Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

Nice "argument."
I addressed this earlier in the thread with the specific manuscripts. I could provide a fairly extensive list as well, since I have examined the uncials and over a hundred minuscules.

Here is a simple question:

μὴ ὢν μετ’ ἐμοῦ κατ’ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ’ ἐμοῦ σκορπίζει.

Matt. 12:30

Is the articular ὢν being used attributively in the second position in this verse or as a substantive ?
Please don't waste my time with disingenuous questions.

But it's not always attributive backwards. Sometimes it can function as a substantive, e.g. John 3:31, and Matt 12:29, and sometimes it is attributive fowards, to a following noun.
Yet not so unnatural that it isn't found elsewhere.
You're missing the point that it's not found elsewhere in the way you construe it in Romans 9:5. The rule operates on a simple if then . . . else if then statement. If the head noun is expressed (i.e., found in the sentence), then it is purely attributive and this is a dependent usage and modifies the noun. Else if the head noun is unexpressed, then it operates substantively and it is an independent usage and acts like a noun. That's actually the rule.

Since you won't listen to me, I'll refer you back to the grammars:

..a substantival participle is really an attributive participle whose modified noun is unexpressed. (Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Beginning with New Testament Greek, p. 187).​
An attributive participle modifies a noun (or other substantive) whereas a substantival participle functions as a noun itself. (Köstenberger, Andreas J.; Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, Revised Edition, p. 326)​

Attributive Use
With the attributive use, the article (when present) occurs directly in front of the participle which modifies an expressed noun or pronoun. It is often best to translate an attributive participle with an English relative clause (“who” or “which/that”) . . . Participles can also take direct objects or can be modified by other parts of speech (e.g., adverbs, prepositional phrases, or negative particles). (Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Beginning with New Testament Greek, p. 186, 187).​

The examples you are providing are substantival, and these are considered an independent usage of the attributive participle. So you are using substantival usages to justify a purely attributive use, which is why I said you are comparing apples and oranges.

You're using empirical observation alone to override a clear rule of grammar that associates an article to its following noun agreeing in gender and case. Moreover these is nothing grammatically unsound about "ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντω θεός etc." It can't be faulted in terms of its grammar, and there may be a reason for using ὁ ὢν here, which is to distinguish θεός from everything that precedes ὁ ὢν (also see John 3:31 etc).
I'm actually following it, not overriding it, and if you had a basic understanding of the fundamentals you wouldn't be constantly accusing me of overriding things or making up rules. Normally when you don't understand a language, you can receive a lesson from those who do. But it seems you want to teach when you still need to be taught. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, I do mean it for your benefit.

The attributive participle normally functions in the second or (less frequently) in the third attributive position. θεὸς here is functioning as a predicate. Either you emend the passage by adding a period (making ὢν superfluous), or Christ is being referred to as "God." How you want to interpret it from there is up to you. As strongly as you are asserting this, again I'll say this reading is virtually unanimous among the Greeks, that Christ here is called God--and by "virtually," I am allowing for the three or four equivocal testimonies sometimes placed as negative evidence. Again, the heterodox proposed no less than four emendations of the passage to avoid that, but the common interpretation of those among them who didn't emend the passage was that Jesus is like Moses, whom God made "a god to Pharaoh." That is, a god by office.

You need a reminder that the AV text, that you say you support, does not have “God over all.”
A reminder would be unnecessary, because I'm quoting them, because my support hasn't changed, and because "God over all" and "over all God" are no different in meaning, only in nuance of expression. However, since you take "God blessed" as a compound adjective (which the Greek construction here doesn't allow) you interpret it as a huge difference, so I can see why you would want to make a big deal about this here.
 
and because "God over all" and "over all God" are no different in meaning, only in nuance of expression.

Neither one of the two is in the AV text.

There is a critical comma that separates:

"Christ .. who is over all" and
"God blessed for ever".

This is trivially easy to see.

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.

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

Brian's general argument goes like this:
"I can find other people who misread the AV text the same way as I do."

Not a very impressive argument, especially when you consider the bandwagon fallacy effect on the Christ=God contingent.

btw, Brian, can you tell us what God? God the Father? God the Son? the unknown God?

========================================
 
Last edited:
Brian, it’s not a “disingenuous” question, it’s a simple question. I’m asking because I’m not sure you would answer that question correctly.
 
Brian, it’s not a “disingenuous” question, it’s a simple question. I’m asking because I’m not sure you would answer that question correctly.
That is by its very nature a "disingenuous" question, and it is the last one I'm going to answer. I think you need to spend more time on your own study and less time insulting mine or making unwarranted and unsubstantiated assertions. In Matthew 12:30 the participial phrase ὁ μὴ ὢν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ contains an independent, substantive usage of the participle because the head noun is unexpressed. In that sense, the article is generic belonging to the class as opposed to particular.

