptions of Christ here: μονογενής (the Unique one), Θεὸς (God), ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς (the one who is in the bosom of the Father), all in apposition.
But that's not what is written in his grammar, and not the translation or explanation I quoted.

If he changed his mind later, and sees this as the translation, then I disagree with the substantival usage of μονογενής. It seems more theologically motivated. But you pretended as though Ehrman was criticizing "the only unique God," as though "unique" were substantival, so I have a problem with that type of argument. I don't agree with the translation "unique" and I don't agree with the variant, but the translation should be properly represented.

It seems apparent that you are seeing in the English and Latin way of writing dependent phrases using relative pronouns a "meaning" to ὁ ὢν which the words themselves, considered in isolation, do not bear.
You misunderstand. Language involves a conversion from the conventions of one language to another. So for the sake of fluid translation, the relative clause is the nearest in function.

First you have to work out what the participle is attributive to, and that is where you have gone wrong with Rom 9:5, because it is attributive of Θεὸς, There is no special participle rule for ὢν, which is what you infer.
The attributive participle has several usages, and they are dependent upon context. When it is describing the nominal head of the sentence, it is dependent and we would usually translate this in English as a relative clause.

When the head noun is omitted and the antecedent is implied, then it is independent and therefore substantival and can function as a noun.

You'll note both these usages in the GNT, and they are not arbitrary. They follow a set pattern. Unlike English, Greek prefers the attributive participle construction to a relative clause since. Some participles, such as ὁ ὢν, occur more rarely in the relatival function, but the same rules apply to them all. They function like a relative clause, but are normally restrictive. The relative pronoun in Greek is normally nonrestrictive.

All articular participles are attributive.

The most natural way for them to be brought into English, in most cases, is with a relative clause. All the grammars say the same thing. So it's not just me. I wish that distinction would be made here.

Normally, when two nominatives are joined together in some way by an equative verb the subject takes the article and what remains is the predicate. In Romans 9:5, you have a participial clause involving an equative verb sandwiched between two nominatives of the same case and gender. In that case, the most natural head noun would be what precedes it. Thus Erasmus introduced the period, which breaks it off from its natural antecedent.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
All articular participles are attributive.
Winer : "The present participle (with the article) is not unfrequently used substantially, and then, having become a noun, excludes
all indication of time."

and

"Adjectives and participles when used as substantives are, like substantives, made definite by the article" (p.135)

The most natural way for them to be brought into English, in most cases, is with a relative clause. All the grammars say the same thing. So it's not just me. I wish that distinction would be made here.
The use of the relative in translation isn't really the issue with Rom 9:5. The issue is which noun ὢν is associated with. You have introduced a rule of grammar that ignores the presence of a noun that both immediately follows the participle clause, and agrees with its article, based on ὢν being "equative." IOW, a grammatical special case for ὢν.

Normally, when two nominatives are joined together in some way by an equative verb the subject takes the article and what remains is the predicate. In Romans 9:5, you have a participial clause involving an equative verb sandwiched between two nominatives of the same case and gender. In that case, the most natural head noun would be what precedes it. Thus Erasmus introduced the period, which breaks it off from its natural antecedent.
The most natural head noun is any noun which immediately follows the article (allowing for attributives) and agrees with it in case and gender. Moreover there is a particular reason why we should expect Θεὸς to have the article in Rom 9:5. The one blessed is clearly relating to God as person, and not God in action or function. So we would certainly look for Θεὸς having the article in this context, which is what we find. So the article relates "naturally" to Θεὸς. All other argument is superfluous, and as it happens there is good reason to believe that ὁ ὢν can only be appositional to what precedes it in Greek, as ὁ ὢν is a substantive. Here apposition is not a basis for translation due to the aforesaid reasons.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
But that's not what is written in his grammar, and not the translation or explanation I quoted.

If he changed his mind later, and sees this as the translation, then I disagree with the substantival usage of μονογενής. It seems more theologically motivated.

That's exactly what is also written in his grammar. You just have a hard time with simple reading comprehension.


But you pretended as though Ehrman was criticizing "the only unique God," as though "unique" were substantival, so I have a problem with that type of argument. I don't agree with the translation "unique" and I don't agree with the variant, but the translation should be properly represented.

As I said, you have a problem with reading comprehension.

You misunderstand. Language involves a conversion from the conventions of one language to another. So for the sake of fluid translation, the relative clause is the nearest in function.


The attributive participle has several usages, and they are dependent upon context. When it is describing the nominal head of the sentence, it is dependent and we would usually translate this in English as a relative clause.

When the head noun is omitted and the antecedent is implied, then it is independent and therefore substantival and can function as a noun.


