Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

[John Milton]

Endless confusion and an inability to see what scripture is actually saying.

Are you giving yourself a performance evaluation?

A theology that demands people call Jesus "God" is a theology that demands worship of Christ according to the flesh.

No. It's a theology that is consistent with what several New Testament authors wrote.

 

[Steven Avery]

And I've told you what they wrote was perfectly acceptable. What isn't acceptable is your understanding of what they wrote. What you understand does not match what they intended. As is clear by looking at the parallel passages where they supply the words needed to make their understanding clear.

Now you are a mind-reader. You have agreed that there is no grammatical apposition.

Parallel passage analysis is especially dicey, since they tend to be cherry-picked. You are welcome to try again, but the key point is that you have agreed that the English text has no grammatical apposition.

Now you are fishing for a doctrinal, contextual support, something you criticize from others, such as cjab studying if "Jesus is God" is Pauline, or NT.

I've only referenced possible, not authoritative. If he considers the text authoritative, it doesn't follow that he accepts your erroneous interpretation of that text authoritative.

It means that, like you, he should accept that there is no grammatical apposition in the AV text. Interpretation could then follow without a red herring in the stew.

 

[Steven Avery]

Even you recognize Christ is "God blessed forever." The only problem is you think this means "who is blessed [by] God forever. Which cannot be correct because "blessed" is an adjective. For the construction θεὸς εὐλογητὸς there are two possibilities. 1) It means God is blessed, but you've ruled this out, ironically along the same logical lines that you refuse to accept as refuting the sense you prefer as I've already pointed out. 2) blessed God where blessed is an adjective modifying God. Since you reject 1) that leaves you with 2) which does not agree with your intended sense.

Neither 1) or 2) is an apposition.
Both are possible grammatically, although I find them weaker in terms of the flow of the verse. How they compare to the spin analysis should be determined over time.

And I am glad that you have defacto given up the grammatical apposition claim in the English text.

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

"same logical lines that you refuse to accept as refuting the sense you prefer as I've already pointed out"

This probably refers to the missing verb question, an AV analysis, which has to be looked at for all interpretations. All interpretations can be filled out with ellipsis, I believe the one from spin is the smoothest in that respect, since the verb could not be included without a wooden duplication of the word "Christ". Again, though, your cagey approach of not giving any English text makes your claims fall to the ground.

 

[John Milton]

You switched the discussion from the verb to a general discussion of historical positions, apparently about apposition interpretations. (If you had another meaning, feel free to clarify.)

If you took the time to look at what actually happened. You would note that the question arose from your remarks. edit per mod

There was no rhyme or reason for the switch. When I pointed it out, you gave the smarmy response.
There is no "widely held" position about the verb, which was the discussion.

Here's all of what you said: "I answered you earlier on the verb. The ellipsis “is Christ” could not include the verb without a wooden duplication of Christ. Plus, it is not a doxology, which was your context in discussing the verb. And this is a far greater difficulty for apposition and doxology interpretations."

The question is did "this" refer to the fact that is was not a doxology (which is how I took your remarks) or did it refer to the verb which is what you are saying here that you meant? Either way, there was no attempt on my part to introduce something new. You were ambiguous. Don't blame me for your sloppy pronoun use.

 

[cjab]

No. It's a theology that is consistent with what several New Testament authors wrote.

If you're so concerned with whether the flesh (i.e. humanity) of Christ be labelled "God", then it either betokens an unscriptural concern with the flesh of Christ, or as TRJM suggests, it shows you're a gnostic: that you know something about the flesh of Christ that others don't. Either way, your suggestion that Paul would defer to Jesus as God is bunk.

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

 

[Steven Avery]

If you took the time to look at what actually happened. You would note that the question arose from your remarks. Again, why keep lying and distorting the picture? That you are saying things that aren't true is apparent to anyone who goes to look. It should be obvious to you as well.

Here's all of what you said: "I answered you earlier on the verb. The ellipsis “is Christ” could not include the verb without a wooden duplication of Christ. Plus, it is not a doxology, which was your context in discussing the verb. And this is a far greater difficulty for apposition and doxology interpretations."