Your translation of Romans 9:5, I gather from your argument, would be either, "God, the one who is over all, be blessed forever," or, "He who is over all, God, be blessed forever." But Paul never writes doxologies that way, does he? Neither does such a thing occur in the GOT, does it? Nor do the manuscripts support a period here, do they? And who among the ancient Greek fathers unequivocally testifies to such a reading? The preponderance of evidence is against your assertions. You insult my Greek, but I'm in good company with all the Greek fathers who understood it the same as I.

Your response is to artificially restrict the force of the attributive participle to that of a simple one-word adjective, claiming that when it takes an object or is modified by a part of speech it is no longer attributive, but appositional. This is not what you will find described in the grammars intermediate and beyond, and now I'm finding myself having to show that to you from the most basic, entry-level grammars. This tells me two things (1) you don't have a proper understanding of how the attributive participle works and (2) in such cases you are treating the article as a mere substatnivizer. So this is a very novice approach, to the effect that you assert, more or less, that all attributive participles that take an object or are modified by some part of speech are substantival, and therefore no instance of ὁ ὢν is attributive (which is false).

So again, your questions are disingenuous and a waste of my time.

Neither one of the two is in the AV text.

There is a critical comma that separates:

"Christ .. who is over all" and
"God blessed for ever".
My prophecy came true. That "critical comma" sets of the apposition, "God," after "over all." Just, you think "God blessed" is a compound adjective unless a comma falls after "God."

Maybe someone else here can tell you θεὸς εὐλογητὸς doesn't mean "blessed by God." But since you haven't listened to me or Gryllus, or the five or six other individuals on Reddit who said the same thing, I doubt that will make much difference to you.
 
Last edited:
. In Matthew 12:30 the participial phrase ὁ μὴ ὢν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ contains an independent, substantive usage of the participle because the head noun is unexpressed. In that sense, the article is generic belonging to the class as opposed to particular.
Good. You will find that in the GNT virtually every use of this particle when it is articular is “an independent substantive usage .” It is not being used as an attributive participle in the second position . So what you are arguing for in Romans 9:5 with this participle has little to no precedent in the GNT. You have provided just one dubious counter example but which can easily be appositional ( thus an independent substantive usage) and not in the second attributive position at all.

I will say again, you need to read the GNT instead of making lots of empty noise.
 
Last edited:
We are looking at the Authorized Version text.

My prophecy came true. That "critical comma" sets of the apposition, "God," after "over all."

We have to teach you basic English.

This would be an apposition where Christ has three attributes, one of which is God. You need the comma after God.

Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God,
blessed for ever.

Amen.

The actual text is very different, and there is no grammatical apposition.

Romans 9:5 (AV)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.

This is trivially easy to see. So if you gave a prophecy, it was your own blunder prophecy.

"God blessed for ever" can be filled out in interpretation in three ways.

The most awkward and unlikely is (1) your double-doxology interpretation.

1) "(Christ who is) God (is) blessed for ever (by creation, or his people, or something)"

A second one is the simpler Doxology view

2) "God (is) blessed for ever (by creation, or his people, or something)"

Both of these add the verb is or be, yet the AV never implies that verb with God and blessed, it always is included, about 30 times. The Greek lack of the verb is discussed by one or more writers, but I am not going to search for it, since we are simply discussing the English AV text.

The most natural and simplest interpretation is:

3) "(Christ is) God blessed for ever"

Which flows naturally.

Your wacky idea that the comma that introduces "God blessed for ever" creates an apposition is simply proof that you cannot read and understand simple English.
 
Last edited:
The term "natural association" without further clarification is meaningless. Whoever the other nameless gentleman is is correct, both are, but that suggests to me apposition and both having the same referent
Why would God and blessed being nominative, singular, masculine have anything to do with apposition of God and Christ?
Were you thinking of God and Christ when you wrote the above?

Brian appealed to Barry Hofstetter. Barry did not seem to have a basic group on the apposition question, and we are waiting for his answer to this question. He did offer euphony as his weak and tepid support for there being an apposition.

And if Brian thinks that Barry offered some grammatical refutation of Christ being blessed by God, he should quote him specifically. I saw none.

Plus there is one Brian clone (Trinitarian Christ=God and all grammar through that filter) on reddit, and he really does not offer anything new. He makes the same type of confused and circular arguments as you do in trying to claim the AV text is an apposition text. So I decided to place most of the effort here.
 
Last edited:
I addressed this earlier in the thread with the specific manuscripts. I could provide a fairly extensive list as well, since I have examined the uncials and over a hundred minuscules.


Please don't waste my time with disingenuous questions.



You're missing the point that it's not found elsewhere in the way you construe it in Romans 9:5. The rule operates on a simple if then . . . else if then statement. If the head noun is expressed (i.e., found in the sentence), then it is purely attributive and this is a dependent usage and modifies the noun. Else if the head noun is unexpressed, then it operates substantively and it is an independent usage and acts like a noun. That's actually the rule.
First you missed the grammatical point the noun preceding ὁ ὢν is σάρκα in the Accusative Feminine Singular, which serves to grammatically disassociate Χριστὸς from ὁ ὢν.

