Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

cjab

Well-known member
Despite the fact that we are working with an attributive participle, the participle still retains an equative function just like its finite counterparts. There is no "disassociating it," because we take θεὸς as a predicate.
Taking θεὸς as a predicate is unjustifiable where it is preceded by an article. There is no grammar rule which allows an adjective/participle in the first attributive position to be disassociated from its head noun by a supervening rule of construction.

The first attributive position takes precedence over apposition and any attempt to divide the participle clause, where ὢν doesn't immediately follow it's alleged head noun.

To say that ὢν is equative to an antecedent noun is tautological, as predicting an outcome, rather than justifying it. ὢν isn't equative to an antecedent noun in John 3:31, and doesn't always function equatively, which is a semantic observation, not a grammatical proposition.

I'm not following you here. There is one usage of a substantival participle in the head noun phrase (τοῦ καθημένου, "of him who sat"), and an attributive participle that sets off a participial phrase that operates adjectivally (τῇ ἐκπορευομένῃ, "which proceeded"). Is that what you are referring to?
I agree that in Rev 19:21, the participle phrase operates adjectivally at the semantic level, and there is no doubt that it does because τῇ ἐκπορευομένῃ is dependent and follows its referent. It is a case of both apposition and the semantics of the phrase coming together to enable an adjectival rendering.

But within its own dependent clause τῇ (ἐξελθούσῃ) has a substantival character and is gramatically appositively because it isn't relatable to what immediately precedes it.

A literal English transcription would like to see a comma after the rendering of τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ ἵππου, with τῇ being transcribed as "it," for the English rendering: "with the sword of him that sat upon the horse having proceeded out of his mouth" lacks clarity and style, although it remains plausible but only due to the unambiguous meaning.

Hypothetically, were τῇ ἐξελθούσῃ ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ to have been followed by a noun in the dative, and / or a suitable verb, it could have been made into an object clause within a subsequent sentence.

That is to say, the semantic rendering of a hypothetically appositive participle clause, and especially of what appears to be a complete subsequent sentence in which a participle occurs, is not independent of the natural gramatical construction of that clause/sentence.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Earlier, Brian acknowledged that the commas in the AV were correct.
No difference between early elocutionary and later syntactical commas.

He seemed to totally accept this as the accurate English 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.

This demolishes his AV apposition claim, that Christ is God in the verse, since you would have to insist on strange fire changes to show the apposition. Here are three tries:

1) comma after God, separating it from the natural association with blessed, creating three distinct attributes of Christ

2) adding “as” as done by Murray Harris, posted by Brian twice but then disclaimed!
A mangled English attempt.
“(Christ,) who is supreme above all as God blessed forever”

3) claiming complex ellipses additions
e.g. (Christ is) God, (who is) blessed for ever, (by creation, his people, or something)
Earlier, I showed that this is the weakest, most unnatural interpretation of the phrase.

Thus, Brian’s claim of apposition in the English text is simply false.

And I believe that anyone who makes that claim as a grammatical imperative is weak in English, reading through doctrinal presuppositions.

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

However, Brian tried to claim another difference on the PBF forum.
Adjectival usage,
Brian was de facto attacking the AV text from a new angle.

I'm going to reiterate again that the KJV is an early modern English translation and the rule of the adjective in this construction has already been stated for you repeatedly as it applies in early modern English.

Offhand I don't see the earlier spots, but this is clear enough.
Brian is saying modern English would give a different text than the AV.

Are you really claiming that your translation of the AV would be different today? On the CARM forum you said the early elocutionary commas and the modern syntactical commas would be identical.

Similarly, if you think the modern adjective usage leads to a different English text, then you need to give that text.

If not, what was the purpose of the adjectival claim?
Simply another diversion?
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
When the head noun is expressed, however, as it is in John 1:18 and other like passages, it is dependent (not independent) and therefore attributive (not substantival) and it's usage is particular.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Look:


ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Bold above is an appositive. ὁ ὢν is functioning substantivally there . Are you really disputing this ? You need to read more GNT.
 

brianrw

Member
You are back…The point is that even Gryllus understands that if Romans 9:5 is taken like so —, that is, ὁ ὢν is not starting a new sentence … ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς then ὁ ὢν … is not in the second attributive position but is more naturally construed as an appositive.
There's not exactly a great gulf between our positions. My understanding is that he is taking ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς as a predicate substantive, but that's not what you're arguing for here.