You'll note both these usages in the GNT, and they are not arbitrary. They follow a set pattern. Unlike English, Greek prefers the attributive participle construction to a relative clause since. Some participles, such as ὁ ὢν, occur more rarely in the relatival function, but the same rules apply to them all. They function like a relative clause, but are normally restrictive. The relative pronoun in Greek is normally nonrestrictive.

All articular participles are attributive.

The most natural way for them to be brought into English, in most cases, is with a relative clause. All the grammars say the same thing. So it's not just me. I wish that distinction would be made here.

Normally, when two nominatives are joined together in some way by an equative verb the subject takes the article and what remains is the predicate. In Romans 9:5, you have a participial clause involving an equative verb sandwiched between two nominatives of the same case and gender. In that case, the most natural head noun would be what precedes it. Thus Erasmus introduced the period, which breaks it off from its natural antecedent.

You just keep repeating the same nonsense. Fact of the matter is that there is no clear usage of ὁ ὢν as an attributive participle in the second position in the GNT, and certainly not in the writings of apostle Paul. So your translation of Romans 9:5 is just false.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
(continued from the above post)

No, I told you the truth. You received bad information from "Spin" that θεὸς εὐλογητὸς is two nouns strung together forming a prepositional clause "blessed by God."

Why do you always omit his actual description of blessed as a nominalized verb?
Tacky.

My sense is that, overall, spin is stronger in Greek than you, and posts on this objectively, unlike you.

Your attempted description of the natural association make no sense.
 

brianrw

Member
Anyone with good English reading skills can see that this is totally false.
You feel this way because you still don't correctly understand what an apposition is. See Mounce's comment below.

Why do you always omit his actual description of blessed as a nominalized verb?
Tacky.
Because εὐλογητὸς an adjective, not a nominalized verb. It's the adjectival form of the verb εὐλογέω.

Winer : "The present participle (with the article) is not unfrequently used substantially, and then, having become a noun, excludes
all indication of time."
He's noting the substantial usage of the Attributive Participle. Winer's grammar was good for its time, in 1822, but it was still used during a time when the understanding of Greek should be messy and our learning has advanced quite far beyond that. You should look further into what I said, the current grammars will say essentially the same thing. Anything before A.T. Robertson in about 1914, I think, is largely outdated.

The use of the relative in translation isn't really the issue with Rom 9:5. The issue is which noun ὢν is associated with. You have introduced a rule of grammar that ignores the presence of a noun that both immediately follows the participle clause, and agrees with its article, based on ὢν being "equative." IOW, a grammatical special case for ὢν.
I've explained this already, you are not assessing the grammar correctly. There needs to be a full stop (period) after σάρκα in order for the attributive participle to refer to θεὸς, and even then ὢν would be superfluous. It's not just me who says that based upon the grammar. This has been noted by many authors--I've cited Metzger who was on the UBS Committee and Harris already in support. They are both following the grammar correctly.

Mounce also addresses the issue correctly, and this is by applying the same rules consistently as found in the rest of the NT:

Bill Mounce​

The grammatical arguments favor an ascription of deity to Christ. If ὤν referred to God (the Father, not Jesus), then we have a relative pronoun before its antecedent θεός. While not impossible, it is not natural Greek. If ὁ ὤν ἐπὶ πάντων refers to θεός, then the ὤν is unnecessary. The sense would be adequately expressed as θεός ... ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων, “God who is over all). So why the ὤν? And if the doxology is directed toward God, it creates a rough transition of subject from “Jesus” to “God.” (Other arguments are in Moo, Romans, 148f.)
Rather, it is more natural to read ὁ ὤν ἐπὶ πάντων (“the one being over all”) as modifying ὁ Χριστός, and θεός being in apposition to Χριστός.

To recap the others:

Bruce Metzger​

"...the interpretation that takes the words as an asyndetic doxology to God the Father is awkward and unnatural." (Textual Commentary, 2nd Ed, p. 460).​
"If the clause ὁ ὢν κ.τ.λ. is an asyndetic doxology to God the Father, the word ὢν is superfluous . . . The presence of the participle suggests that the clause functions as a relative clause . . . and thus describes ὁ Χριστὸς as being 'God over all.'" (ibid. p. 461)
Here the expression ὁ ὢν is obviously relatival in character and equivalent to ὅς ἐστιν. Put another way, in Rom. 9:5 it is grammatically unnatural that a participle which stands in juxtaposition to the phrase ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ‘should first be divorced from it and then given the force of a wish, receiving a different person as it subject.’ (New Testament Studies (philological, Versional, and Patristic), p. 67)

Murray J. Harris​

c. ὁ ὢν as Relatival ("who is" = ὅς ἐστι)
The relatival use of an articular participle is common in NT Greek (see BDF §412) and I have cited above (n. 37) the eight NT uses of ὁ ὢν in this sense. But why is this the preferable way to construe this phrase in verse 5b and why does the burden of proof rest with those who would construe it otherwise? First, a proper name (ὁ Χριστὸς) precedes and agrees with ὁ ὢν, so that a change of subject is antecedently improbable. (Jesus as God, p. 159)​

Harris also on page 157 addresses the substantival usage, which would result in the translation, "He who is over all is God, blessed forever," noting that "it awkwardly separates ὁ ὢν from its natural antecedent ὁ Χριστὸς."