Second you've overlooked that if Paul had intended to say (as you suggest), "Christ according to the flesh is God above all," then Paul's meaning is really "Christ is God according to the flesh and above all". Thus he would have written "Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν Θεὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων."

(Linked to the above) third, you've overlooked the point, that were ὁ ὢν to refer back to Χριστὸς attributively, ὁ ὢν would have come immediately after Χριστὸς with a list of attributives and prepositions, as in Eph 4:6. all separated by καὶ.

You are reading Eph 4:6 as if it was written in English. It's Greek and so you have to pay careful attention to nouns, and the agreement of articles with their nouns.

Show me a place where an article and attributive refers back to a noun, but which is not the noun that immediately precedes it, but another antecedent noun.

This is why in Rom 9:5 ὁ ὢν could in respect of Χριστὸς only be appositional and why it can't be attributive.
And ὁ ὢν isn't naturally appositional to Χριστὸς because it directly precedes a noun of the same case and gender.

Fourth, there is a further empiricism applying to two attributive clauses attached to a single noun. Here one set may come between the article and its noun, with the other set after the noun.

Footnote 3 in Winer's Extended Grammar p. 166 (English Ed)

"Kruger (p. 121);
"When an attributive is inserted between the article and the
noun, a second attributive sometimes follows the noun without a second article:
similarly Madvig 10. Rem. 6, A. Buttm. p. 91, Jelf 459. 3, Green p. 59 (who adds
E. ii. 11, Rom. ix. 5, A. xiii. 32): see also Rost p. 426, Riddell, Plat. Apol. p. 128.

Donaldson (p. 369 sqq.) seems to regard such examples as instances of
apposition : see also Ellicott on G. i. 4.]


Since you won't listen to me, I'll refer you back to the grammars:

..a substantival participle is really an attributive participle whose modified noun is unexpressed. (Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Beginning with New Testament Greek, p. 187).​
An attributive participle modifies a noun (or other substantive) whereas a substantival participle functions as a noun itself. (Köstenberger, Andreas J.; Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, Revised Edition, p. 326)​

Attributive Use
With the attributive use, the article (when present) occurs directly in front of the participle which modifies an expressed noun or pronoun. It is often best to translate an attributive participle with an English relative clause (“who” or “which/that”) . . . Participles can also take direct objects or can be modified by other parts of speech (e.g., adverbs, prepositional phrases, or negative particles). (Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Beginning with New Testament Greek, p. 186, 187).​

The examples you are providing are substantival, and these are considered an independent usage of the attributive participle. So you are using substantival usages to justify a purely attributive use, which is why I said you are comparing apples and oranges.
I am not using other examples in justification. I am using rules of grammar alone: "article <attributive> noun" is a fundamental Greek construct that bears the test of authenticity in Rom 9:5; and is emminently valid where ὁ ὢν doesn't relate to the immediately antecedent noun in case or in gender.

It is you who must have recourse to examples to justify your position. I can rely on grammar alone.

The article can be used to give prominence to whole sentences: e.g. Acts xxii. 30, also the doxology in Rom 9:5. Sentences can strart with ὁ ὢν, as there are other examples of this.

Really I think your error is to try to bend the rules of grammar by special pleading relating to ὁ ὢν.


I'm actually following it, not overriding it, and if you had a basic understanding of the fundamentals you wouldn't be constantly accusing me of overriding things or making up rules. Normally when you don't understand a language, you can receive a lesson from those who do. But it seems you want to teach when you still need to be taught. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, I do mean it for your benefit.

The attributive participle normally functions in the second or (less frequently) in the third attributive position.
If there are two sets of attributives being attached to θεὸς the construction is what we might expect.

ὁ (attrib 1 =) ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων (noun =) Θεὸς (attrib 2 =) εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.


θεὸς here is functioning as a predicate. Either you emend the passage by adding a period (making ὢν superfluous), or Christ is being referred to as "God." How you want to interpret it from there is up to you. As strongly as you are asserting this, again I'll say this reading is virtually unanimous among the Greeks, that Christ here is called God--and by "virtually," I am allowing for the three or four equivocal testimonies sometimes placed as negative evidence. Again, the heterodox proposed no less than four emendations of the passage to avoid that, but the common interpretation of those among them who didn't emend the passage was that Jesus is like Moses, whom God made "a god to Pharaoh." That is, a god by office.


A reminder would be unnecessary, because I'm quoting them, because my support hasn't changed, and because "God over all" and "over all God" are no different in meaning, only in nuance of expression. However, since you take "God blessed" as a compound adjective (which the Greek construction here doesn't allow) you interpret it as a huge difference, so I can see why you would want to make a big deal about this here.
Seems to me this is grammatically far too complex. We don't assume words have been left out unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.