Taking θεὸς as a predicate is unjustifiable where it is preceded by an article. There is no grammar rule which allows an adjective/participle in the first attributive position to be disassociated from its head noun by a supervening rule of construction.
You say a lot of things about the Greek and much of it is not grammatically sound. If we emend the punctuation with a period after σάρκα (which the manuscripts don't support), I would not take ὁ ὢν would as operating in the first attributive position, but as a substantival usage of the participle as the subject of the sentence. Since it retains the same equative function of its finite equivalents, Θεὸς would be the predicate. So IMHO it is either operating in the 2nd attributive position, or it is a substantival usage of the participle. I don't regard a first attributive usage as a likely option at all.

What I am asserting, and I am most certainly not the first to note it, is that when ὁ ὢν begins a clause in the GNT it never takes a substantive as its subject, because it is operating as the subject itself. Rather, its usage is almost invariably generic and the nominal head is always implied. That means it can apply to anyone of the class of individuals to whom the action of the verb or equation applies.

Quite simply, if it is operating in an attributive position with a noun or noun phrase that matches it in case, number, and gender, then it will modify it in that position, and if it stands between two nominatives and is in an attributive position with the preceding noun it is most naturally going to take what precedes it as the antecedent. So it most naturally modifies ὁ Χριστὸς. Since ὁ ὢν is itself equative, we naturally expect it to take a predicate.

This demolishes his AV apposition claim, that Christ is God in the verse, since you would have to insist on strange fire changes to show the apposition. Here are three tries:

1) comma after God, separating it from the natural association with blessed, creating three distinct attributes of Christ

2) adding “as” as done by Murray Harris, posted by Brian twice but then disclaimed!
A mangled English attempt.
“(Christ,) who is supreme above all as God blessed forever”

3) claiming complex ellipses additions
e.g. (Christ is) God, (who is) blessed for ever, (by creation, his people, or something)
Earlier, I showed that this is the weakest, most unnatural interpretation of the phrase.
You're completely misrepresenting me on all three points, none of which are points I advocated, much less "Tries." (#1) Is something you said my position requires, which I have disputed about a hundred times now. (#2) Is what Harris was saying and you were misrepresenting me as saying. (#3) Is another instance of you ascribing words to my position by something I never said. First, that there is no verbal concept involved with the adjective "blessed," but "blessed" describes "God" as a predicate in the postposition. I have reiterated this point ad nauseam, and you keep pretending I'm saying something different by putting words in my mouth. I have said, and always will say, that "God" in the AV text is an appositive of "Christ" and "blessed" is a predicate adjective in the postposition.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Look:
Of course not, because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the participle usage in the GNT and you're not following the terminology. When the participle operates substantively, the head nominal is implied and the usage is almost always generic. That means it refers to any one of the whole class of individuals performing the action. When it operates attributively, there is a particular individual or individual in view, so the usage is particular. "Dependent" means that the head nominal of the attributive participle is already stated, so it is dependent on the identity of the head noun.

Bold above is an appositive. ὁ ὢν is functioning substantivally there . Are you really disputing this ? You need to read more GNT.
Yes, I am disputing this. You assert this because "modifers" are involved, whereas the grammars assert that this is a normal function of the participle. The participial phrase (with its objects and modifiers) operates adjectivally to modify the head noun. It's actually quite similar in English, so it should not be a hard concept to follow. The same is true of nouns and noun phrases in English, the usage is equivalent to the Greek in that respect--the noun phrase has a noun at its head and operates as a noun. The participial phrase operates like an adjective. It's really simple, and you both keep making the whole thing way overcomplicated. Thus "the only begotten

I'm presuming you're self-taught, no?

1) Brian does not have an English apposition text with Christ = God. His attempt to enlist the AV is a huge failure. (Side note: He continually quotes “God over all..” when his actual text is “Christ .. over all.”)