That's exactly what is also written in his grammar. You just have a hard time with simple reading comprehension.
Again with the nonsense. His grammar does not contain a translation involving a series of appositions that takes μονογενὴς as a substantive. You're clearly confused on this matter. He's written otherwise elsewhere, but not here. It's your misreading that's making you say silly things.

Fact of the matter is that there is no clear usage of ὁ ὢν as an attributive participle in the second position in the GNT, and certainly not in the writings of apostle Paul. So your translation of Romans 9:5 is just false.
More special pleading.
 

cjab

Well-known member
He's noting the substantial usage of the Attributive Participle. Winer's grammar was good for its time, in 1822, but it was still used during a time when the understanding of Greek should be messy and our learning has advanced quite far beyond that.
Judging by the standard of translating Jn 1:18, the modern standard of Greek has regressed considerably from what it used to be.

You should look further into what I said, the current grammars will say essentially the same thing. Anything before A.T. Robertson in about 1914, I think, is largely outdated.
Nonsense. Robertson was another Trinitarian bigot, addicted to the application of Sharp's rule in respect of "o theos" (which it can't apply to). Winer wasn't such a bigot.

I've explained this already, you are not assessing the grammar correctly. There needs to be a full stop (period) after σάρκα in order for the attributive participle to refer to θεὸς,
You haven't addressed any of my points. You've restricted yourself to quoting your Trinitarian grammarians waffling on about dependant clauses being introduced by ὤν. So what? Rom 9:5 doesn't introduce a dependant clause (as it contains a nominative noun) but a new sentence.

And your Exodus 3:14 translation of "I am who is" is nonsensical English. Get a grip. You're not convincing anyone by this. God did not name himself per a "relative" but per a substantive.

and even then ὢν would be superfluous. It's not just me who says that based upon the grammar. This has been noted by many authors--I've cited Metzger who was on the UBS Committee and Harris already in support. They are both following the grammar correctly.

Mounce also addresses the issue correctly, and this is by applying the same rules consistently as found in the rest of the NT:

Bill Mounce​

The grammatical arguments favor an ascription of deity to Christ. If ὤν referred to God (the Father, not Jesus), then we have a relative pronoun before its antecedent θεός. While not impossible, it is not natural Greek. If ὁ ὤν ἐπὶ πάντων refers to θεός, then the ὤν is unnecessary. The sense would be adequately expressed as θεός ... ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων, “God who is over all). So why the ὤν? And if the doxology is directed toward God, it creates a rough transition of subject from “Jesus” to “God.” (Other arguments are in Moo, Romans, 148f.)
Rather, it is more natural to read ὁ ὤν ἐπὶ πάντων (“the one being over all”) as modifying ὁ Χριστός, and θεός being in apposition to Χριστός.
There is no "relative pronoun." That is total BS. The subject isn't Jesus, but the activities of God in the world.

To recap the others:

Bruce Metzger​

"...the interpretation that takes the words as an asyndetic doxology to God the Father is awkward and unnatural." (Textual Commentary, 2nd Ed, p. 460).​
"If the clause ὁ ὢν κ.τ.λ. is an asyndetic doxology to God the Father, the word ὢν is superfluous . . . The presence of the participle suggests that the clause functions as a relative clause . . . and thus describes ὁ Χριστὸς as being 'God over all.'" (ibid. p. 461)
Here the expression ὁ ὢν is obviously relatival in character and equivalent to ὅς ἐστιν. Put another way, in Rom. 9:5 it is grammatically unnatural that a participle which stands in juxtaposition to the phrase ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ‘should first be divorced from it and then given the force of a wish, receiving a different person as it subject.’ (New Testament Studies (philological, Versional, and Patristic), p. 67)
Nothing "obvious" about it.

Murray J. Harris​

c. ὁ ὢν as Relatival ("who is" = ὅς ἐστι)
The relatival use of an articular participle is common in NT Greek (see BDF §412) and I have cited above (n. 37) the eight NT uses of ὁ ὢν in this sense. But why is this the preferable way to construe this phrase in verse 5b and why does the burden of proof rest with those who would construe it otherwise? First, a proper name (ὁ Χριστὸς) precedes and agrees with ὁ ὢν, so that a change of subject is antecedently improbable. (Jesus as God, p. 159)​
The change of subject argument is perverse, because the subject changes all the time, and the subject isn't Jesus according to the flesh, but all the witnesses for God in the world. God being over all (of them) is quite correct and a fitting way to end the discussion.