Personally I would suggest that the predicate, if one were needed, is "εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας". This would then cast the second attributive as appositional and also an implied predicate in the <article> <attributive> <noun> <attributive> instance where no explicit verb is present. I'm not sure that this is necessary though, unless there is some rule that an implied verb must be present.

I cannot comtemplate θεὸς as an implied predicate, when there is no need to make θεὸς a predicate and where θεὸς is preceded by an article and attributive clause. If there is no necessity for it, then it cannot happen. And to make θεὸς an implied predicate is a BIG RED FLAG in theology because it means the interpreter is seeking to define God by implication over and above the express words used. And there are no other instances of this in the bible.

Such a mode of interpretation would be breath-taking in theological terms. Hence in Jn 1:1a-c and Ex 3:14 we would expect to see the explicit verb, and we find the explicit verb.
 
Last edited:
Second you've overlooked that if Paul had intended to say (as you suggest), "Christ according to the flesh is God above all," then Paul's meaning is really "Christ is God according to the flesh and above all". Thus he would have written "Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν Θεὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων."

This is a superb low-tech stylistic, comprehension word-order argument.

Similar to the ultra-awkward claims on Titus 2:13 and any GSR claim that Christ=God is hidden in grammatical subtleties.

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

(Brian leaves the Authorized Version every time he talks of God over all.)

I said the "God" is an apposition set of by a comma after "over all." after God.

In post 332 you similarly defended “God over all” from Metzger.
 
Last edited:
Just to lock in Brian’s favor for “God over all.” (Which is not the AV text and would be a very awkward word order.)

This is why the broad consensus among the fathers, the ancient versions, and modern translators remains the same, that ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς refers to Christ as "God over all."
 
Good. You will find that in the GNT virtually every use of this particle when it is articular is “an independent substantive usage .” It is not being used as an attributive participle in the second position .
You've confused "particle" and participle. You are conflating substantival and attributive usage of the participle, so it is no surprise to find you circling back to a faulty presupposition that doesn't touch my point at all. Where there's an attributive you call it substantival, what is a modifier you call an adjective, and what is dependent you call independent. I have no idea who taught you all of this, but it's just utterly confused.

So again, let's circle back to your premise in your own words:
Another point to note is that when an adjective has modifiers, it is rarely if ever in the second attributive position. In such cases the adjective with modifiers is an appositive. In other words, the second attributive position is article + noun + article + adjective, not article + noun + article + adjective and it’s modifiers.
First, let's see about "modifiers" in the 2nd Attributive position:

In these examples three kinds of modifiers are illustrated, an adjective, a prepositional phrase, and​
a participle with its own prepositional phrase.​
. . .​
b. 2nd Position: article—noun/substantive—article—adjective/modifier (less common)​
[art-substantive-art-adj: TSTA]​
ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ ἀγαθός​
the good man​

ἡ γυνὴ ἡ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ​
the woman in the marketplace​

τὰ τέκνα τὰ διὰ τῆς ἀγορᾶς τρέχοντα​
the children running through the marketplace​
(Whitacre, Rodney A.. A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Eerdmans Language Resources), 5.4, 5.4b)​

Ok. So you're wrong so far. Let's see about whether an attributive participle can be modified by another part of speech:

Even when a participle functions as an adjective or a noun it is still a verbal form, which means it has verbal aspect and it can take a direct object and various modifiers like any other verb. (Whitacre, Rodney A.. A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Eerdmans Language Resources), 5.181.b)​

So you're wrong again. And as an example:

οὗτός ἐστιν ἄρτος ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβαίνων (John 6:50)
This is the bread which comes down from heaven.

Now the participle, καταβαίνων, which comes down, functions as an adjective to describe ὁ ἄρτος, the bread. This participle is modified by the prepositional phrase ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, from heaven. (Whitacre, Rodney A.. A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Eerdmans Language Resources), 2.10.b)​
In other words, I've let you waste too much of my time already.

First you missed the grammatical point the noun preceding ὁ ὢν is σάρκα in the Accusative Feminine Singular, which serves to grammatically disassociate Χριστὸς from ὁ ὢν.
First, please spend more time learning the language in an organized fashion before spending time trying to teach others.

The accusative here serves to limit the scope of descent, "according to the flesh." It's a normal function of the accusative and does not at all "grammatically disassociate Χριστὸς from ὁ ὢν." Note:

Like the genitive (§5.43) and dative (§5.68), the accusative may limit an adjective or the verbal action by indicating that with respect to which the statement is being made. (Whitacre, Rodney A.. A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Eerdmans Language Resources), §5.81)​

(Linked to the above) third, you've overlooked the point, that were ὁ ὢν to refer back to Χριστὸς attributively, ὁ ὢν would have come immediately after Χριστὸς with a list of attributives and prepositions, as in Eph 4:6. all separated by καὶ.
Show me a place where an article and attributive refers back to a noun, but which is not the noun that immediately precedes it, but another antecedent noun.
No, it would not have to. For example,

Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν. (Mark 14:24).​
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.​

We're actually looking for a head nominal that matches in case, number and gender.