The question is did "this" refer to the fact that is was not a doxology (which is how I took your remarks) or did it refer to the verb which is what you are saying here that you meant? Either way, there was no attempt on my part to introduce something new. You were ambiguous. Don't blame me for your sloppy pronoun use.

This is all dumb.
Since I went directly back up the discussion, using the urls in the name.
Earlier, you falsely said I left something out, that was untrue.

This showed that you left the verb context.
Based on your not following the actual thread, you gave the smarmy response.

And I am going to conclude that you never went back up the thread, which would have prevented the smarmy response.

And you missed the obvious meaning. The only meaning that makes sense is continuing the verb conversation, and that it would create difficulties for both the apposition and doxology approaches.

 

[Steven Avery]

Yes, in the specific case of Rom 9:5. In the examples I quoted the articles did not have any noun associated with them, so they functioned as purely anaphoric pronouns prior to participles. In Rom 9:5, the use of the article shows that Θεὸς denotes a known person or thing— being the "defining article". This is required in order to identify the one being blessed. .....But as far as grammar is concerned, Rom 9:5 must surely read as if it had just said "ὁ Θεὸς" as a participle in the first attribitive position cannot separate a noun from its article. And Θεὸς requires an article in this context, in order to identify the one being blessed.

And I see Murray Harris say that Θεὸς is anarthrous in Romans 9:5.

And I was just wondering if you had any resource that says it has a definite article. No more, no less .

 

[cjab]

And I see Murray Harris say that Θεὸς is anarthrous in Romans 9:5.

And I was just wondering if you had any resource that says it has a definite article. No more, no less .

Murray Harris is not honest. If you can't see what's written, may be you need glasses.

 

[Steven Avery]

I am relatively sure you are misquoting Harris. Those remarks about "natural association" referred to the doxology reading if I recall. Please, verify this before I respond further. I don't have access to Harris.

Nope.
After giving two alternatives:

Both of these constructions sever the natural association of θεὸς with εὐλογητὸς and cohere better with the word order ....

So he is criticizing any construction that breaks the natural association.
(Which may apply to his own later preferred interpretation.)

You might be able to see it here (it varies, I have it today.)
https://books.google.com/books?id=TkD7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA166

If not, I may post another method to see the text.

 

[Steven Avery]

Murray Harris is not honest. If you can't see what's written, may be you need glasses.

Do you have any resource that references a definite article for θεὸς in Romans 9:5?

By your response, I will conclude the answer is no.

 

[John Milton]

Neither 1) or 2) is an apposition.

2) is apposition.

Both are possible grammatically, although I find them weaker in terms of the flow of the verse.

And I am glad that you have defacto given up the grammatical apposition claim in the English text.

I haven't. Why do you think 2) isn't apposition.

"same logical lines that you refuse to accept as refuting the sense you prefer as I've already pointed out"

This probably refers to the missing verb question, an AV analysis, which has to be looked at for all interpretations. All interpretations can be filled out with ellipsis, I believe the one from spin is the smoothest in that respect, since the verb could not be included without a wooden duplication of the word "Christ". Again, though, your cagey approach of not giving any English text makes your claims fall to the ground.

The very fact that you say "probably" indicates that you most likely did not even look at the evidence presented to you, yet you claim to have given the matter close inspection notwithstanding.

 

[John Milton]

If you're so concerned with whether the flesh (i.e. humanity) of Christ be labelled "God", then it either betokens an unscriptural concern with the flesh of Christ, or as TRJM suggests, it shows you're a gnostic: that you know something about the flesh of Christ that others don't.

If others read the three passages I cited, they should know that Jesus was called God in the New Testament. It's dishonest of you to claim they didn't.

Either way, your suggestion that Paul would defer to Jesus as God is bunk.

I've only said it is grammatically possible. I don't think you disagree with this, so why are you saying things that aren't true?

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

This isn't relevant to your remarks here.

