Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

brianrw

Member
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.
But I didn't call it "the object of an action verb," did I? I called it an accusative of reference--hence, a "limiter." I don't possibly see how you could have missed that since I said it in my original post in the companion thread, and multiple times above. It serves to restrict the scope of Christ's descent to "the flesh."

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).
I might just as easily say it is laughable to me that you view the Greek so restrictively, both here and in other places where you apparently can't see the forest for the trees. You are aware that ἦλθεν is also in the third person singular? And that just because a verb is omitted in the Greek, it does not automatically mean a form of εἰμί must be supplied? Also, you are aware that that it reflects Paul's style elsewhere, e.g. ὅτι Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον (1 Timothy 1:15), that Christ "came into the world"? That same verb has been inferred by other translators and is present in multiple English translations of the Bible, and there is nothing in the usage of ἐξ ὧν that is prejudicial to that? Now, I've taken to translate it conservatively as, "from whom is Christ," and you can check that from my past comments. That doesn't make it the only, or even necessarily the best solution.

Do you have anything of substance to contribute, rather than one disingenuous remark after another?

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
Acts 13:1 above is completely mistranslated. The text is Ἦσαν δὲ τινες ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ κατὰ τὴν οὖσαν ἐκκλησίαν, "Now there were in the church which is at Antioch..."

You've also mangled 14:13, ὅ δέ ἱερεὺς τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ ὄντος πρὸ τῆς πόλεως αὐτῶν, "Now the high priest of Zeus that was just outside their city..." (or, "whose temple was...")

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.
I made it succinctly in my original post in the companion thread to this one. It's very simple: ὁ Χριστὸς is the subject, ὁ ὢν takes ὁ Χριστὸς as its antecedent, and θεὸς is a predicate of ὁ ὢν; τὸ κατὰ σάρκα operates as a limiter to ἐξ ὧν. That's one sentence. The ones making it complicated are both of you.

Both of you keep spinning the Greek worse and worse--you both are the ones who are being verbose, making up rules, and asserting things about the Greek that aren't true. As I said, Abbot agreed with Dwight, and offered his own thoughts in addition. I don't even see the argument you are making in any modern commentary, for the very simple reason that it didn't pass muster.
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
I called it an accusative of reference--hence, a "limiter."
I meant "accusative of respect" (aka frame of reference accusative). The article τὸ relates κατὰ σάρκα back to ἐξ ὧν; to clarify, there's a reason the verb is suppressed, and it is appropriate to supply a verb in that sense in English.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I meant "accusative of respect" (aka frame of reference accusative). The article τὸ relates κατὰ σάρκα back to ἐξ ὧν; to clarify, there's a reason the verb is suppressed, and it is appropriate to supply a verb in that sense in English.
Lol, nice attempt at bluffing. You did not say “accusative of respect,” you said “accusative”— “Hence the accusative τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. “ You thought that τὸ is accusative.

Will give you another chance: Is τὸ in τὸ κατὰ σάρκα accusative or nominative ?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
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
I agree. I see ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς as a Subject- Predicate Nominative construction with the assumed to be verb εἰσιν in keeping with what has been going on in the last verse ( where this verb is assumed multiple times as well).. So ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων ( εἰσιν) Θεὸς,….

FWIW, your Koine is superior to Brian’s, even though you are an autodidact. I respect self-taught individuals more so than charlatans who boast multiple “degrees” from Trinitarian seminaries.
 

cjab

Well-known member
I made it succinctly in my original post in the companion thread to this one. It's very simple: ὁ Χριστὸς is the subject,
ὁ Χριστὸς is a predicate surely, and at the end of a very long sentence indeed. It can hardly be seen naturally as the subject of a new sentence. The sheer length of the sentence prior to ὁ Χριστὸς suggests that a break is soon required.