Really I think your error is to try to bend the rules of grammar by special pleading relating to ὁ ὢν.
Really, I'm following the rules of grammar to a "T" and your argument is special pleading. Actually, I don't think you are deliberately doing this, but it seems you have been learning the language in a very disorganized fashion.

I cannot comtemplate θεὸς as an implied predicate, when there is no need to make θεὸς a predicate and where θεὸς is preceded by an article and attributive clause. If there is no necessity for it, then it cannot happen. And to make θεὸς an implied predicate is a BIG RED FLAG in theology because it means the interpreter is seeking to define God by implication over and above the express words used. And there are no other instances of this in the bible.
I don't know what you mean by implied. The problem is you're actually taking ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς as a typical "sandwich" construction ὁ [ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων] θεὸς. Let's unpack this correctly: you have ὁ Χριστὸς, ὁ ὢν, and θεὸς.

"Christ according to the flesh is God above all," then Paul's meaning is really "Christ is God according to the flesh and above all".
That's not how I translated it, though, is it?

It is you who must have recourse to examples to justify your position. I can rely on grammar alone.
And let's not pretend that I haven't done just that, or that I haven't repeatedly quoted from grammars. Fair?

Just to lock in Brian’s favor for “God over all.” (Which is not the AV text and would be a very awkward word order.)
You're really just running a lot of background noise, and nothing substantive, and so far as I recall you have not properly represented any of my views in this present thread, but just want to tire me out by constantly making me "clarify" positions I've held all along.

My point was that the Greek fathers used it to speak of Christ as ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς when commenting on the verse. This means "God over all." With the participle you would translate, "who is over all, God" or "who is God over all." Both speak of Christ as God. I've already said I prefer the former, you don't have to keep pretending I'm switching positions. There's nothing awkward about the wording of the latter.

The fact that all three of you are saying different things, but only agree in asserting I'm "wrong," certainly does not lend any credit in my eyes to the readings you are all proposing. Maybe you can all three get on the same page, then get back to me?
 
Last edited:
You've confused "particle" and participle.
That was an obvious typo, my I phone auto correct for some reason changed “participle” to “particle.” You need to stop with the distractions and deal with the real issue here.

You are conflating substantival and attributive usage of the participle, so it is no surprise to find you circling back to a faulty presupposition that doesn't touch my point at all.

Nice trick, accuse your opponent of what you yourself are doing. I am beginning to suspect that you cannot distinguish between the three uses of adjectival participles. Are you aware that adjectival participles are used like adjectives.? The grammars give us three uses of adjectives, the same holds true for adjectival participles. Are you aware of this ? Here are the three uses, again:

  1. Attributive Adjectives
  2. Predicate Adjectives
  3. Substantival Adjectives
You have gone on record to say that the participle in Matthew 12:30 is an instance of no. 3 use above . Do you understand and acknowledge that this use is different than no. 2 or no. 1 use above ? Yes or No ? Answer this question.
 
My point was that the Greek fathers used it to speak of Christ as ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς when commenting on the verse. This means "God over all." With the participle you would translate, "who is over all, God" or "who is God over all." Both speak of Christ as God. I've already said I prefer the former ....

Which clearly is not the AV text that you have affirmed as the English text, with correct commas, which has:

“Christ ... who is over all, God blessed for ever.”

Above, post #429, I explained the three possible interpretations of the clause “God blessed for ever” with yours being the worst, the most awkward.
Waiting for your reply.

=========

To save you time, please do not use broken arguments:

1) Such-and-such saw the AV test as Christ=God
Bandwagon fallacy, to reach desired apologetic.

2) Grammatical circularities (apposition, subject-predicate, one fellow used equative verb.)
Cute, but transparent.

=========

And if that is your text, you should stop affirming “God over all” playing both ends against the middle. You need to claim ultra-awkward ellipses to get from A to Z, as I show above. The accurate AV text does not say “God over all.”
 
Last edited:
Here is Daniel Wallace listing the three different functions of adjectival participles;

THE ADJECTIVAL NATURE OF THE PARTICIPLE​

As an adjective, a participle can function dependently or independently. That is, it can function like any ordinary adjective as an (1) attributive or (2) predicate. It also can act (3) substantivally, as is the case with any adjective.

This is obviously rocket science to some people at Carm., lol.
 
Maybe you can all three get on the same page, then get back to me?
Nonsense.

cjab makes some excellent points on New Testament style relating to Christ and God. You bypass those truths, which smash your Romans 9:5 apposition attempts (over all is one, Christ is another.). And I actually should quote cjab more on this topic.

And I have every right to quote those sections from cjab, which actually match the accurate AV text. And I have every right to bypass “God over all” arguments from both cjab and Brian.

===

Which God do you equate to Christ?
God the Father?, God the Son? The unknown God?
Still waiting for your answer.