 

[cjab]

Do you have any resource that references a definite article for θεὸς in Romans 9:5?

By your response, I will conclude the answer is no.

Of course I do. I have a reference to "ο ων επι παντων θεος" as subject which infers o as definite article.
___________________________
Two RENDERINGS of Romans 9:5 b are grammatically admissible and worthy of consideration.

(1) ο ων επι παντων θεος may be in apposition to ο χριστος, asserting that He who sprang from Israel is over all God blessed forever: cp. 2 Corinthians 11:31; John 1:18; John 3:13. So Irenaeus (quoted on p. 6) and Origen, (both preserved in Latin translations only,) Tertullian, Cyprian, very many early Christian writers, and a large majority of the writers of all ages.

(2) ο ων επι παντων θεος may be the subject, and ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας the predicate, of a new sentence. This exposition is not found in any early Christian writer; but is adopted in the Alex., Ephraim, and Clermont MSS., where we find stops marking off the words in question as a doxology to the Father and spaces proving that the stops are from the first hand. In the Vat. MS. is a stop apparently from a later hand.

Of modern Critical Editors, Tregelles adopts the former, and Lachmann and Tischendorf the latter, exposition. Westcott and Hort here part company, preferring respectively the former and latter expositions. The Revisers place the former in their text, and the latter in their margin. A similar evenly-balanced divergence is found among modern grammarians and expositors.

The general and uncontradicted agreement of early Christian writers has much less weight in reference to exposition than to doctrine; and against it, as supporting exposition (1), must be set the punctuation of some early manuscripts. Certainly this agreement cannot be accepted as decisive. The correct interpretation of the passage before us can be determined only by the methods of modern exegesis.

I shall endeavour to show that (2) is in thorough accord with the structure of the passage, with the context, and with the thought of Paul; and that (1), though grammatically correct and making good sense, is made unlikely by the very ambiguity of the passage.

It is objected that ευλογητος, in the four other doxologies of the N.T. in which it is found, and in many doxologies in the O.T., is always (except Psalms 68:19) put before the name of God. So Luke 1:68; 2 Corinthians 1:3; Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3; Genesis 9:26; 1 Samuel 25:32-33; 1 Samuel 25:39, etc. But no one can say that grammar requires the predicate, even where the copula is suppressed, to stand first. For the contrary, see Romans 11:16; Romans 12:9; Hebrews 13:4; Luke 10:2. Of all languages, the Greek would be the last to forbid a man to say God be blessed in deviation from the common order blessed be God. The objection is simply an appeal to the usage of Paul and of the Bible. What this is, we will consider.

As noticed above, Paul frequently turns suddenly away from the matter in hand to ascribe praise to God. In these cases, whenever the doxology takes the form of an exclamation, it begins with the name of God, and often with a solemn declaration of the divine attribute which prompted it. In this way the writer puts prominently before us the Great Being to whom our attention is suddenly directed. When a doxology occurs at the beginning of a subject, the word of praise comes first, making prominent the idea of praise. So Luke 1:68, etc. Just so, in Luke 2:14, when the angels take up their song, they put the word glory first: but when they turn from God on high to men on earth, they give emphasis to the transition by putting the words upon earth before the word peace. They thus deviate, in the latter case from the universal, in the former from the almost universal, usage of the New Testament: cp. Luke 10:5; John 20:19; John 20:21; John 20:26. But they deviate for a sufficient reason.

 

[cjab]

(cont.)

The peculiarity of the case before us is, not the position, but the presence, of the word blessed. Elsewhere it is found in the N.T. only in doxologies which begin a subject. All others, and they are frequent with Paul, take the form “to God be glory.” But surely the use here of the word blessed need not surprise us. And, if used, it must follow God over all. Otherwise Paul would deviate from his own unvarying use in doxologies at the end of a subject, which are so frequent with him, a use flowing naturally from the order of thought; and would direct our chief attention to the act of praise instead of the Object of praise.

