Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Brian never responded to post #540, that has his de facto claim that the AV text is wrong.

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

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.

Brianrw said:
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.

Steven Avery said:
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?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
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.


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,



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.


Paul repeats himself all the time. Repetition is a normal didactic method.


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.
The objection is hardly invalid. The proper anti-thesis to σάρξ is πνεῦμα.


Is this legitimate? It has been argued first of all that the proper anti-
thesis to σάρξ is 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).

Those are bogus examples. How could anyone proffer them with a straight face, I wonder ? For instance in Luke 3:6 "flesh" denotes human beings , not that which is the anti-thesis of God. Here Θεὸς is not being contrasted to God , it is simply saying that men will see the salvation of God. An example of antithesis is the following --

τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστιν.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
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.

I'm impressed by your research. Romans 1:3-4 is decisive IMHO:

περὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυεὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, τοῦ ὁρισθέντος Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν,

And it's talking about his birth.

Further down in the same book, at Romans 9:5 concerning the same issue, we have καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. Which demands a contrast with κατὰ πνεῦμα.

Best wishes to all,
 

The Real John Milton

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

Little things like an article mean a lot, don't they. The τὸ tells us that there is a period after σάρκα. There is even an inexplicit contrast with κατὰ πνεῦμα after τὸ κατὰ σάρκα implied on account of Romans 1:3-4. The following is thus nonsense:

ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς


How can that possibly be the second attributive position? Also, attributives in the second position do not contrast, they describe. And if this was truly a second attributive construction, τὸ would not have been there (like so, ὁ Χριστὸς κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς ), for starters.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
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.

Translation:
I can not defend my absurd position that the English AV is a Christ-God apposition.
So I will posture and look for diversions.

=====

And your de facto adjectival attack on the AV text’s “early modern English” remains as another contradiction.
If you don’t have a current modern English alternative text, you should have the integrity to withdraw the attack.

=====

As for “God blessed (is the Christ) for ever.”
You are welcome to state clearly your objection, sans apposition circularity.
It is only peripheral to your false apposition claim.

We have two active posters who see no connection of Christ and God in ”God blessed for ever”.
So they give no support to either of us on that, obviously.

=====

English 101 - no Christ-God apposition - trivially obvious to anyone skilled in English

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.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
cjab makes the proper point that Christ=God is not a New Testament construction.

There is a major spot where brianrw is correct in his conversations with cjab.
An eternal doxology to Christ is New Testament teaching.

Start with these:

======

Doxologies to Christ

2 Timothy 4:18 (AV)
And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work,
and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom:
to whom be glory for ever and ever.
Amen.

2 Peter 3:18 (AV)
But grow in grace,
and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
To him be glory both now and for ever.
Amen.

Hebrews 13:21 (AV)
Make you perfect in every good work to do his will,
working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight,
through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever.
Amen.

Unbelieving commentators attack these verses in the absurd way - e.g. attacking the authenticity of the books. Waste of time.

in another spot are verses consistent with Christ being “over all.”

What counts is the truth of scripture, not bending the verse for doctrinal purposes.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
cjab makes the proper point that Christ=God is not a New Testament construction.

There is a major spot where brianrw is correct in his conversations with cjab.
An eternal doxology to Christ is New Testament teaching.

Start with these:

======

Doxologies to Christ

2 Timothy 4:18 (AV)
And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work,
and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom:
to whom be glory for ever and ever.
Amen.

2 Peter 3:18 (AV)
But grow in grace,
and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
To him be glory both now and for ever.
Amen.

Hebrews 13:21 (AV)
Make you perfect in every good work to do his will,
working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight,
through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever.
Amen.

Unbelieving commentators attack these verses in the absurd way - e.g. attacking the authenticity of the books. Waste of time.

in another spot are verses consistent with Christ being “over all.”