See the Thomas Hubeart article, referenced earlier, post #191 in the Anomalous thread.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/anomalous-relative-pronoun-in-rom-9-5.7867/page-10#post-648202

Thomas L. Hubeart, writing from the Trinitarian position, points out the problem for the Trinitarian if Jesus Christ is God over all.

Romans 9:5 (KJV vs. NIV) Notes © 1998, 1999
Thomas L. Hubeart

The plain fact is that the NIV's translation, in calling Christ "God over all," confuses the Persons of the Godhead and is thus theologically unsound....

===

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:
One more related question.

The word God is used almost 1,000 times in the New Testament.1354 times.

Since you believe Christ=God in how many of the 1354 can you replace God with Christ?
 
First, please spend more time learning the language in an organized fashion before spending time trying to teach others.
Funnily enough, I found my thoughts on the construction of Rom 9 to have been largely replicated by Joseph Beet (find him on studylight.org -see below for link) This is his intro. to Rom 9:5.

_______________________
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.
_______________________

Joseph Beet was an English Bible scholar of no little repute. He favors (2).


The accusative here serves to limit the scope of descent, "according to the flesh." It's a normal function of the accusative and does not at all "grammatically disassociate Χριστὸς from ὁ ὢν." Note:

Like the genitive (§5.43) and dative (§5.68), the accusative may limit an adjective or the verbal action by indicating that with respect to which the statement is being made. (Whitacre, Rodney A.. A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Eerdmans Language Resources), §5.81)​
I see it (along with Beet) as disassociating Χριστὸς from ὁ ὢν being attributive. Surely here a second attributive would have to be introduced by kai, or as I have suggested, the whole structure would be different were there to have been multiple attributives of Χριστὸς intended: in which case, Rom 9:5b surely doesn't represent Paul's usual style, does it?

Also see below: an attributive (adjective or participle) to a whole sentence is found in the neuter.


No, it would not have to. For example,

Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν. (Mark 14:24).​
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.​

We're actually looking for a head nominal that matches in case, number and gender.
For Mark 14:24, see Winer on p. 669

(b) A neuter adjective or participle stands in relation to a
whole sentence
; 2 Tim. ii. 14, διαμαρτυρόμενος ενώπιον τού
κυρίου μή Χογομαχεί ν, εις ούοίν χρήσ ιμον Mk. vii. 19 [AVr.l
και είς τόν άφεΒρώνα εκπορεύεται, καθαρίζον πάντα τά βρώματα,
wli.kh (namely the εκπορεύεσθαι είς τόν άφεΒρώνα) makes all meats
clean,—see however above, 8 (b), and compare § 63 [? 66. 3].—
But we must not (with Meyer) take άνακαλυπτόμενον in 2 C. iii.
14 as an impersonal apposition of this kind ; the word is an
attributive to κάλυμμα.

This may also be a case of apposition.


Really, I'm following the rules of grammar to a "T" and your argument is special pleading. Actually, I don't think you are deliberately doing this, but it seems you have been learning the language in a very disorganized fashion.
Sure. I admit my knowledge is insufficient to deal with the complexity of what you are throwing at me. However I find a lot of people support me. Thus even big Bill Mounce seems to agree that εὐλογητὸς should be seen as a predicate adjective here, assuming ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς to be the subject.

See question 6 in:

I don't know what you mean by implied. The problem is you're actually taking ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς as a typical "sandwich" construction ὁ [ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων] θεὸς. Let's unpack this correctly: you have ὁ Χριστὸς, ὁ ὢν, and θεὸς.
Did you miss something here? If not, ὁ ὢν ... θεὸς is the whole subject with ὢν in the first attributive position.

That's not how I translated it, though, is it?
I can't remember exactly how you're translating it. May be you should re-iterate your full position.

And let's not pretend that I haven't done just that, or that I haven't repeatedly quoted from grammars. Fair?
Yes.

You're really just running a lot of background noise, and nothing substantive, and so far as I recall you have not properly represented any of my views in this present thread, but just want to tire me out by constantly making me "clarify" positions I've held all along.
I'm just trying to figure out how the simple constructions typified by Beet above get rendered so complicated in order to cater to the ancient Greek exegetes who most concede had no problems manipulating their own language to make it mean whatever they wanted it to say.

Remember Eusebius maintained "The Father over all" (per Ezra Abbot/Rom 9:5)

Also Irenaeus the same:

"One God the Father is declared, who is above all … The Father is indeed above all, and he is the head of Christ, but the Word … is himself the head of the Church. (V:18:2)"

"There is one God, the Father over all, and one Word of God, who is through all, by whom all things have been made. (V:18:2)"

My point was that the Greek fathers used it to speak of Christ as ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς when commenting on the verse. This means "God over all." With the participle you would translate, "who is over all, God" or "who is God over all." Both speak of Christ as God. I've already said I prefer the former, you don't have to keep pretending I'm switching positions. There's nothing awkward about the wording of the latter.
OK
The fact that all three of you are saying different things, but only agree in asserting I'm "wrong," certainly does not lend any credit in my eyes to the readings you are all proposing. Maybe you can all three get on the same page, then get back to me?
What's your critique of Joseph Beet's approach then?