The fixation on "Christ according to the flesh" being the subject is a Trinitarian fixation.

Harris also on page 157 addresses the substantival usage, which would result in the translation, "He who is over all is God, blessed forever," noting that "it awkwardly separates ὁ ὢν from its natural antecedent ὁ Χριστὸς."
That's only because Harris is using bad English. Better would be "(The) God who is over all blessed for ever".
 

brianrw

Member
Winer ...
Also Winer, "The indefinite use of the present participle occurs frequently in the case of ων from ειναι, which often stands in place of ὀς ην; e.g. John 1:18, 3:13, 9:25." (1825, p. 131).

There is no "relative pronoun." That is total BS. The subject isn't Jesus, but the activities of God in the world.
As I said, the article behaves like a relative pronoun in an attributive participle construction. The fact that you're saying this and The Real John Milton is cheerleading is highly suggestive to me that both of you are lacking in the fundamentals.

As Mathewson and Emig note in their intermediate grammar,

"Technically, the term definite article is inaccurate in the case of Koine Greek . . . because the article traces its origin to the demonstrative pronoun, its essential function is deictic; that is, it points." (Mathewson, David L.; Emig, Elodie Ballantine. Intermediate Greek Grammar, p. 107).

Thus immediately afterward they indicate many examples of ways it is translated: "the, a, this, these, that, those, who, which, whose, my, our, your, his her, their." In addition, they utilize the article in the attributive participle ὁ ὢν in John 1:18 as an example of a "pronoun" (p. 89).

Köstenberger, Merkle and Plummer likewise note in their grammar that,

"While the article is not a pronoun as such, as mentioned above, it traces its origin back to the pronoun and in certain situations may function like a pronoun. Specifically, it may function as a (1) personal pronoun, (2) relative pronoun, (3) possessive pronoun, (4) demonstrative pronoun, or (5) alternate pronoun (this use is rare)." (Köstenberger, Andreas J.; Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, Revised Edition (pp. 159-160)).​

You have introduced a rule of grammar...
I have introduced no rule of grammar, but have stated the fundamentals you are both obviously lacking. Of all the grammars, I think Funk addresses the subject in a way that is best suited to addressing your line of questions and comments.

Anyway, here are some excerpts from Funk, Lesson 53:
771. All participles are verbal adjectives and therefore must, as a rule, agree with some noun or pronoun (present or understood) in gender, number, and case (§§246-2500). The participle is often used as the head term (§§541, 682) in a nominal word cluster, i.e. functions as a substantive (s. §§688-689, 715 for adjectives so used). In this case, the participle may be said to agree with a noun or pronoun 'understood' or to be supplied; descriptively speaking, the participle simply functions as the nominal head.

772. Types of clusters. Attributive participles occur in nominal word clusters of both the simple and complex type (§685), and in clusters both with and without other nominal heads (§771).

(4)ὁ λύχνος ὁ καιόμενος χαὶ φαίνωνJn 5:35
the burning and shining lamp

is said to be simple because all terms agree in gender, number, and case. On the other hand, in the cluster

(5)ὁ πέμψας με πατήρJn 8:18
the sending me father

με is accusative (it is the object of the participle πέμψας), while the remaining terms are nom. masc. sing. This cluster is therefore complex: The participle heads a complex subcluster (πέμψας με), which as a whole modifies πατήρ: the / sending me / father.

It is to be noted that the complexity in (5) is occasioned by the syntactic relationships that obtain between verbs and their complements, rather than by syntactic relationships characteristic of nominals and nominal clusters (cf. §695) .

772.2 Clusters (4) and (5) both have nominal heads (λύχνος, πατήρ). Attributive participles also occur in clusters which may be said to be 'headless' (the nominal head is not expressed), or in which the participle itself may be regarded as the nominal head. The attributive participle is a verbal adjective (§0770), and may be regarded as having the same range of functions as the adjective. Since the adjective may be 'substantivized' (= regarded as nominal head, §688.1), the participle, too, may be said to function as the head term in nominal word clusters lacking another nominal head.

With (4) may be compared

(6)οἱ πενθοῦντεςMt 5:4
the mourning (ones)

in which article and participle function as a nominal cluster. Since both terms are in agreement, the cluster is simple. With (5) may be compared

(7)ὁ πέμψας μεJn 8:26
the sending me (one)

which is also a complex cluster, but in which the participle serves as nominal head. A literal translation of (6) and (7) does not make sense in English, so one must supply the generalized nominal head, one (from the context of (7) father could have been supplied).

773. The attributive participle and the relative clause. The literalistic translation of (5), the sending me father, is unacceptable grammatical structure in English. The attributive participle and object is perhaps best rendered into English by a relative clause: the father who sent me. This translation suggests that attributive participles (with complements) and relative clauses are agnate constructions in Greek as well as in English, i.e. they are alternate ways of saying the same thing. This agnate relationship for Greek was demonstrated in §672, in connection with the discussion of relative clauses.