What counts is the truth of scripture, not bending the verse for doctrinal purposes.
The formulas are "glory to Christ for ever and ever", "God the Father blessed for ever." They seem to be fixed formulas without variation, which is a reason why theos in Rom 9:5 must take the article and denote the Father. Thus there is no "Christ who is" in Rom 9:5. You have to understand why the Greek fathers misappraised this passage: it was because they needed it to establish their high trinity after the neo-platonic model: they had ulterior motives: they needed to make Christ out to be like a Greek god descended (begotten) from the gods, so as to rival the pagan systems on their own terms, and this was a place to start. The project was misconceived ab initio. When it says Christ was begotten, it means he was born. The Rom 9:5 error is directly tied to the erroneous idea of the Son being begotten of the Father in heaven.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
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
).

Notice how weak the argument is. Notice none of the supposed examples allowing for that possibility are from Koine, let alone from the Koine of the bible. Lots of slick talk and sleight of hand, but with little substance.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Notice how weak the argument is. Notice none of the supposed examples allowing for that possibility are from Koine, let alone from the Koine of the bible. Lots of slick talk and sleight of hand, but with little substance.
For the record, here is windbag T. Dwight disagreeing with you. He stresses the need for "emphasis of climax" which a reference to the Father would deprive the passage of.
________________

Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis,

On the one hand, it is maintained that the expression τὸ κατὰ σάρκα requires as an antithesis a reference to Christ's divine nature, (so e. g. Lange), and thus ὁ ὢν κ. τ. λ which are the only words in the passage that can set forth the antithesis, must necessarily contain it We cannot believe that this assertion, as declaring such a necessity, can be established. There are several examples of the use of κατὰ σάρκα without any added expression of this character, in the Pauline Epistles. One of these is in the immediate context of this verse; namely, in Rom. ix. 3, where the Apostle speaks of the Israelites as his kinsmen according to the flesh, and yet says nothing of them in any other and contrasted relation. As for τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, no instance of its use outside of the verse before us occurs either in the writings of St. Paul, or in any of the other New Testament books.*

* The textual reading in Acts ii. 30, which includes these words, should doubtless be rejected.

But there are such instances in other Greek writings, where it is plain that there is no expressed antithesis. A very noticeable one—noticeable by reason of the striking similarity of the language to that which the Apostle here employs—is found in the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, chap, xxxii. In speaking of Jacob, Clement says ..... τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. Whatever contrast may be implied here, none is set forth in words by the author. These examples of the use of κατὰ σάρκα, either with or without the neuter article, are sufficient to show that there is no necessity appertaining to the laws of the Greek language, and none arising from any inevitable obscurity of thought as involved in such a phrase without it, for a distinct expression of the intended antithesis. Some writers, however, who are not disposed to go so far as to assert that the phrase must, when referring to Christ, have the contrast always supplied in words, affirm that it cannot be otherwise here. Thus Philippi says, "The suppression of the antithesis, and its supply in thought merely, cannot take place where, as here, the thesis occurs only for the sake of the antithesis. "τὸ κατὰ σάρκα" he adds, "stands merely for the sake of the following ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς. Without this contrast the words would imply a diminution of the prerogative of Israel. The Apostle would then have written simply ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς; for that the Messiah springs from the Jews is a higher privilege than that He springs from them after the flesh merely. But that He springs from them after the flesh who is God over all, this is the highest conceivable prerogative." If we were considering probabilities only, this reasoning would have mach force. But it must be borne in mind that the words of Philippi include a cannot, and claim a necessity as existing.

That τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is inserted because Christ had another relation, in which he did not belong to the Jewish race, may be admitted. This admission, however, is far from being the same thing as to say, that this relation must be set forth in the words ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς. How do we know that the Apostle did not add the limiting phrase simply because be and his readers appreciated the fact, that the Messiah was not from the Jews in every sense ? How do we know that he intended to define particularly what he was in other respects ? How do we determine—not that he may, or probably does—but that he must give to his sentence this especial emphasis of which Philippi speaks, or that he intends to assign to the Jews "the highest conceivable prerogative ?" Those who affirm that the phrase itself renders it absolutely certain that the words ὁ ὢν κ. τ. λ. are antithetical to it, are assuming a ground which, as we think, cannot be successfully de-fended.