ὁ ὢν takes ὁ Χριστὸς as its antecedent, and θεὸς is a predicate of ὁ ὢν; τὸ κατὰ σάρκα operates as a limiter to ἐξ ὧν. That's one sentence. The ones making it complicated are both of you.
This is what Moulton has to say (p.228 Vol1) "Θεὸς may still be subject, not predicate, without making ὢν
otiose : the consciousness of Ex 3:14 (something I argued for earlier) might fairly account for its insertion. It is exegesis rather than grammar which makes the reference to Christ probable."

And this was written by a Trinitarian. In fact if you look at Trinitarian commentaries, many are stressing the expectation of a reference back to Christ. I can't think why. Surely you can admit that there is some impetus to associate ὁ ὢν with ὁ Χριστὸς?

Sanday (who takes the Trinitiarian slant) says "... it is perfectly true that neither κατὰ σάρκα nor τὸ κατὰ σάρκα demand an expressed antithesis (Rom. iv. 1; Clem. Rom. i. 32). The expression τὸ κατὰ σάρκα cannot therefore be quoted as decisive;"

He further concedes "It is perfectly true that ὁ ὢν can be used in [a relative sense] and [where] the words do not refer to anything preceding."

Since your peers seem to admit defeat in forcing the grammar to make an unequivocal reference back to Christ, then why do you?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
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?
Lol, That example is from Cp. 1142 c. — it is only tangentially related to the main point of section 1160.

1142. When the name of a person or place is defined by an appositive or attributive, the following distinctions are to be noted:….

Notice “ appositive” is not being used synonymously with “attributive” here.
 

brianrw

Member
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
I agree. I see ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς as a Subject- Predicate Nominative construction with the assumed to be verb εἰσιν in keeping with what has been going on in the last verse ( where this verb is assumed multiple times as well).. So ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων ( εἰσιν) Θεὸς,….

FWIW, your Koine is superior to Brian’s, even though you are an autodidact. I respect self-taught individuals more so than charlatans who boast multiple “degrees” from Trinitarian seminaries.
The first of cjab's two constructions ("Acts 13:1 κατὰ τὴν οὖσαν ἐκκλησίαν : in the existing church") is completely mistranslated, which you not only failed to notice, but you also proceeded to compliment. I'm not a fan of the second.

Then, after criticizing my Greek and praising cjab, you inserted a 3rd person plural verb before Θεὸς. Twice.

The insertion of ἐστιν (singular) appears to me to favor the reading, "He who is over all is God, blessed forever," rather than how you said it should be translated a little while ago:
The clause is translated as “God, the one who is above all, be blessed forever, Amen.”​
...and how cjab translates it above, where he (as I understand he argued) takes ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων as being sandwiched between Θεὸς and it's article.

I'm being kind, of course.

Is there a firm position, or are you merely playing the part of a contrarian?

Lol, nice attempt at bluffing. You did not say “accusative of srespect,” you said “accusative”— “Hence the accusative τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. “ You thought that τὸ is accusative.
As I said on March 17:
The intervening τὸ κατὰ σάρκα serves as a limiter
And again last Friday:
Specifically, it limits ἐξ ὧν before ὁ Χριστὸς. The article strengthens the contrast with ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς.
You are the one that inferred I was taking it as a direct object of an implied verb, which is something I never actually said. But if it makes you feel better to pretend I really thought it was a direct object, by all means...

ἡ γὰρ κρίσις ἀνέλεος τῷ μὴ ποιήσαντι ἔλεος

ὁ Χριστὸς is a predicate surely, and at the end of a very long sentence indeed. It can hardly be seen naturally as the subject of a new sentence. The sheer length of the sentence prior to ὁ Χριστὸς suggests that a break is soon required.
If you want to split hairs, the attributive ὁ ὢν hearkens back to ὁ Χριστὸς, and thus ὁ Χριστὸς is the subject of the remainder of the verse. I think it can do without a conversation over the preciseness of my expression, since I think it was fairly easy to follow my point.