2) Brian does not deal with the uniqueness of Romans 9:5 as a verse opposed to New Testament dual addressing, which is normative, His main attempt is an appeal to Titus 2:13 as if one mistranslation supports the other. He also enlists the bandwagon fallacy.

3). Brian does not deal with the simple fact that Christ=God is simply a Trinitarian disaster. The article from Thomas Hubeart receives no response. Also the simple question, if not God the Father, what God is Christ in Romans 9:5?
1. It is an apposition. 2. It does not mean "blessed by God." 3. Trinitarians hold to the concept of three persons, one God--the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. I have no idea what Hubeart article you are talking about. Cjab is very verbose. I can't possibly respond to all his points without preparing a multi-volume work. So I am sticking to the language aspect. Virtually none of what you are saying is relevant to the topic, and moreover most of it is a distortion of my actual positions. All you are doing is derailing the conversation with a host of personal attacks against strawman Brian.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
There's not exactly a great gulf between our positions. My understanding is that he is taking ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς as a predicate substantive, but that's not what you're arguing for here.


You say a lot of things about the Greek and much of it is not grammatically sound. If we emend the punctuation with a period after σάρκα (which the manuscripts don't support), I would not take ὁ ὢν would as operating in the first attributive position, but as a substantival usage of the participle as the subject of the sentence. Since it retains the same equative function of its finite equivalents, Θεὸς would be the predicate. So IMHO it is either operating in the 2nd attributive position, or it is a substantival usage of the participle. I don't regard a first attributive usage as a likely option at all.

What I am asserting, and I am most certainly not the first to note it, is that when ὁ ὢν begins a clause in the GNT it never takes a substantive as its subject, because it is operating as the subject itself. Rather, its usage is almost invariably generic and the nominal head is always implied. That means it can apply to anyone of the class of individuals to whom the action of the verb or equation applies.

Quite simply, if it is operating in an attributive position with a noun or noun phrase that matches it in case, number, and gender, then it will modify it in that position, and if it stands between two nominatives and is in an attributive position with the preceding noun it is most naturally going to take what precedes it as the antecedent. So it most naturally modifies ὁ Χριστὸς. Since ὁ ὢν is itself equative, we naturally expect it to take a predicate.


You're completely misrepresenting me on all three points, none of which are points I advocated, much less "Tries." (#1) Is something you said my position requires, which I have disputed about a hundred times now. (#2) Is what Harris was saying and you were misrepresenting me as saying. (#3) Is another instance of you ascribing words to my position by something I never said. First, that there is no verbal concept involved with the adjective "blessed," but "blessed" describes "God" as a predicate in the postposition. I have reiterated this point ad nauseam, and you keep pretending I'm saying something different by putting words in my mouth. I have said, and always will say, that "God" in the AV text is an appositive of "Christ" and "blessed" is a predicate adjective in the postposition.


Of course not, because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the participle usage in the GNT and you're not following the terminology. When the participle operates substantively, the head nominal is implied and the usage is almost always generic. That means it refers to any one of the whole class of individuals performing the action. When it operates attributively, there is a particular individual or individual in view, so the usage is particular. "Dependent" means that the head nominal of the attributive participle is already stated, so it is dependent on the identity of the head noun.


Yes, I am disputing this. You assert this because "modifers" are involved, whereas the grammars assert that this is a normal function of the participle. The participial phrase (with its objects and modifiers) operates adjectivally to modify the head noun. It's actually quite similar in English, so it should not be a hard concept to follow. The same is true of nouns and noun phrases in English, the usage is equivalent to the Greek in that respect--the noun phrase has a noun at its head and operates as a noun. The participial phrase operates like an adjective. It's really simple, and you both keep making the whole thing way overcomplicated. Thus "the only begotten

I'm presuming you're self-taught, no?