In direct opposition to the writers of the class just alluded to, the learned Dutch scholar, van Hengel, in an extended note in his Commentary on this Epistle, endeavours to prove that, according to Greek usage τὸ κατὰ σάρκα here requires a period to be placed after it, and thus the following words must begin a new sentence. His position is that τὸ κατὰ σάρκα must be distinguished from κατὰ σάρκα, and that, when the neuter article is thus used with a restrictive phrase, the appropriate direct contrast is suggested by and involved in this phrase, and any further antithesis is excluded. This position seems to us indefensible, if it amounts to a declaration that a writer, after using τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, cannot state in words what the person to whom he is referring is τὸ κατὰ πνεῦμα. Do not the passages cited by Meyer, in his notes on this verse,—namely, Xenophon's Cyr. v. 4, 11,( νῦν τὸ μὲν ἐπ᾽ ἐμοὶ οἴχομαι, τὸ δ᾽ ἐπὶ σοὶ σέσωσμαι) , Plato, Minos, 320 C. (νομοφύλακι γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐχρῆτο Μίνως κατὰ τὸ ἄστυ, τὰ δὲ κατὰ τὴν ἄλλην Κρήτην τῷ Τάλῳ), sufficiently prove the opposite ? It also seems indefensible, if it involves the assertion that, though the Apostle might have expressed the contrast here by a phrase including τὸ κατὰ πνεῦμα, he could not have set it forth without these words, provided that he desired to use other phraseology giving in substance the same idea. Language is not bound in cast-iron chains.

(cont.)
 

cjab

Well-known member
(cont.)

Certainly the language of St. Paul is not. But it is not necessary to enter upon a prolonged discussion respecting this point. If we admit everything which this distinguished commentator can possibly intend to maintain, the question is not settled, as he supposes it to be. There may not be here any such distinct (τὸ κατὰ πνεῦμα) contrast as van Hengel is excluding. The Apostle may be—not to say, is—stating not what Christ is on the σάρξ and on the πνεῦμα side, i. e. giving a description of Him in his two natures or relations, but simply that Christ, who is God over all, came from the Jews τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. Could he not have said, Christ, who is the Son of God, or who is the Saviour of the world, came from the Jews τὸ κατὰ σάρκα? If he had desired to lay an especial emphasis on the clause beginning with who is in this latter sentence, could he not have placed it after τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, instead of before these words ? If he could, he could do the same thing in the case before us. This, as we believe, is precisely what he intended to do. But even the possibility that this view of his purpose is correct proves that no such argument as that of this Dutch writer is conclusive.*

* If the reading of the Textus Receptus in Acts ii. 30 were adopted— εἰδὼς ὅτι ὅρκῳ ὤμοσεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ἀναστήσειν τὸν Χριστὸν, καθίσαι ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ— could not the words τὸν ὄντα ἐπὶ πάντων Οεόν have been added to Χριστὸν by the author? Would he, because of the presence of τὸ κατὰ σάρκα have been compelled by the inviolable laws of the Greek language to omit these words, however greatly he desired to insert them in his sentence? We cannot believe that the language is fettered so closely as this. But if it is thus limited, so far as the setting forth of a direct contrast is concerned, it will not follow that there is a similar limitation with reference to such a phrase as the one before us, when introduced for the purpose indicated above.

We are thrown back, therefore—on both sides—upon probabilities, and must pursue our examination accordingly. In order to deter-mine what these probabilities are, however, we must observe what the author is attempting to do in the verses to which this passage belongs. It is evident that his object is to set forth the privileges and honors of the Israelitish people, in which he as a Jew might naturally glory, as an evidence [that, in anything which he was about to say respecting them, he was moved by no feeling of hostility. These honors and privileges he brings before the reader in a series of terms, which are clearly arranged in an order of climax. At the end of the series is mentioned, as the greatest and highest distinction of his nation, the fact that Christ belonged to them in a certain sense or on a certain side,— τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. So far there can be no difference of opinion. The Apostle's position is plain. But if this be so, is it not antecedently probable, that—in case he could point out, on the πνεῦμα side, some peculiar glory appertaining to Christ, which would serve to show in the most emphatic way what the honor to the Jews of having him appear as one of themselves was—he would for the very purpose of his climax, suggest it to the reader's mind? We cannot doubt that an affirmative answer to this question must be given.