This is what Moulton has to say (p.228 Vol1) "Θεὸς may still be subject, not predicate, without making ὢν
otiose : the consciousness of Ex 3:14 (something I argued for earlier) might fairly account for its insertion. It is exegesis rather than grammar which makes the reference to Christ probable."
You ought to have added in full context,
On the cruicial passage Rom 95 see S[anday and ]H[eadlam] p. 235 f., with whom I agree, though the argument that "He who is God over all," would have to be ὁ ἐπὶ π. θ. might pperhaps be met by applying th eidiom noted above for Ac, with a different nuance., Θεὸς may still be subject [and the rest quoted above]
Moulton is attempting to counter the point that "He who is God over all" is better expressed as ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς, without the participle, by suggesting that ὁ ὢν take on the idiomatic sense of Exodus 3:14, ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. I don't find this caveat convincing, do you? So I don't find that it alleviates or eliminates the grammatical difficulty in any way, as his conclusion suggests.

Since your peers seem to admit defeat in forcing the grammar to make an unequivocal reference back to Christ, then why do you?
If you have to take ὁ ὢν in the idiomatic sense of Exodus 3:14, ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν to circumvent a grammatical problem (noted by Sanday and Headlam, Metzger, Harris, others), then you are surely making a stretch and I hardly find this as an admission of "defeat." Cf. Metzger, Sanday and Headlam, Harris, others.

You can assert all you want about what is possible or impossible in the Greek. The fact remains that the Greeks are virtually unanimous in reading the passage one way--and that also includes the heterodox--while the English commentators have proposed no less than six different ways.

Spend tremendous amounts of time examining the ancient manuscripts (as I have) and you'll note that variant clusters pop up when the initial text proves problematic or difficult for one group or another. "He who is God over all be blessed for ever" is by no means difficult for, say, a Trinitarian, and there is no good reason to account for a Trinitarian corruption here. (Even Ehrman, an agnostic, acknowledges that Paul here calls Christ "God"). On the other hand, Erasmus introduced two forms of punctuation (one of which has gone by the wayside) and there were no less than three emendations proposed by the Neo-Arians, Socinians, and Unitarians, as well as a host of nuanced English translations. What that tells me, and follows a stated assertion even, is that various groups did not believe Paul would call Christ "God" and looked for ways to ameliorate the difficulty.

The issue, plain and simple, is whether we add a period or not after σάρκα. When you add a period, a doxology to the Father follows. When the period is absent, the passage speaks of Christ. On that note, neither the Greek fathers, nor the ancient versions, nor the manuscripts support the insertion of a period. Moreover, the two most ancient manuscripts by the first hand have no punctuation at all. Quite simply, as Metzger notes, the presence of ὢν strongly suggests a relative and forming a doxology to the Father not only violates the testimonies of the Greek and Latin fathers, the manuscripts and versions, but also presents a departure from Paul's usual style and is an unnatural way to read the text. Paul only wrote the text to be read one way.

On the other hand, your interpretation of the reading has no viable manuscript support, no viable patristic support either Greek or Latin, no viable versional support. You're making Trinitarians the boogey man here, when the evidence suggests otherwise.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Look at this:

καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ (accusative) κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς

How can this construction possibly be said to be in the second attributive position ? It is clear that the accusative τὸ calls for a stop after κατὰ σάρκα.

Sometimes the little words make all the difference.
 

brianrw

Member
Lol, That example is from Cp. 1142 c. — it is only tangentially related to the main point of section 1160.

1142. When the name of a person or place is defined by an appositive or attributive, the following distinctions are to be noted:….

Notice “ appositive” is not being used synonymously with “attributive” here.
Are we having a discussion about Classical Greek or koine Greek? At least if you quoted an Attic grammar we'd be in the ballpark.

I didn't call them synonyms, since a substantive in apposition is simply another form of the attributive. For didactic purposes appositive is generally used of nouns and attributive of adjectives. But both are properly attributive.

It appears here, too, you are taking even an attributive adjective in the 2nd attributive position as a substantive in apposition. Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

Look at this:

καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ (accusative) κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς

How can this construction possibly be said to be in the second attributive position ? It is clear that the accusative τὸ calls for a stop after κατὰ σάρκα.