Even when a literal rendering into English is acceptable, as in the case of the translation of (4), the burning and shining lamp (only the word order has been modified), a relative clause may still substitute: the lamp which burns and shines.

The relative clause is thus a means of transforming a verbal (participle) into a verb. Looked at from the other side, the attributive participle is the means by which a verb can be employed in nominal position: The verb is transformed into a verbal and used as an adjective.

The relative clause is common enough in Greek, but Greek is hospitable to the attributive participle and encourages its lavish use.

...


774.3 The attributive participle in complex n-clusters may theoretically take any of the complements or adjuncts the corresponding finite verb may take. The participles in (12), (13), and (14) take direct objects. Were these participles transformed into relative clauses, the relative clauses would be included type III sentences (§508). The participle in (15) is complemented by a p-cluster functioning as an adverb; the transformation of this cluster would thus yield a type I sentence (§§504-505).

Section 672 (and the relevant 673), noted above, reads as follows:
672. As an adjective clause, the relative clause is often agnate to an articular participle. Observe the sequence in Lk 12:8f.:

(10)πᾶς ὃς ἂν ὁμολογήσῃ ἐν ἐμοὶ ...
ὁ δὲ ἀρνησάμενός με ...Lk 12:8f.
Everyone who acknowledges me ...
But he who denies me ...

The relative clause is here agnate to the participial phrase. This relationship is confirmed by the form of the second word group in the parallel passage in Matthew:

...

673. Relative clauses may also function as substantive clauses, i.e. as an element in the matrix sentence. When they do so, their antecedent is "omitted" (from, the standpoint of English).

I do hope this information is helpful. I had originally posted in full, but had to cut out less relevant portions in order to get this post published in under 10,000 characters.

It’s like talking to a brick wall, he keeps mindlessly repeating Trinitarian quotes but seldom addresses any of the points brought up.
You're saying that in this particular case, the attributive participle is the exception to the established rule of Greek argument. This is Special Pleading, which as we all know "is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. It is the application of a double standard."

It is also circular reasoning, and the circularity is this: ὁ ὢν has to stand on its own without modifiers, otherwise it can't be an adjective, so when it has modifiers it must be appositional. Therefore it is always appositional, because it can't stand on its own.

This is pure sophistry. In response to this, I have noted that the attributive participle is relatival in function and (as a verbal adjective) in fact can be modified by a prepositional phrase and take an object. So yes, I have addressed your point, and you are appealing to the stone.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Also Winer, "The indefinite use of the present participle occurs frequently in the case of ων from ειναι, which often stands in place of ὀς ην; e.g. John 1:18, 3:13, 9:25." (1825, p. 131).
Never suggested it wasn't so, except in the case of Paul's own epistles, where it isn't so. Two occurences of the present participle in all of his epistles confined to doxologies is not "often" by any definition of "often."

As I said, the article behaves like a relative pronoun in an attributive participle construction. The fact that you're saying this and The Real John Milton is cheerleading is highly suggestive to me that both of you are lacking in the fundamentals.
"Stands in place of" != "behave" when the words are considered in isolation. Thus, case in point, no-one has ever suggested that ὅς ἐστιν could stand in place of ὁ ων in Ex 3:14, except you inferrentially.

Did the Greels refer to God as ὅς ἐστιν, as you suggest they might have done?

As Mathewson and Emig note in their intermediate grammar,

"Technically, the term definite article is inaccurate in the case of Koine Greek . . . because the article traces its origin to the demonstrative pronoun, its essential function is deictic; that is, it points." (Mathewson, David L.; Emig, Elodie Ballantine. Intermediate Greek Grammar, p. 107).

Thus immediately afterward they indicate many examples of ways it is translated: "the, a, this, these, that, those, who, which, whose, my, our, your, his her, their." In addition, they utilize the article in the attributive participle ὁ ὢν in John 1:18 as an example of a "pronoun" (p. 89).

Köstenberger, Merkle and Plummer likewise note in their grammar that,

"While the article is not a pronoun as such, as mentioned above, it traces its origin back to the pronoun and in certain situations may function like a pronoun. Specifically, it may function as a (1) personal pronoun, (2) relative pronoun, (3) possessive pronoun, (4) demonstrative pronoun, or (5) alternate pronoun (this use is rare)." (Köstenberger, Andreas J.; Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, Revised Edition (pp. 159-160)).​

From "A Grammatical Analysis of John I, I" (C. C. Caragounis):

"Because the Greek article originally (in Homeros, etc.) was a demonstrative
pronoun, which later came to lose much of its demonstrative
force, and to that extent assume the meaning of the article—especially in
Platon's writings, where the article achieved its richest and most varied
uses—it cannot be compared to nor can its uses be determined by the
way in which the English article is applied. If we want to understand the
ways in which the Greek article is used, it is important that we disregard
the uses of the English, German, etc. articles, and that we study the Greek
article against the background of its own usage in Greek literature. This
does not imply that there are no parallel uses of the article between Greek
and English, and German, etc., but that methodologically it is better to
dispense with reliance on the English, etc. article for determining the
meanings of the Greek article.