If, however, the ὁ ὢν clause is referred to Christ, as descriptive of Him, it contains just such a statement of His exalted position as would, in the highest degree, serve this purpose. It presents the honor divinely bestowed upon the people as nothing else could do; such honor as might well lead the Apostle to the extraordinary expression of devotion to them which we find two verses earlier. On the other hand, the insertion of an independent sentence ascribing praise to God the Father here, whatever may be said as to the possible fitness of such a sentence in this context, deprives the passage of this emphasis of climax, if we may so speak, which the author appears to be aiming at as one of his main objects.

etc etc (and getting even more tedious)
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The formulas are "glory to Christ for ever and ever", "God the Father blessed for ever." They seem to be fixed formulas without variation, which is a reason why theos in Rom 9:5 must take the article and denote the Father. Thus there is no "Christ who is" in Rom 9:5

Do you have this argument from Abbot, Dwight, Beet or anybody?
Especially the highlighted part.

Also you could list the group of "fixed formulas".

Thanks!
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
And I believe the following verses show that there really is no problem at all with the simple forward reading:

Christ ... who is over all,

Romans 9:5 (KJV)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,

God blessed for ever.
Amen.

‘there are many New Testament verses that fit well with Christ being over all.
Here are some that were listed courtesy of:

Joseph John Gurney (1788-1847)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_John_Gurney

Biblical Notes and Dissertations, Chiefly Intended to Confirm and Illustrate the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ: With Some Remarks on the Practical Importance of that Doctrine (1830)
https://books.google.com/books?id=cJxhAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA423
p. 423-456

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

Romans 9:5 and many related high Christology verses

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.

Colossians 1:16 (AV)
For by him were all things created,
that are in heaven, and that are in earth,
visible and invisible,

1 Corinthians 8:6 (AV)
But to us there is but one God, the Father,
of whom are all things, and we in him;
and one Lord Jesus Christ,
by whom are all things, and we by him.
whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers:
all things were created by him, and for him:

Ephesians 1:20-23 (AV)
Which he wrought in Christ,
when he raised him from the dead,
and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion,
and every name that is named,
not only in this world,
but also in that which is to come:
And hath put all things under his feet,
and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Which is his body,
the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Philippians 2:9-10 (AV)
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him,
and given him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

Hebrews 1:6 (AV)
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world,
he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Colossians 1:17 (AV)
And he is before all things,
and by him all things consist.

Hebrews 1:3 (AV)
Who being the brightness of his glory,
and the express image of his person,
and upholding all things by the word of his power,
when he had by himself purged our sins,
sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

1 Corinthians 15:27-28 (AV)
For he hath put all things under his feet.
But when he saith,
all things are put under him,
it is
manifest that he is excepted,
which did put all things under him.
And when all things shall be subdued unto him,
then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him,
that God may be all in all.

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

cjab

Well-known member
Do you have this argument from Abbot, Dwight, Beet or anybody?
Especially the highlighted part.
Beet & Winer opt for a doxology to God excluding Christ.

Meyer difficult to read, but in the course of commenting on what others have said, comes out with such comments as "Θεός obtains by the characteristic description ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων"(the God who is over all)
and he records without comment: "ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, 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, c." (I assume he agrees with Kuhner.)

Meyer lists the following as placing a period before ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός "Erasmus in his Annot., Wetstein, Semler, Stolz, and several others, and recently Reiche, Köllner, Winzer, Fritzsche, Glöckler, Schrader, Krehl, Ewald, van Hengel, and, though not fully decided, Rückert. See also Baur, II. p. 231; Zeller, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1842, p. 51; Räbiger, Christol. Paul. p. 26 f.; Beyschlag, Christol. p. 210."

There is an assumption that none of the ECFs did, but Eusebius clearly uses "God over all" in distinction to Christ, and Irenaeus in places also. So it is by no means an unknown interpretation.