Sometimes the little words make all the difference.
You're rigidly adhering to strict two- or three- or four-word patterns and don't seem concerned with how the paradigms would be applied in actual practice. For instance, what are you going to do when you encounter constructions that "break" the other paradigms as well? E.g.

καὶ καλὸν γευσαμένους θεοῦ ῥῆμα δυνάμεις τε μέλλοντος αἰῶνος (Hebrews 6:5) = "good word"​
ὁ ἄνθρωπος πολλὰ ποιεῖ σημεῖα (John 11:47) = "many signs"​
δευτέραν ὑμῖν γράφω ἐπιστολήν (2 Peter 3:1) = "second epistle​

This is a typical ὑπέρβατον construction, of course.

As for how Romans 9:5 should be understood, we can tell how it was read by how the Greek fathers comment on it. For instance, Zachariah of Mitylene, when we cut out his commentary, makes the following grammatical connections:

"He said of him" (Christ) . . . "who is of the Jews in the flesh". . . "who is over all" . . . "who is God" . . . "blessed" . . . "Who is for ever."​

That tells me (1) in the first case that he understood the present ὁ ὢν as attributive of ὁ Χριστὸς (2) that he more likely understood ὁ ὢν as relatival rather than appositional and (3) that he understood both ἐπὶ πάντων and θεὸς as its predicates dependent upon ὁ ὢν. It also shows that they didn't think τὸ κατὰ σάρκα interfered with the grammatical connection to ὁ Χριστὸς.

Let's also look at Gregory of Nyssa in the 4th century:

Contra Eunomius, 11.2. ἀλλ' οὐδὲ τὰς Παύλου φωνὰς δι' ἀκριβείας οἶμαι δεῖν παρατίθεσθαι πᾶσιν οὔσας σχεδὸν διὰ στόματος, ὃς οὐ μόνον θεόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ μέγαν θεὸν καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸν ὀνομάζει τὸν κύριον, πρὸς μὲν Ῥωμαίους λέγων ὅτι Ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, πρὸς δὲ τὸν μαθητὴν ἑαυτοῦ Τίτον γράφων Κατὰ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διαρρήδην βοᾷ ὅτι Ὁ θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι.​

Here, he derives ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸν, of Christ, from Romans 9:5. That tells me that, just like Zechariah, he takes ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς as a predicate of ὁ ὢν. So does Basil. So does Chrysostom. So does Cyril of Alexandria, for some clear examples. I digress to note that Gregory accurately represents how the fathers read Titus 2:13 as well.

Let's also look at the Latin:

quorum patres et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula amen

The presence of the relative qui est ("who is") shows that Jerome, too, understood the passage attributively in that he rendered the participle with a relative, qui.

They Syriac likewise is good for understanding how the passage was read:
ܘܐܒܗܬܐ ܘܡܢܗܘܢ ܐܬܚܙܝ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܒܒܤܪ ܕܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܐܠܗܐ ܕܥܠ ܟܠ ܕܠܗ ܬܫܒܚܢ ܘܒܘܪܟܢ ܠܥܠܡ ܥܠܡܝܢ ܐܡܝܢ ܀​
and the patriarchs, from among whom Messiah appeared in the flesh, who is God over all: to whom be praises and blessing forever.​
As I keep saying, I don't unequivocally find such an interpretation as you and cjab espouse before Erasmus. Cjab takes as the best example Eusebius, who doesn't even quote the passage in any of his extant works.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Let's also look at Gregory of Nyssa in the 4th century:

Contra Eunomius, 11.2. ἀλλ' οὐδὲ τὰς Παύλου φωνὰς δι' ἀκριβείας οἶμαι δεῖν παρατίθεσθαι πᾶσιν οὔσας σχεδὸν διὰ στόματος, ὃς οὐ μόνον θεόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ μέγαν θεὸν καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸν ὀνομάζει τὸν κύριον, πρὸς μὲν Ῥωμαίους λέγων ὅτι Ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, πρὸς δὲ τὸν μαθητὴν ἑαυτοῦ Τίτον γράφων Κατὰ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διαρρήδην βοᾷ ὅτι Ὁ θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι.​