The article (in Koine Greek) ό, ή, τό has the quality of classifying and individualizing
substantives. In other words, the article can turn a substantive from being
general to particular and from being indefinite to definte. Already at this
point we see how the Greek article is different from the English article.
For example, whereas English would use the anarthrous "Man" or "Hu-
manity" to indicate class, the Greek would use the arthrous ό άνθρωπος
or ή άνθρωπότης to express the same idea. In other words, the uses of
the English article do not coincide with those of the Greek article, and
we would do well not to impose on NT articular or non-articular constructions
ideas based on the uses of the English article. Thus, when a
Hellene says ό άνθρωπος, the construction is not definite in the sense
that he is speaking of a particular man, but generic: through the use of
the article, he concretizes all men (i.e. humanity) in the arthrous singular
as representative of the entire class of men. In saying ό άνθρωπος the
Hellene thinks of all that belongs to the category of "man", but not of
beasts, etc., that which distinguishes, demarcates, and defines man from
all other categories of creatures, that which belongs to the concept Man,39.
At the same time, the entire group of men (i.e. the whole of humanity) is
thought of as a concrete whole. Thus, ό άνθρωπος θνητός έστιν means
"all human beings [without exception] are mortal". The so-called indefinite
form άνθρωπος τις means "someone of the genus man", in other words, it
describes man as a substance limited, by itself, and as indefinite: "a certain
man". Thus, too, the abstract "man" by receiving the article becomes
concrete or definite: ό άνθρωπος δς ήλθεν έξ 'Αθηνών "the (particular)
man who came from Athens".
Many times the article is used in connection with a person that has
been mentioned before: Acts 4,22: ετών γάρ ήν ... ό άνθρωπος (cf. Acts
3,2, where the same person is described as τις άνηρ). Even though we
translate "the man was ..." in English the force is "i/iar man [of whom I
wrote earlier] was ..." In this capacity the article is used in its original
demonstrative force, rather than in its pure articular sense. But when the
subject is presented as a general concept, without any specification, classification,
etc., it is anarthrous. Thus Platon, Theaitetos 152 a: πάντιυν
χρημάτων με'τρον άνθρωπος means not so much "a man is the measure
of all things" but "anyone who is a man [i.e. who shares in all that makes
up a human being] is the measure of all things". From this it is a small
step to the question of the arthrous or anarthrous predicate."




So it acts on substantives. The only question in Rom 9:5 is, which substantive?


I have introduced no rule of grammar, but have stated the fundamentals you are both obviously lacking. Of all the grammars, I think Funk addresses the subject in a way that is best suited to addressing your line of questions and comments.

Anyway, here are some excerpts from Funk, Lesson 53:


Section 672 (and the relevant 673), noted above, reads as follows:


I do hope this information is helpful. I had originally posted in full, but had to cut out less relevant portions in order to get this post published in under 10,000 characters.
To be honest, it's a lot of information which I don't disagree with, but I fail to see what point you're making in relatiion to this thread.


You're saying that in this particular case, the attributive participle is the exception to the established rule of Greek argument.
I'm not saying it's an exception to any rule. The attributive participle is just functioning with a different noun to the one you with your Trinitarian hat on have arbitrarily and pre-emptively decided upon, where there is, admittedly, a mild degree of ambiguity in the grammar, but not such as to occasion any doubt which grammatical form is correct, where the article naturally relates to θεός which comes after the article.

The grammatical issue here was never the participle (as you have made it out to be), but the article. Do you normally relate an article backwards, even where it precedes a noun of the same case and gender?

Of course not.

This is Special Pleading, which as we all know "is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. It is the application of a double standard."

It is also circular reasoning, and the circularity is this: ὁ ὢν has to stand on its own without modifiers, otherwise it can't be an adjective, so when it has modifiers it must be appositional. Therefore it is always appositional, because it can't stand on its own.

This is pure sophistry. In response to this, I have noted that the attributive participle is relatival in function and (as a verbal adjective) in fact can be modified by a prepositional phrase and take an object. So yes, I have addressed your point, and you are appealing to the stone.
Nonsense. My argument is that the article mandates a substantival referent and the obvious referent is to the noun which follows the article, if there is one, and not to a noun which just happens to precede it and which is only by accident of the same case and gender.

From the same book of Winer that you quoted. p 49

"The Greek article o, ή, το, stands before a noun,
when a definite object is designated, or is distinguished
from all other similar objects."