1. It is an apposition. 2. It does not mean "blessed by God." 3. Trinitarians hold to the concept of three persons, one God--the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. I have no idea what Hubeart article you are talking about. Cjab is very verbose. I can't possibly respond to all his points without preparing a multi-volume work. So I am sticking to the language aspect. Virtually none of what you are saying is relevant to the topic, and moreover most of it is a distortion of my actual positions. All you are doing is derailing the conversation with a host of personal attacks against strawman Brian.
Point is that you are taking ὁ ὢν attributively in the second position, he is not.
 

cjab

Well-known member
You say a lot of things about the Greek and much of it is not grammatically sound. If we emend the punctuation with a period after σάρκα (which the manuscripts don't support), I would not take ὁ ὢν would as operating in the first attributive position, but as a substantival usage of the participle as the subject of the sentence. Since it retains the same equative function of its finite equivalents, Θεὸς would be the predicate. So IMHO it is either operating in the 2nd attributive position, or it is a substantival usage of the participle. I don't regard a first attributive usage as a likely option at all.
You've given no good grammatical reason for your view, although I see your view is widespread in Trinitarianism circles generally. I think it derives from ECF propaganda.

I note that the RSV, Good News Translation, New American Bible, Contemporary English Version, Irenaeus and Eusebius all reject the contention that Christ is "over all"; for plainly he isn't "over his Father."

Yet more to the point, Christ didn't become governor of the world until his ascension into heaven, and his return to his Father's side, so there is no precedent to cast the human Christ as "over all" even if he was, in his flesh, the Lord of all believers.

What's signiicant is you refuse to give any precedent for breaking up a usual Greek construction in order to make Paul say something that he never says anywhere else. And seeing ὁ ὢν in the second attributive position is wrong for more than one reason.

Doctrinally, linking ὁ ὢν to ὁ Χριστὸς must be as a substantive, because ὁ ὢν ........ cannot refer directly to "ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα" due to incoherence, as I have indicated. Grammatically, ὁ ὢν ...... by its very nature is hardly likely to be adjectival in the second attributive position for if it were, ὢν would be redundant.

This is presumably why Gryllus suggests apposition.

Yet as a substantive it is more connected with Θεὸς. There are various options but 1st attributive position seems best because Θεὸς clearly requires an article which ὁ ὢν supplies.

The whole gist of your argument is "second attributive position or bust."

Well, you're bust, IMO.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Of course not, because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the participle usage in the GNT and you're not following the terminology. When the participle operates substantively, the head nominal is implied and the usage is almost always generic. That means it refers to any one of the whole class of individuals performing the action. When it operates attributively, there is a particular individual or individual in view, so the usage is particular. "Dependent" means that the head nominal of the attributive participle is already stated, so it is dependent on the identity of the head noun.
I know all that. I’m saying you are making a useless point since ὁ ὢν is not “dependent” on “a head noun” as it is not functioning attributively but substantivally and further, starts a new sentence.

This entire thread you have been engaged in sleight of hand and strawman arguments.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
IDoctrinally, linking ὁ ὢν to ὁ Χριστὸς must be as a substantive, because ὁ ὢν ........ cannot refer directly to "ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα" due to incoherence, as I have indicated. Grammatically, ὁ ὢν ...... by its very nature is hardly likely to be adjectival in the second attributive position for if it were, ὢν would be redundant.

This is presumably why Gryllus suggests apposition.

Yet as a substantive it is more connected with Θεὸς. There are various options but 1st attributive position seems best because Θεὸς clearly requires an article which ὁ ὢν supplies.

The whole gist of your argument is "second attributive position or bust."

Well, you're bust, IMO.
Good point. We would then have had the following construction —- ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς

ὧν οἱ πατέρες, καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Herbert Smyth in 1160 is instructive . He says an appositive to a proper name has the article when it designates a characteristic or something well known: ὁ Σόλων ὁ παλαιὸς ἦν φιλόδημος

So if the following is correct >> ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς, then presumably ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς is an appositive designating a characteristic of Christ, that is, that he is God over all, just as ὁ παλαιὸς ἦν φιλόδημος designates something well known of Σόλων.

Though again the participle ὢν then seems to be redundant. For this reason, and others, most likely ὁ ὢν starts a new sentence.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I would like to ask Brian if he understands that there is an implied verb ἐστιν in the following?