Here, he derives ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸν, of Christ, from Romans 9:5. That tells me that, just like Zechariah, he takes ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς as a predicate of ὁ ὢν. So does Basil. So does Chrysostom. So does Cyril of Alexandria, for some clear examples. I digress to note that Gregory accurately represents how the fathers read Titus 2:13 as well.

As I keep saying, I don't unequivocally find such an interpretation as you and cjab espouse before Erasmus. Cjab takes as the best example Eusebius, who doesn't even quote the passage in any of his extant works.
Eusebius does make frequent use of the phrase "God above all" to distinguish the Father from Christ, however, even if he doesn't refer to Rom 9:5 explicitly. This serves to infer his position on Rom 9:5.

What I think is conclusive of a period after τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is, as I have constantly maintained, the very composition of ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, which per Meyer, "taken independently, forms in fact, according to a quite customary manner of expression, one phrase, so that Θεός is not without the article. Comp. 1 Corinthians 3:7; Kühner, II. § 464, 8

ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων (the God who is over all) is a phrase that cannot be broken up. It is inviolable.

Thus, to introduce a relative after τὸ κατὰ σάρκα would have certainly required ὅς ἐστιν.

That Θεός is not without the article is absolutely critical, because a person is being blessed, that person is God in person, and that person requires the article. It isn't the essence of God that is being blessed, or as I interpret anarthrous Θεός, "God in action / the presence of God." It is the person of God (cf. every other doxology in the NT). This is inescapable.

What dictates the right rendering is the exegesis and the semantics. Where the ECFs went wrong is in their heresy of pretending, as you point out, that Christ was (anarthrous) ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸν. This was their deviant theological error and why all the ECFs are wrong. They sought to invent a second God, even "Christ according to the flesh." Jesus admitted no such thing, except in the Elohim sense relating back to OT, where the human Elohim was never "Elohim over all."

Your grammar is wrong, just because it leads to perverse results in theological terms and a doxology that is incompatible with every other doxology in the NT.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Eusebius does make frequent use of the phrase "God above all" to distinguish the Father from Christ, however, even if he doesn't refer to Rom 9:5 explicitly. This serves to infer his position on Rom 9:5.

What I think is conclusive of a period after τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is, as I have constantly maintained, the very composition of ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, which per Meyer, "taken independently, forms in fact, according to a quite customary manner of expression, one phrase, so that Θεός is not without the article. Comp. 1 Corinthians 3:7; Kühner, II. § 464, 8

ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων (the God who is over all) is a phrase that cannot be broken up. It is inviolable.

Thus, to introduce a relative after τὸ κατὰ σάρκα would have certainly required ὅς ἐστιν.

That Θεός is not without the article is absolutely critical, because a person is being blessed, that person is God in person, and that person requires the article. It isn't the essence of God that is being blessed, or as I interpret anarthrous Θεός, "God in action / the presence of God." It is the person of God (cf. every other doxology in the NT). This is inescapable.

What dictates the right rendering is the exegesis and the semantics. Where the ECFs went wrong is in their heresy of pretending, as you point out, that Christ was (anarthrous) ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸν. This was their deviant theological error and why all the ECFs are wrong. They sought to invent a second God, even "Christ according to the flesh." Jesus admitted no such thing, except in the Elohim sense relating back to OT, where the human Elohim was never "Elohim over all."

Your grammar is wrong, just because it leads to perverse results in theological terms and a doxology that is incompatible with every other doxology in the NT.
Do you know what he means by "The intervening τὸ κατὰ σάρκα serves as a limiter"?
 

cjab

Well-known member
This is funny.
Well I did find one reference, but it didn't seem to support the hypothesis being proposed: evoking the usual interminable trinitarian waffle ....