Ellicot notes "(3) But on the other hand, to set somewhat decidedly against this application, is the fact that the words used by the Apostle, “Who is over all,” and the ascription of blessing in all other places where they occur, are referred, not to Christ, but to God. (Comp. Romans 1:25; 2Corinthians 1:3; 2Corinthians 11:31; Ephesians 1:3; Ephesians 4:6.) There is, indeed, a doxology addressed to Christ in 2Timothy 4:18; (glory not blessing) it should, however, be remembered that the Pauline origin of that Epistle has been doubted by some, though it is also right to add that these doubts do not appear to have any real validity. The title “God” does not appear to be elsewhere applied to our Lord by St. Paul, though all the attributes of Godhead are ascribed to Him: e.g., in Philippians 2:6 et seq., Colossians 1:15 et seq. In 1Timothy 3:16, which would be an apparent exception, the true reading is, * Who was manifested,” and not “God was manifested.”

Most Trinitarian commentators seem to agree the grammar isn't definitive of the Trinitarian rendition (this is presumably because they see ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός (the God who is over all) as at most in apposition, rather than attributive of Christ. In fact there is a clear consensus for being equivocal and preferring style or some doctrinal reason for relating ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός to Christ, so Trinitarians should be humble - it isn't as clear as they say.

Also you could list the group of "fixed formulas".

Thanks!
The scripture idea is of Christ bringing glory to the "blessed God," being glorified in himself by God's glory, and conferring his glory on others by faith in him.

God Blessed
Gen 9:26
Gen 14:20
1Sa 25:32
2Sa 18:28
2Sa 22:47
1Ki 1:48
1Ki 8:15
1Ki 10:9
1Ch 16:36
1Ch 29:10
2Ch 6:4
2Ch 9:8
Neh 8:6
Neh 9:5
Psa 18:46
Psa 41:13
Psa 68:35
Psa 72:18
Psa 106:48
Dan 2:19
Dan 2:20
Dan 3:28

Luk 1:68
Luk 2:28
Rom 1:25
Rom 9:5
2Co 1:3
Eph 1:3
1Ti 1:11
1Pe 1:3

Christ glorified/of glory or brings glory to God or glory comes to/through/in Christ
Luk 24:26
Rom 15:7
Rom 15:17
Rom 16:27
2Co 4:6
2Co 8:23
Gal 6:14
Eph 1:12
Eph 3:21
Phl 1:11
Phl 2:11
Phl 4:19
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Meyer difficult to read, but in the course of commenting on what others have said, comes out with such comments as "Θεός obtains by the characteristic description ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων"(the God who is over all)
and he records without comment: "ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, 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, c." (I assume he agrees with Kuhner.)

With the double negative highlighted -
Is the idea that ὁ is acting as an article to God?

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

"quite customary manner of expression"
See above, there is nothing uncharacteristic for either God or Christ to be over all.
 

brianrw

Member
Brian never responded to post #540, that has his de facto claim that the AV text is wrong.
Steven, I'm largely ignoring you because you don't get your sources straight, you don't get my comments straight, and you have a habit of ascribing claims and positions to me that are not mine. I'd be happy to have a nice chat with you, but the way you are approaching it is not productive.

The AV text is not wrong. I never said it was. I said your reading of the AV text as meaning "blessed by God" is. If I didn't answer that specifically in "post #540," you should have caught it the tens of other times I said it. There's a difference between the AV text, and Steven Avery's private interpretation of it. I said "blessed" serves as a predicate adjective in the postposition in this context.

Going after me on this one is becoming an unhealthy obsession for you. It might be time for you to step away and gain a little bit of perspective.

The τὸ tells us that there is a period after σάρκα.
It doesn't. And I see you've clearly decided to emend the punctuation again in opposition to the NA/UBS/TR. The editors of the Greek New Testaments have rejected this punctuation. Didn't you just say the passage could be taken in apposition? Do you have a solid view on this?

Why do you feel suddenly that τὸ κατὰ (_____) ends a sentence? Does it also end it in Acts 27:5? Or 2 Corinthians 7:11? I'd like to hear your explanation, specifically.

