Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

The question is how do you understand "God blessed"? I think you understand it as a verbal rather than God being described as blessed. Can you clarify this?

Originally I saw this as
God blessed (is Christ) for ever
based on the simple reading of the AV text.

Then I ran into a Greek-geek explanation from a gentleman named spin on the Bible Christian and History Forum.

Spin
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=62844#p62844
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=62855#p62855

θεος ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας
God blessed for ever

The last line is Greek working differently from English. We'd use a subordinate clause, "who God blessed forever." The Greek instead uses a verbal form as a noun, still with the subject "God" and tacks the whole nominalized sentence on. We might try "blessed by God forever". God is the one doing the blessing and the Christ is the one blessed. ....

On the text, the writer has placed two noun forms together, God and the nominalized verb ("blessed"), both nominative singular masculine, so you naturally link them together (just another indicator). But if you can propose a grammatical reason for separating the two NSMs and placing the first with a phrase it has no apparent grammatical connection with, I'll be willing to read it, but I won't hold my breath. Perhaps you might like to reorder ο ων επι παντων θεος as well to help you. I won't mind. Honest.
 
And I believe this is how you would expect to see Θεὸς with a definite article.
Interested in comments from others.
You seemed to have missed my point. I am not condoning your construction. ὁ Θεὸς isn't usually a predicate when the sentence is saying something about God himself, which your construction would entertain. A sentence that says X is ὁ Θεὸς is very unusual, except when God is being blessed, as in 2 Cor 1:3 (or glorified).

Contrariwise in Jn 1:1b, where πρὸς τὸν Θεόν can be a predicate where the sentence is making a statement about the Logos.

With all the glorious scriptures about Christ, I do not see any difficulty in his being over all.
Not whilst he was human. He denied anyone the opportunity to make him "over all" whilst on earth.

Your last sentence is assuming apposition between Christ and God, filling it in with ellipses.
However in the AV text, using the same Greek, there is no apposition, there is no Sabellianism.

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.
As I've already told you, I don't see any reason to break up the ὁ <participle><participle clause> Θεὸς syntax, which is standard grammar found in other places. I'm not with you here for any number of reasons, least of all that the principal subject in Rom 9 is not Christ but the blessings on Israel bestowed by the blessed God. Your construction is just a diversion from what Paul is really saying.
 
Originally I saw this as
God blessed (is Christ) for ever
based on the simple reading of the AV text.

Then I ran into a Greek-geek explanation from a gentleman named spin on the Bible Christian and History Forum.

Spin
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=62844#p62844
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=62855#p62855
The gentleman on that forum is mistaken: "On the text, the writer has placed two noun forms together, God and the nominalized verb ("blessed")." As I said earlier, εὐλογητὸς is an adjective (εὐλογία is the noun. Check these claims out for yourself.) It's going to modify a noun. In this case, that noun is "God" giving us "blessed God" as I explained above.
 
The gentleman on that forum is mistaken: "On the text, the writer has placed two noun forms together, God and the nominalized verb ("blessed")." As I said earlier, εὐλογητὸς is an adjective (εὐλογία is the noun. Check these claims out for yourself.) It's going to modify a noun. In this case, that noun is "God" giving us "blessed God" as I explained above.
T hanks!
The context is Christ, who is over all.
What form of the two words would you use to say that he is God blessed?
God blessed (is Christ.)
 
Here is Hippolytus using the ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς of Rom 9:5 substantively in Εἰς τὴν αἵρεσιν Νοητοῦ τινος (Eng trans. Schaff).
This only tells me that the antecedent of ὁ ὢν was obvious to him in context, so that the subject of the quotation--namely, Christ--could be safely omitted.

Hippolytus could have written ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς γεγέννηται. He didn't. He just wrote ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς γεγέννηται. Says it all, and proves you wrong in insisting on a relative in ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς.
Even your substantival usage of the attributive participle (all articular participles are attributive) requires a relative in English, does it not? I am by no means "wrong in insisting on a relative in ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς." The attributive participle and the relative clause are agnates in Greek. Since English does not have an exact equivalent, the next best option is the relative clause. I have about seven grammars in my possession, and a few more I have access to online, and they all say the same thing: an attributive participle should usually be translated as a relative clause.