Sanday:
The discussion which follows will be divided into three heads :-
(1) Grammar; (2) Sequence of thought; (3) Pauline usage.

(1) The first words that attract our attention are τὸ κατὰ σάρκα and a parallel
naturally suggests itself with Rom. i. 3, 4. As there St. Paul describes the
human descent from David, but expressly limits it κατὰ σάρκα, and then
in contrast describes his Divine descent κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης so here the
course of the argument having led him to lay stress on the human birth of
Christ as a Jew, he would naturally correct a one-sided statement by
limiting that descent to the earthly relationship and then describe the true
nature of Him who was the Messiah of the Jews. He would thus enhance
the privileges of his fellow-countrymen, and put a culminating point to his
argument. τὸ κατὰ σάρκαa leads us to expect an antithesis, and we find just
what we should have expected in ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς.

Is this legitimate? It has been argued first of all that the proper anti-
thesis to σάρξis πνεῦμα. But this objection is invalid. Θεὸς is in a con-
siderable number of cases used in contrast to σάρξ (Luke iii. 6 ; 1 Cor. i. 29 ;
Col. iii. 22; Philemon 16; 2 Chron. xxxii. 8; Ps. lv [lvi]. 5; Jer. xvii. 5;
Dan. ii. II; cf. Gifford, p. 40, to whom we owe these instances).

Again it is argued that the expression τὸ κατὰ σάρκα as opposed to κατὰ σάρκα
precludes the possibility of such a contrast in words. While κατὰ σάρκα
allows the expression of a contrast, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα would limit the
idea of a sentence but would not allow the limitation to be expressed. This
statement again is incorrect. Instances are found in which there is an
expressed contrast to such limitations introduced with the article (see
Gifford, p. 39; he quotes Isocrates, p. 32 e; Demosth. cont. Eubul. p. 1299,
I. 14).

But although neither of these objections is valid, it is perfectly true that
neither κατὰ σάρκα nor τὸ κατὰ σάρκα demands an expressed antithesis
(Rom. iv. 1; Clem. Rom. i. 32). The expression τὸ κατὰ σάρκα cannot
therefore be quoted as decisive; but probably any one reading the passage
for the first time would be led by these words to expect some contrast and
would naturally take the words that follow as a contrast.

________________________________________

Why would there be a contrast? The subject is not Christ (as in Rom 1:3,4), either his human descent or other (which has already been dealt with in Rom 1:3,4 (why would Paul needlessly repeat himself?), but here the blessings on Israel.

If there is a contrast to the blessings on Israel, it is in the blessing on God himself.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
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. F

And I never said that you were the source of those three tries.
So you are posturing for no purpose.

Those three tries have been used by those who understand the English and realize that the AV text is NOT a God-Christ apposition text.

You really should read more carefully and not jump to confusions.

I have said, and always will say, that "God" in the AV text is an appositive of "Christ"

This is so obviously a blunder that I will give you an analogy.

Earlier I showed the three possible interpretations of "God blessed for ever". and yours is the worst.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/trinitarian-confusion-at-romans-9-5.8316/page-22#post-661326

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.

In this grammar you could legitimately have Holy Spirit, or Angels, Jesus, or God the Father or many other words other than God.

By your false reading of the English, whatever is there must be an apposition to Christ. e.g. If "God the Father" was there the text would be perfectly sound, yet you would falsely claim it means that Jesus is God the Father.

The English is very clear. Your apposition claim is simply bogus.

Now I know you are trapped in a doctrinal pickle. You have to pretend the AV text is an apposition text because otherwise your whole position about the AV and Romans 9:5 falls to pieces. It is my honourable service to expose your charade.

At the end of the day, we have to get the passage right grammatically and form our belief after that.