Indeed if your contention were to hold true, there would have been another article placed before θεός in Rom 9:5. That there is no second article is conclusive of which noun the article refers to.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The term "natural association" without further clarification is meaningless. Whoever the other nameless gentleman is is correct, both are, but that suggests to me apposition and both having the same referent.

Why would God and blessed being nominative, singular, masculine have anything to do with apposition of God and Christ?

Were you thinking of God and Christ when you wrote the above?
 

brianrw

Member
Nonsense. My argument is that the article mandates a substantival referent and the obvious referent is to the noun which follows the article, if there is one, and not to a noun which just happens to precede it and which is only by accident of the same case and gender.
Cjab, please note who I am quoting in my responses to know who I am talking to. I write one response, but often to more than one individual. Some of those comments you're responding to, including here, were for The Real John Milton.

You've actually reversed the grammatical argument, which no one I've ever seen has asserted so strongly as you or in the way you do. There's a pecking order in the Greek language, and what you're proposing wouldn't naturally follow it.

Had the passage read ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων κύριος εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν, I would be translating the passage using the same rules, and I don't believe we would even be having this disagreement.

The reading you assert as authentic was introduced by Erasmus in the 16th century (though Catholic in practice, he was admittedly Arian in thought), by inserting a period before ὁ ὢν; afterward Socinians and Unitarians suggested more than one conjectural emendation to avoid having it refer to Christ as "God." There were originally at least 4, and only the one gained some traction. Only in about the 19th century or so did people warm up to it, and now it's falling by the wayside again. I've looked extensively, and the main counter to the Greek fathers before then was Genesis 45:8. So I'm going to present to you, again, that all of this strongly presupposes that the bias is not from the Trinitarian camp.

Indeed if your contention were to hold true, there would have been another article placed before θεός in Rom 9:5. That there is no second article is conclusive of which noun the article refers to.
Not at all, because ὁ Χριστὸς is the subject; θεὸς is a predicate.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Cjab, please note who I am quoting in my responses to know who I am talking to. I write one response, but often to more than one individual. Some of those comments you're responding to, including here, were for The Real John Milton.

You've actually reversed the grammatical argument, which no one I've ever seen has asserted so strongly as you or in the way you do. There's a pecking order in the Greek language, and what you're proposing wouldn't naturally follow it.

Had the passage read ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων κύριος εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν, I would be translating the passage using the same rules, and I don't believe we would even be having this disagreement.

The reading you assert as authentic was introduced by Erasmus in the 16th century (though Catholic in practice, he was admittedly Arian in thought), by inserting a period before ὁ ὢν; afterward Socinians and Unitarians suggested more than one conjectural emendation to avoid having it refer to Christ as "God." There were originally at least 4, and only the one gained some traction. Only in about the 19th century or so did people warm up to it, and now it's falling by the wayside again. I've looked extensively, and the main counter to the Greek fathers before then was Genesis 45:8. So I'm going to present to you, again, that all of this strongly presupposes that the bias is not from the Trinitarian camp.


Not at all, because ὁ Χριστὸς is the subject; θεὸς is a predicate.
I am neither a socinian, nor an arian, nor a high trinitarian. I do allow for at least 3 spirit "persons" in heaven however, all in the form of the Father and all co-eternal with the Father, but not co-equal with the Father. For I see the Father as "above all." ("Person" is an anthropomorphism in this context for what is in heaven is invisible and infinitely more powerful than humans.)

As Winer and Erasmus allowed for, "Paul" would never have written "Christ after the flesh who is God". That is high Trinitarianism at its highest ever, and was foreign to the apostles: high Trinitarianism deriving from a later Greek philosophy, partly arising due to the Greek inability to understand the Hebrew use of Elohim as diverse, and applying to agents of YHWH as well as to YHWH himself. Paul predicted that heresies would arise, presumably relating to the Greek philosophical model being incompatible with the Hebrew model.

What might have been found in the Hebrew, and which probably is in Isaiah, is "Christ after the flesh is Elohim," but Elohim has a rather more diverse usage than theos in the Greek, which with the article is reserved for the Father in person, and without the article, for the Father in action through another.

This explains curious wordings such as John 20:28, which so many take as a proof text for high Trinitarianism, whereas it is nothing of the sort bearing in mind Jesus' words at John 10:34,35.

Erasmus was clearly not the first to see a break after τὸ κατὰ σάρκα as other ancient manuscripts evidence it. To pretend that he was the first is disingenuous. To pretend that such a break is "arian" is disingenuous for it is eminently arguable from grammar and compatible with the low trinitarianism of the apostles.

Given the diverse use of participles in general, which are free ranging, and can be use in many contexts, I don't believe there any grounds for such particple related arguments in Rom 9:5 as you have suggested. I don't credit Wallace as being learned, but someone with profound problems grasping Hebrew theology, and even dishonest. I do not know why so many hold him in high regard. What he makes out to be "complex," others find easy.