…καὶ ἐξ ὧν (ἐστιν) ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

With such a sentence taking ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς in the second attributive would be bordering on the ungrammatical, if not outright ungrammatical.

He has not read enough of the GNT , just tends to proffer canned Trinitarian talking points. That is the problem here.
 

brianrw

Member
This entire thread you have been engaged in sleight of hand and strawman arguments.
The burden is on you to substantiate the arbitrary restrictions you advocate, not on me to disprove what you have failed to substantiate in the first place.

I would like to ask Brian if he understands that there is an implied verb ἐστιν in the following?
Or perhaps more properly ἦλθεν. Hence the accusative τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. You seem to have not considered how this is a detriment to your own argument.

Herbert Smyth in 1160 is instructive . He says an appositive to a proper name has the article when it designates a characteristic or something well known: ὁ Σόλων ὁ παλαιὸς ἦν φιλόδημος“
Repeatedly using Herbert Weir Smyth's classical Greek grammar to make your points on koine Greek literally makes no sense. And when you have used it, you've repeatedly used it wrongly.

Section 1160 falls under the Heading "Attributive Position of the Article," does it not? And ὁ παλαιὸς is an adjective in the second attributive position, is it not? --i.e., "Solon of ancient times loved the people" (Smyth's translation, which you omit) or as I would translate, "Old Solon (Σόλων ὁ παλαιὸς) was a friend of commoners (ἦν φιλόδημος)." By appositive Smyth is merely referring to the fact that the adjective follows the noun. Since this section is on the Attributive position, not merely the Attributive adjective, the example is also accompanied by nouns in an attributive position. Or are you contending that ὁ παλαιὸς is a substantival apposition?

An attributive expression by its very nature ascribes a characteristic to the noun or noun phrase it modifies.

It seems to me from your comments and choice of web sources (which you mostly quote anonymously) that you are self-taught, no?

With such a sentence taking ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς in the second attributive would be bordering on the ungrammatical, if not outright ungrammatical.
Doctrinally, linking ὁ ὢν to ὁ Χριστὸς must be as a substantive, because ὁ ὢν ........ cannot refer directly to "ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα" due to incoherence, as I have indicated. Grammatically, ὁ ὢν ...... by its very nature is hardly likely to be adjectival in the second attributive position for if it were, ὢν would be redundant.
You're arguing this far too forcefully. Even Abbot, the best advocate of the essential position you and TRJM espouse, concurs with Dwight (see On Romans ix. 5, pp. 27-29, who regards it as "indefensible") that this argument--advanced by Van Hengel--is "not conclusive" (p. 102) and that he cannot believe "that there is any law of the Greek language which forbids" associating ὁ ὢν, etc. with Christ.

So if the following is correct >> ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς, then presumably ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς is an appositive designating a characteristic of Christ, that is, that he is God over all, just as ὁ παλαιὸς ἦν φιλόδημος designates something well known of Σόλων.
It appears to me that you are simply repeating the arguments advanced by Abbot (here, pp. 98, 102) in your own words, am I wrong? Because it seems to be a strange coincidence to me that, after searching extensively through the various grammars, the only writer who seems to make any sort of comments that might best account for your position on the attributive participle is Abbot, in this particular article on Romans 9:5, which happens to match this particular topic, and I do not find it anywhere else. So I'm finding the whole thing suspect and would like a straight answer on this.

It would be nice if you could substantiate your restrictions and assertions--as of right now, that burden is on you. It's been many days, and you have yet to do so. But in fairness I have continually searched and everything I turn up contradicts your position. I'm not really the one who is supposed to be doing that homework.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
It appears to me that you are simply repeating the arguments advanced by Abbot (here, pp. 98, 102) in your own words, am I wrong?
Yes, you are wrong. It’s nice to know that Abbot felt the same way I do.

Could you tell me where “here” is so I can read his arguments in pages “98” and “102” ?
 

brianrw

Member
Yes, you are wrong. It’s nice to know that Abbot felt the same way. Could you tell me where “here” is so I can read his arguments in pages 98 and 102?
Interesting, because you were bringing up his article in the companion thread so I assumed you had read it. I wouldn't say Abbot exactly felt the same way, but sure if that makes you feel better.