I'm afraid I haven't been following what the others were saying,
 
Last edited:
I'm afraid I haven't been following what the others were saying,

Here is a review.

You interacted with the TRJM earlier. However, neither of us have supported him and generally he is bypassed. And I do not mind warnings about his Greek non-expertise, from Brian, or the fellow on reddit, or anybody. Plus, you did a decent job exposing his doctrinal foibles, switching the tables from Trinitarian orthodoxy to the Logos question. TRJM has a bit of a history, you might say, from the earlier CARM forum :).

You were actually given a compliment of sorts by Barry earlier in this thread.

And I have complimented your positioning about the Christ and God relationship in the New Testament. My hope is to extract of few of your better quotes. We actually are in pretty much full agreement on that point, even if we differ a bit on Romans 9:5. Also, you put in some strong, accurate words about the Granville Sharp Rule for Fools.

And I have interacted with Brian using the Authorized Version as a base. Since we share an enthusiasm as to the accuracy of the AV. I contend that he simply does not read the English text sensibly, and I demonstrated this above. There is no apposition of Christ and God in the English AV text.

Romans 9:5 (AV)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.

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

And I will use my 30 minutes to pull out some of the quotes from cjab I appreciated.

As to exegesis, in no other place in the NT is ὁ Χριστὸς a referent for ὁ θεός, which never needs a referent, and rather is itself a referent for the Father, not the Christ. Taking ὁ Χριστὸς as a referent leads to the wrong result; and the heavily-leaning-towards-Paul letter to the Hebrews, in Heb 2:7, ηλαττωσας αυτον βραχυ τι παρ αγγελους, also directly contradicts your exegesis of Rom 9:5.

Even if "God" is used in different ways in the NT, it is axiomatic that "God" can refer only to what is in heaven. So Jesus couldn't have been "God" in person. Yet he could still be the instrument by which the Father worked, both in heaven and on earth.

"For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself" 2 Cor 5:19 & "Through him God reconciled everything to himself" Col 1:20.

Why would there be exceptions? Is God a God of confusion? Surely exceptions are created by those who desire there to be exceptions in order to "draw disciples away after them" (Acts 20:30). I see no exception in Rom 9:5 or Titus 2:13, but only allusions to the close relation between Christ and God.

Christ is always distinct from God in terms of personhood, albeit united in spirit. It is the idea of spiritual unity between, Christ, the Jews and God that is being conveyed in Rom 9:4-5.

Second you've overlooked that if Paul had intended to say (as you suggest), "Christ according to the flesh is God above all," then Paul's meaning is really "Christ is God according to the flesh and above all". Thus he would have written "Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν Θεὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων."
 
Last edited:
It is also obvious that Greek apposition can be displaced by other rules of grammar:

We can see that apposition is often simply an interpretative conclusion. Gryllus, to his credit, was quite honest about that, even while preferring the apposition theory, and using euphony as a support.

Other posters tend to throw out circular grammatical terms, like equative verb, to give a circular claim for apposition. That circular approach is humorous but has no merit and often comes from a doctrinal apologetic approach rather than logical argumentation.

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

Here is another one from cjab that is nicely quotable.

Moreover "who is God" does not appear in any other verse in the whole bible, except as a question in the OT.

This alone should raise eyebrows. "Christ who is God" is trinitarian dogma, but not apostolic dogma.

However "Christ who is God" is a most unnatural and unique phrase in a biblical context, especially a New Testament didactic context.

Post 361 is also interesting.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/trinitarian-confusion-at-romans-9-5.8316/page-19#post-655130
 
Last edited:
For the record, here is what Expositors Greek New Testament, Robertson-Nicoll has to say on Rom 9:5. He favours the break after τὸ κατὰ σάρκα on the basis that Paul has never used the express θεος of Christ (and this isn't the place to start!).
________________________________

==>ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

The only point in the interpretation of this verse, in which it can be said that interpreters are wholly at one, is the statement that of Israel the Messiah came, according to the flesh. The words το κατα σάρκα define the extent to which the Messiah can be explained by His descent from Israel; for anything going beyond σάρξ, or ordinary humanity, the explanation must be sought elsewhere.

The limitation suggests an antithesis,' and one in which the spiritual or Divine side of the Messiah's nature should find expression, this being the natural counterpart of σάρξ: and such an antithesis has been sought and found in the words which follow. He who, according to the flesh, is of Israel, is at the same time over all, God blessed forever.