Yet you can not even get the English grammar right, that you claim is correct.
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
it is perfectly true that
neither κατὰ σάρκα nor τὸ κατὰ σάρκα demands an expressed antithesis
(Rom. iv. 1; Clem. Rom. i. 32). The expression τὸ κατὰ σάρκα cannot
therefore be quoted as decisive; but probably any one reading the passage
for the first time would be led by these words to expect some contrast and
would naturally take the words that follow as a contrast.
Well I did find one reference, but it didn't seem to support the hypothesis being proposed:
Yes, it actually does support it. They actually do agree with me, both on this point and overall--Sanday and Headlam (SH) conclude that indeed the grammar necessitates that the whole expression ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς belongs to ὁ Χριστὸς. This same position is taken up by Metzger, Harris, and others.

Let's read this more carefully. SH note that the two main objections to antithesis (between τὸ κατὰ σάρκα and ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς) are (1) that a true antithesis to τὸ κατὰ σάρκα would be a suppressed κατὰ πνεῦμα (Cf. Romans 1:3, 4), or (2) that the addition of the article before κατὰ σάρκα precludes (i.e., prevents) such an interpretation of an antithesis. SH then go on to describe #1 as invalid and #2 as incorrect. So that means SH disagree with the position taken up by you and the TRJM.

The overall conclusion is identical to my own: despite the objections being invalid, the limiting aspect is grammatical but the antithetical aspect comes from a natural flow of the idea expressed in the text.

Why would there be a contrast? The subject is not Christ (as in Rom 1:3,4), either his human descent or other (which has already been dealt with in Rom 1:3,4 (why would Paul needlessly repeat himself?), but here the blessings on Israel.
You are not taking Christ as the "subject" because you are following TRJM in interpreting the attributive participle incorrectly. The mainstream Greek texts do not have a period here, nor do the manuscripts, nor do the Greek fathers, which means ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς does indeed belong to ὁ Χριστὸς, unless you choose to override the accepted punctuation. Some are more amenable to this view than others, but it is wrong to assert there are not grammatical problems or stylistic problems associated with inserting a period here. So there is a reason most translations reject it.

This point has been debated since the time of Erasmus. While most commentators attempt to give it a fair hearing, the conclusion typically comes down to the view that adding a period results in a secondary reading.

While the attributive participle is an agnate of the relative clause, the English idiom requires a relative clause since a direct translation the Greek idiom is incompatible--i.e. "Christ . . . the being over all God" is not good English, especially when the Greek idiom is more equivalent to "Christ . . . who is . . ." Another example is ὁ πέμψας με πατὴρ (John 5:37), "the sending me Father" is equivalent in the Greek expression to the English, "my Father who sent me." This is why I wrote in my original post in the companion thread,
I digress here to say it seems to me overly simplistic to just generically treat the article (ὁ) as a substantivizer, without appreciating the nuance of the participle usage in Greek.​

Well I did find one reference, but it didn't seem to support the hypothesis being proposed: evoking the usual interminable trinitarian waffle ....
At the end of the day, we have to get the passage right grammatically and form our belief after that. If it is so, as John and Paul write, that Christ is "equal" with God--καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν τὸν θεόν ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ (John 5:18), ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ (Philippians 2:6), then there is no reason to believe Christ being "over all" is equal to an assertion that Christ is over the Father. No one reading Paul with a serious mind would reasonably assert such a thing.

In the same way, when Christ says, Ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς (Matthew 28:28), He is by no means asserting also that the Father Himself has abdicated the position in favor of the Son. How can one who has such great authority be greater than Him who has given it?

These conclusions are exegetical. When we translate the passage, it comes down to what is grammatical, and the exegetical follows that.

why would Paul needlessly repeat himself
Paul repeats himself all the time. Repetition is a normal didactic method.

My next post is planned to return to your absurd position.
Yes, Steven, you actually did launch that post against me. Maybe you can stop wasting my time by littering the thread with posts that continually misrepresent my position, and yet fail in any way to substantiate your own--namely, your position that θεὸς εὐλογητὸς means "blessed by God." No one in this thread is seriously entertaining that view.
 
Last edited:
Top