You still owe me sources on the grammatical restrictions, and haven't answered my question.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Interesting, because you were bringing up his article in the companion thread so I assumed you had read it. I wouldn't say Abbot exactly felt the same way, but sure if that makes you feel better.

You still owe me sources on the grammatical restrictions, and haven't answered my question.
Where did I do that ?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Or perhaps more properly ἦλθεν. Hence the accusative τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. You seem to have not considered how this is a detriment to your own argument.

Lol. ..You couldn’t find any canned arguments, could you ? Hence the laughable assertion. You probably have never paid attention to what comes before this clause ( look at red below):


οἵτινές εἰσιν Ἰσραηλεῖται, ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ αἱ διαθῆκαι καὶ ἡ νομοθεσία καὶ ἡ λατρεία καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι,

ὧν εἰσιν οἱ πατέρες, καὶ ἐξ ὧν ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

So all the assumed verbs are of the third person verb ( see bold above).

Hence the accusative τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. You seem to have not considered how this is a detriment to your own argument.

This has to be the joke of the week. σάρκα is accusative because the preposition κατὰ takes the accusative here not because it is the object of an action verb. What a joke.
 

cjab

Well-known member
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
REV. W. SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., LIIT.D.
AND REV. A. C. HEADLAM, D.D

Re Rom 9:5 "The question rather is this: was Θεὸς so definitely used of the 'Father' as a proper name that it could
not be used of the Son, and that its use in this passage as definitely points to the Father?"


I would have to answer "yes". There is no instance of Paul deferring to the Υἱος as Θεὸς. But more especially, Paul solemnly says in Romans 1:

"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit"

Rom 1:3 περὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυεὶδ κατὰ σάρκα 4 τοῦ ὁρισθέντος Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα

Son of God is what Christ the savior is in Pauline theology. It is so axiomatic as to fully resolve Rom 9:5 by itself, per Sanday's suggested determinator.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
REV. W. SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., LIIT.D.
AND REV. A. C. HEADLAM, D.D

Re Rom 9:5 "The question rather is this: was Θεὸς so definitely used of the 'Father' as a proper name that it could
not be used of the Son, and that its use in this passage as definitely points to the Father?"


I would have to answer "yes". There is no instance of Paul deferring to the Υἱος as Θεὸς. But more especially, Paul solemnly says in Romans 1:

"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit"

Rom 1:3 περὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυεὶδ κατὰ σάρκα 4 τοῦ ὁρισθέντος Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα

Son of God is what Christ the savior is in Pauline theology. It is so axiomatic as to fully resolve Rom 9:5 by itself, per Sanday's suggested determinator.
Bill Mounce says the following concerning Romans 9:5–

I would not pin my doctrine of the divinity of Christ on this verse, but it most likely does affirm that fact.

A house built upon a weak foundation.
 

cjab

Well-known member
A house built upon a weak foundation.
Very weak. There are other instances where we can translate idiomatically-used participles of εἰμί as "existing."

Acts 13:1 κατὰ τὴν οὖσαν ἐκκλησίαν : in the existing church
Acts 14:13 ὅ ἱερεὺς τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ ὄντος πρὸ τῆς πόλεως : the high priest of Zeus, the one existing outside the city.

Rom 9:5 ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς : God existing above all
 

cjab

Well-known member
Dwight (see On Romans ix. 5, pp. 27-29, who regards it as "indefensible") that this argument--advanced by Van Hengel--is "not conclusive" (p. 102) and that he cannot believe "that there is any law of the Greek language which forbids" associating ὁ ὢν, etc. with Christ.
Dwight - something of a wind bag. I've said before about Harris, and I'll say it again, if you can't make your point about Rom 9:5 very succintly, it's probably not worth making at all. See my comment on Sanday: he says: the real issue is whether Christ can be deferred to as God? Is it a well known thing? Or is it very controversial? Clearly it is very controversial in the context of the rest of Romans that declares Christ to be the "Son of God." So Winer wins.
 
Top