Disparaging people like Winer is all the rage amongst high Trinitarians, but I think he'll have the last laugh. All Wallace's complexity derives from his need to promulgate high Trinitarianism in scripture, in which high Trinitarian project he presumanly has a large financial interest. Were he to forsake it, I'm sure his income would drop dramatically. He has put himself forward as the apostle of high Trinitarianism. If you want impartiality, you'll need to look elsewhere.
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
(continued from the above post)
"Stands in place of" != "behave" when the words are considered in isolation. Thus, case in point, no-one has ever suggested that ὅς ἐστιν could stand in place of ὁ ων in Ex 3:14, except you inferrentially.

Did the Greels refer to God as ὅς ἐστιν, as you suggest they might have done?
But I didn't exactly say that, did I? Nor did I "infer it." I said in Hebrew, there is a relativizar, אֲשֶׁר אֶֽהְיֶה. The relative pronoun אֲשֶׁר literally means "who". This was taken into Greek as the attributive participle.

The attributive participle in Greek has an equivalent function to a relative clause. Any of the grammars will tell you that in most cases the best English equivalent is a relative clause. The attributive participle is adjectival, as is the relative clause.

Erasmus was clearly not the first to see a break after τὸ κατὰ σάρκα as other ancient manuscripts evidence it.
This statement is not accurate, as I have said before. Abbot (often quoted) has mischaracterized the middot as a "stop," when in fact Dionysius the Thracian tells us, "There are three dots: final, middle, underdot. And the final dot is a sign for a complete thought, while the middle is a sign taken up for a breath, and the underdot is a sign for a thought which is not yet complete, but is still wanting." The middot marked the end of a brief clause or κόμμα (komma), if that sounds familiar to you at all. Thus as Metzger notes, "the most that can be inferred from the presence of a point in the middle position after σάρκα in a majority of the uncial manuscripts is that scribes felt that some kind of pause was appropriate at this juncture in the sentence." (p. 99). Of course, Dionysius the Thracian was not a Christian at all.

Both p27 and p46 are defective. No interpunct is present in Aleph, B*, F, K, 0285 (6th century), 0319. Uncials A, B(c), C, L, Ψ, 040 (high dot after "amen"), 049, 056 (high dot after "amen") have a middot; Codex G has a middot after both "over all" and "God," a reading also found in later minuscules. 623 and 2110, though classed as minuscules, have an uncial text and both contain a middot (noted also below).

D (06) arranges the text as follows:

καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα​
ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς​
εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας​
ἀμήν​

As I noted elsewhere, only a few uncials are cited incorrectly as high dots: B, L, 0142 and 0151. However, these are not correctly cited. In B, high dots actually occur above the letter height, whereas here there is a middot added by a later hand; the original text had no punctuation here. 0151 is a commentary manuscript that typically uses a middot and a space to break off a verse from the commentary, which begins on a new line. The end of the sentence is actually signified by a double point. In 0142, since there is a high dot after "amen," it is easy to discern the punctuation is a middot since it occurs in the middle position of the letter (the same as is found in preceding clauses).

Only L looks like a high point, but it also stands in other places where the sentence is incomplete and there is a comma after θεὸς. Since Greek punctuation began undergoing evolution after the 7th century AD (L is from the 9th century), the way punctuation is used was already beginning to change. The majority of minuscules have a middot, comma, or no punctuation at all.

So as I said before, the ancient manuscripts actually evidence a pause for a breath, not a break in the sentence. There's no real manuscript evidence to support a period.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Mounce also addresses the issue correctly, and this is by applying the same rules consistently as found in the rest of the NT:

Bill Mounce

The grammatical arguments favor an ascription of deity to Christ. If ὤν referred to God (the Father, not Jesus), then we have a relative pronoun before its antecedent θεός. While not impossible, it is not natural Greek. If ὁ ὤν ἐπὶ πάντων refers to θεός, then the ὤν is unnecessary. The sense would be adequately expressed as θεός ... ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων, “God who is over all). So why the ὤν? And if the doxology is directed toward God, it creates a rough transition of subject from “Jesus” to “God.” (Other arguments are in Moo, Romans, 148f.)
Rather, it is more natural to read ὁ ὤν ἐπὶ πάντων (“the one being over all”) as modifying ὁ Χριστός, and θεός being in apposition to Χριστός.

What a nonsensical reference. Another posturing claim from Brian of no merit. First, Mounce agrees with the AV on Christ being (“the one being over all”). Then Mounce ignores the critical God blessed for ever phrase and instead simply makes a fiat claim of God in apposition.

Totally worthless.

You would be helped if you simply accepted the pure AV text.

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.
 
Top