On the other hand, although ευλογημενος is used of Christ in Matthew 21:9; Matthew 23:39, etc., ευλογητος never is. (For the distinction, see Genesis 14:19-20, LXX.) And elsewhere Paul uses the word God, never of the Son, but as a distinctive title of the Father, even to distinguish Him from the Son. So Romans 16:27; 1 Timothy 1:17; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:6. But these objections to (1) are not decisive. For, as I hope to show in Diss. i., Paul looked upon Christ as sharing to the full the divine nature of the Father. There is therefore no reason why he should not deviate from his custom and speak of Christ, though it be only once, as ευλογητος and θσος, terms elsewhere reserved for the Father. Cp. John 20:28; John 1:1, and probably John 1:18. Interpret it as we may, this passage differs from the usage of Paul. Consequently, no argument can be based on the unusual order of the words.

According to exposition (1), the word ων is an emphatic assertion that Christ is over all, God, and blessed for ever. In (2) it asserts that over all there exists one who bears the title God and is blessed for ever. The words ων επι παντων are, as in Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 3:7, put for emphasis between the article and its substantive, according to constant Greek usage. The words over all recall Ephesians 4:6, where they refer to the Father.

The words ο ων ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας in 2 Corinthians 11:31 give no support to (1). For they cannot by themselves form a complete sentence; and must therefore be in apposition to the foregoing nominative. And the context shows plainly to whom the words refer. Of this we should have been uncertain had Paul written ος εστιν as in Romans 1:25. But the clause before us has in itself all the elements of a complete sentence; and therefore we cannot join it to the previous sentence, and thus change its meaning altogether, without a good reason. Had Paul wished to teach here that Christ is God, he might have done so, and put his meaning beyond doubt, by writing ος εστιν as in Romans 1:25.

The words according to flesh suggest another side of Christ’s nature which did not descend from Israel. But this suggestion is so clear that it does not need express assertion. And there is nothing in the form of the words following, as there was in Romans 1:4, which calls attention to it. Nor can it be said that these words were inserted only to provoke the contrast. For the insertion of them is otherwise sufficiently accounted for. Even when narrating the privileges of Israel, Paul cannot go beyond the truth: and the truth requires this limitation. His sorrow for his brethren will not let him forget that Christ belongs to them only by outward bodily descent. But even this outward nearness to Him was the greatest of their many advantages.

How fully exposition (2) accords with the whole context and with the usage and thought of Paul, I have already attempted to show. To say that an outburst of praise would be out of place in a passage so full of sadness, is to overlook the pathos of these words. That the slighted privileges of Israel call forth a song from a heart smitten with deepest sorrow on their account, reveals their greatness and the terrible position of those who trample them under foot. As little inappropriate is this song of praise as will be the Hallelujahs of the Day of Judgment: Revelation 19:1-7. And that Paul rises unexpectedly from mention of Christ to praise to God, is in complete harmony with his constant mode of thought, e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:28; 1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Corinthians 3:23.

So far then we have seen that the exposition I have adopted is not open to objection on the ground of grammar, the context, or the usage and thought of Paul. I shall now bring reasons for believing, with a confidence approaching certainty, that it conveys the actual thought and purpose of Paul.

Had Paul intended to deviate from his otherwise unvarying custom and to speak of Christ as God, he must have done so with a set and serious purpose of asserting the divinity of Christ. And, if so, he would have used words which no one could misunderstand. In a similar case, John 1:1, we find language which excludes all doubt. In the passage before us, the words ος εστιν, as in Romans 1:25, would have given equal certainty. But Paul did not use them. Again, in the passages which set forth expressly the nature of the Son, e.g. Romans 1:4; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:15, Paul does not call Him God: and in each of them the subordination of the Son to the Father is very conspicuous. But here, if we adopt the traditional exposition, there is no mention whatever of the Father, and without such mention there is given to the Son the loftiest title found in the Bible; in other words, we should have here the divinity of Christ, asserted with a definiteness not found elsewhere in the writings or addresses of Paul, and not correlated to the unique supremacy of the Father. This is altogether inconsistent with the whole thought of Paul.