The objection is hardly invalid. The proper anti-thesis to σάρξ is πνεῦμα.
So you are for an implied antithesis rather than the one that naturally follows in the sentence?
There is an assumption that none of the ECFs did, but Eusebius clearly uses "God over all" in distinction to Christ, and Irenaeus in places also. So it is by no means an unknown interpretation.
That wording also occurs in Ephesians 4:6, and against patripassions I would not necessarily infer how he read Romans 9:5, when he never quotes it. Again, cf. Basil and Hippolytus.

and the ascription of blessing in all other places where they occur, are referred, not to Christ, but to God . . . The title “God” does not appear to be elsewhere applied to our Lord by St. Paul
The premise is circular, "Paul never calls Christ 'God,' therefore Paul can't call Christ 'God' here, therefore it must be a doxology to the Father and we find a way to explain this." Thus the attempts at alleviating the difficulty that came out of the non-Trinitarian camp:
  1. Omit θεὸς as a scribal insertion (no viable evidence)
  2. Emend the punctuation to a period after πάντων (no evidence)
  3. Emend the punctuation to a period after σάρκα (no viable evidence)
  4. Transpose Ο ΩΝ to ΩΝ Ο, thus converting the attributive participle to a relative followed by an article (i.e., ὁ ὢν to ὧν ὁ). (No evidence)
  5. Ignore the participle altogether. (conjectural)
  6. Treat ὁ ὢν as idiomatic of Exodus 3:14. (conjectural)
That they settled eventually on #3 after a centuries long debate certainly doesn't lend strength to the argument.

There are, in fact, multiple places where Paul, based on a straight reading of the text and supported by the Greek fathers, does indeed call Christ "God." So applying this same argument in every place where it does is certainly something I find disingenuous.

"Erasmus in his Annot., Wetstein, Semler, Stolz, and several others, and recently Reiche, Köllner, Winzer, Fritzsche, Glöckler, Schrader, Krehl, Ewald, van Hengel, and, though not fully decided, Rückert
But never found consensus. Erasmus is the source of the emended punctuation.

Most Trinitarian commentators seem to agree the grammar isn't definitive of the Trinitarian rendition (this is presumably because they see ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός (the God who is over all) as at most in apposition, rather than attributive of Christ. In fact there is a clear consensus for being equivocal and preferring style or some doctrinal reason for relating ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός to Christ, so Trinitarians should be humble - it isn't as clear as they say.
You're speaking in generalities. There is nothing here that forbids an attributive construction, and a substantival usage of the participle in apposition is itself an attributive usage, the passage would still be related to Christ. The participle ὧν is precisely what makes your reading unlikely. Since you are dealing with an intermediate and above concept, it would be better to gain a thorough understanding of the participle usage rather than (1) attempting to form an opinion on it based on Romans 9:5, which is counterproductive, and (2) following The Real John Milton, who has continually misrepresented how the grammar ought to work here.

I don't need to apply special rules here, or negate rules anywhere else, or pretend thus is so in the NT when it's not, to get my interpretations to fit.

As I said, the data does not support such a reading before Erasmus. Even at this point, after 400 years of intensive scrutiny, the best you can offer is Eusebius who never quotes the passage, I believe I am very firm footing in this.
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
Continued from above
and Irenaeus in places also.
I forgot to add: Not when Irenaeus quotes Romans 9:5 in full and relates it to Christ. So unless you hold that Irenaeus has contradictory positions, in research we do not exchange a fact for an inference. This is clearly not "in distinction to Christ," nor are the many usages of Eusebius that I have seen.

You should provide a clear example of Eusebius, since he never actually quotes Romans 9:5 in his extant writings. We can discuss it from there.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The AV text is not wrong. I never said it was.

Again you avoid the actual question.

You claimed it was important that the AV has Early Modern English adjectival usage.

Why? How is it different from current modern usage?

Maybe you were just blowing smoke, just another worthless diversion. Sigh.

Stop dancing.
Your continual evasions are embarrassing. They are an “unhealthy obsession” on your end.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The AV text is not wrong. I never said it was. I said your reading of the AV text as meaning "blessed by God" is. If I didn't answer that specifically in "post #540," you should have caught it the tens of other times I said it. There's a difference between the AV text, and Steven Avery's private interpretation of it. I said "blessed" serves as a predicate adjective in the postposition in this context.
And that is simply a circular claim, like saying “it is an apposition”.

Try to give a real grammatical answer that you claim negates:

“God blessed (is Christ) for ever”
 
Top