This interpretation, which refers the whole of the words after εξ ὢν to ό Χρίστος, is adopted by many of the best scholars: Gifford, Sanday, Westcott (see N.T., vol. ii., app., p. no), Weiss, etc., and has much in its favour. (1) It does supply the complementary antithesis which το κατά σάρκα suggests. (2) Grammatically it is simple, for ό ὢν naturally applies to what precedes: the person who is over all is naturally the person just mentioned, unless there is decisive,reason to the contrary. (3) If we adopt another punctuation, and make the words ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας a doxology—"God Who is over all be blessed forever "—there are grammatical objections. These are (a) the use of ὢν, which is at least abnormal. " God Who is over all" would naturally be expressed by ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς without ὢν: the ὢν suggests the reference to Christ. (b) The position of εὐλογητὸς is unparalleled in a doxology; it ought, as in Eph. i. 3 and the LXX., to stand first in the sentence. But these reasons are not decisive.

As for (i), though a complementary antithesis to το κατά σάρκα is suggested, it is not imperatively demanded here, as in i. 3 f. The greatness reflected upon Israel by the origin of the person in question is sufficiently conveyed by ό Χριστός, without any expansion.

As for (2), it is true to say that ό ὢν naturally refers to what precedes: the only question is, whether the natural reference may not in any given case be precluded. Many scholars think it is precluded here. Meyer, for instance, argues that " Paul has never used the express θεος of Christ, since he has not adopted, like John, the Alexandrian form of conceiving and setting forth the Divine essence of Christ, but has adhered to the popular concrete, strictly monotheistic terminology, not modified by philosophical speculation even for the designation of Christ; and he always accurately distinguishes God and Christ". To this he adds the more dubious reasons that in the genuine apostolic writings (he excludes 2 Tim. iv. 18, 2 Pet. iii. 18, Heb. xiii. 21, and Rev.) there is no doxology to Christ in the form usual in doxologies referring to God, and that by ἐπὶ πάντων the Son's subordination is denied.

To these last arguments it may be answered that if the words in question do apply to Christ they are not a doxology at all (Gifford), but a declaration of deity, like 2 Cor. xi. 31, and that Christ's subordination is not affected by His being described as ό ὢν επί πάντων any more than by His own claim to have all authority in heaven and on earth. But the first of Meyer's arguments has a weight which it is impossible not to feel, and it becomes the more decisive the more we realise Paul's whole habit of thought and speech. To say with Dr. Gifford, "When we review the history of the interpretation it cannot but be regarded as a remarkable fact that every objection urged against the ancient interpretation rests ultimately on dogmatic presuppositions,"hardly covers such a position as Meyer represents. For the " dogmatic presuppositions " are not arbitrary, but merely sum up the whole impression made on the mind by the study of Paul's writings, an impression by which we cannot but be influenced, especially in deciding delicate and dubious questions like this. If we ask ourselves point blank, whether Paul, as we know his mind from his epistles, would express his sense of Christ's greatness by calling Him God blessed forever, it seems to me almost impossible to answer in the affirmative. Such an assertion is not on the same plane with the conception of Christ which meets us everywhere in the Apostle's writings ; and though there is some irregularity in the grammar, and perhaps some difficulty in seeing the point of a doxology, I agree with those who would put a colon or a period at σάρκα, and make the words that follow refer not to Christ but to the Father. This is the punctuation given in the margin by W. and H., and " alone seems adequate to account for the whole of the language employed, more especially when considered in relation to the context" (Hort, N.T., vol. ii., app., p. 110). The doxology is, indeed, somewhat hard to comprehend; it seems at the first glance without a motive, and no psychological explanation of it yet offered is very satisfying.

It is as if Paul, having carried the privileges of Israel to a climax by mentioning the origin of the Messiah as far as regards His humanity, suddenly felt himself face to face with the problem of the time, how to reconcile these extraordinary privileges with the rejection of the Jews; and before addressing himself to any study or solution of it expressed in this way his devout and adoring faith, even under the pressure of such a perplexity, in the sovereign providence of God. The use of ὢν, which is in itself unnecessary, emphasises ἐπὶ πάντων; and this emphasis is "fully justified if St. Paul's purpose is to suggest that the tragic apostasy of the Jews (vers. 2, 3) is itself part of the dispensations of Him Who is God over all, over Jew and Gentile alike, over past, present and future alike: so that the ascription of blessing to Him is a homage to His Divine purpose and power of bringing good out of evil in the course of the ages (xi. 13-16, 25-36)" : W. and H., ii., app., p. no. Full discussions of the passage are given in Meyer, S.and H., and Gifford; also by Dr. Ezra Abbot in the Journal of the Society of Biblical Exegesis, 1883. With this preface Paul proceeds to justify the ways of God to men : see the introductory remarks above. The first section of his argument (ix. 6-29) is in the narrower sense a theodicy—a vindication of God's right in dealing as He has dealt with Israel. In the first part of this (vers. 6-13) he shows that the rejection of the mass of Israel from the Messianic Kingdom involves no breach or failure of the Divine promise. The promise is not given to all the natural descendants of Abraham, but only to a chosen seed, the Israel of God.
 
Back
Top