Moreover, Paul is not discussing here the dignity of Christ, but mentions Him casually in an exposition of the present position of the Jews. In such a passage, it is much more likely that he would deviate from his common mode of expression, and write once God be blessed instead of “To God be glory,” than that in a passage not referring specially to the nature of Christ he would assert, what he nowhere else explicitly asserts, that Christ is God, and assert it in language which may mean either this or something quite different.

In any case, the passage before us cannot be appealed to in proof of the divinity of Christ. For even those who so interpret it admit that their interpretation is open to doubt: and it is very unsafe to build important doctrine on an uncertain foundation. On the other hand, as I interpret them, these words reveal, by making them matter of praise to God, the greatness of the privileges which the Jews had trampled under foot.

Romans 9 - Beet's Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

Romans 9, Beet's Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament, One of over 125 Bible commentaries freely available, this commentary was written by Joseph Beet, a member of the faculty of theology in the University of London

www.studylight.org

 

[Steven Avery]

2) is apposition.

I haven't. Why do you think 2) isn't apposition.

The very fact that you say "probably" indicates that you most likely did not even look at the evidence presented to you, yet you claim to have given the matter close inspection notwithstanding.

I looked at it, and was not impressed. If you want to give the url or put it in again, I will look again.

(2) is obviously not an apposition.
It would work fine with the Israel analogy, which is what demolished the claim of a grammatical apposition.

 

[cjab]

If others read the three passages I cited, they should know that Jesus was called God in the New Testament. It's dishonest of you to claim they didn't.

It's dishonest of you to hold that any of them denote Christ as "God above all."

 

[John Milton]

This is all dumb.
Since I went directly back up the discussion, using the urls in the name.
Earlier, you falsely said I left something out, that was untrue.

You did leave out the context of my remarks. It was clearly evident in my post.

This showed that you left the verb context.
Based on your not following the actual thread, you gave the smarmy response.

No. Based on what you wrote I may have misunderstood you.

And I am going to conclude that you never went back up the thread, which would have prevented the smarmy response.

That's ridiculous. I had to have gone back up the thread to pull up the context of my quote to show what you omitted.

And you missed the obvious meaning. The only meaning that makes sense is continuing the verb conversation, and that it would create difficulties for both the apposition and doxology approaches.

It wasn't obvious as the post you are quoting demonstrates because it wasn't clear from what you wrote what "this" referred to. And you didn't answer this question in my post. edit per mod

 

[Steven Avery]

That's ridiculous. I had to have gone back up the thread to pull up the context of my quote to show what you omitted.

Do you know the difference between generally going up the thread and following the links to the specific part of the discussion in the name url?

 

[John Milton]

Nope.
After giving two alternatives:



So he is criticizing any construction that breaks the natural association.
(Which may apply to his own later preferred interpretation.)

You might be able to see it here (it varies, I have it today.)
https://books.google.com/books?id=TkD7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA166

If not, I may post another method to see the text.

I can see this. Thank you for the link. His remarks had nothing to do with doxologies at all (my memory is at fault there), and he sees θεός in apposition to ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων. It seems to me that Murray's interpretation is an over-the-top paraphrase of the AV.

 

[Steven Avery]

I can see this. Thank you for the link. His remarks had nothing to do with doxologies at all (my memory is at fault there), and he sees θεός in apposition to ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων. It seems to me that Murray's interpretation is an over-the-top paraphrase of the AV.

Nope.
He rejects the AV text in favor of something else. At the moment, I am not pulling it out, but if you have enough pages visible, you will see his movement. If not, I may be able to find it fairly quickly.

That is later in the article, and yes, it can take some effort to follow Harris. He is helpful more in laying out alternatives and giving a couple of solid, pithy notes than in his conclusion.

Since the purpose of the book is to find some "Jesus as God" verses, he will move in that direction.
The book is titled:
Jesus as God: The NT Use of Theos

And he acknowledges difficulties in most claims that verses declare Jesus as God.