[To JM] ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς = ὁ .... Θεὸς can only denote the Father, per John 1:1b. So Hippolytus used this clause to refer to the Father, a long time prior to the arrival of the hardcore Trinitarans and pseudo-Sabellians post Nicea. You've got nothing to say except to still critique me? It's you who's give up.
Hippolytus doesn't use the passage ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς to refer to the Father: you are once again misrepresenting your sources. Hippolytus says ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς of Christ, based upon Romans 9:5.

To be clear, when dealing with an attributive (dependent) construction, not an indepedent, there is no reason to prefer an anaphoric usage of the definite article in English over a relative (which is also anaphoric).

This indicates a possible reason why Hippolytus chose to read ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς substantively,
Again, this is a normal quotation, just like we quote portions of verses elliptically in the same manner. Only here, we need to add a personal pronoun before the relative clause according to the English idiom when we translate it. So it is an English issue.

and hence appositively, and not as an attributive,
That's the same blunder TRJM makes, by treating the attributive participle, specifically, as an independent substantival apposition, which negates the attributive characteristic of the construction. All articular participles are attributive, a substantival usage simply means the head noun is implied. An adjective or adjectival participle in an attributive position would have an adjectival force and would not normally be treated appositionally. You can note this, for example, in Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 48 where he alleviates the potential confusion via footnote. But in reality, saying we should prefix a relative with an anaphoric use of the definite article plus an additional word "one" before a relative is not an efficient usage of the English language and you are playing with semantics.

See Chrys C. CARAGOUNIS - he's a Greek scholar (he's also Grecian). Whatever he says, I tend to believe. Take the issue up with him.
No, "God" isn't his "name". His name is "the Logos" or "the Logos of God" ....

"..... because Θεός as predicate
denotes property or essence (or authority etc), not an individual. Thus, no question arises
as to whether the Logos is the only God or one of many . . . per Chrys C. CARAGOUNIS (Jn 1:1).
Being a Greek scholar can be a benefit. However, Greek or no really doesn't matter, since Koine Greek is a specialized field. Unless you want to apply those same rules to say, a statement, "the Father is God," where "God" is a predicate, you're really just reading way too far into things.
As I've already told you, I don't see any reason to break up the ὁ <participle><participle clause> Θεὸς syntax, which is standard grammar found in other places.
The article belongs to the participle, and Θεὸς is a predicate. The trouble is that you are breaking off ὁ ὢν from ὁ Χριστὸς. There's no grammatical reason to do that--it would not even be a natural way of reading the text. In order to sever that connection, you would add a period after σάρκα. However, the manuscripts don't support that and nothing in the grammar (contrary to what you and TRJM have been saying) suggests a period belongs there. In fact, the grammar strongly suggests not ending the sentence after σάρκα. If you add a period, it's under the presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God." There's no secret about this.
 
Last edited:
[To Steven Avery] The question is how do you understand "God blessed"? I think you understand it as a verbal rather than God being described as blessed. Can you clarify this?
Steven understands θεὸς εὐλογητὸς as meaning "blessed by God," as in God blesses Christ, and views "God blessed" as a compound adjective to that effect. I don't know why he doesn't just come out and say it. I've had to deal with endless badgering from him for telling him the Greek construction doesn't allow it.
 
Last edited:
We've been over this, cjab. You are still wrong. Repeating a debunked claim doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you say it.
You've yet to show any example of a sentence or clause not being contextualized by τὸ κατὰ σάρκα where the sentence or clause continues on afterwards (without a parenthesis in the loose senser comprising a self-contained τὸ κατὰ σάρκα clause).

The example you quoted me from Clement so clearly showed the whole sentence as contextualized by τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. Why do you deny it?

If you are going to introduce a context by τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, then you stick to it. Seems reasonable, except that it negates the Trinitarian endeavour here.
 
Last edited:
You've yet to show any example of a sentence or clause not being contextualized by τὸ κατὰ σάρκα where the sentence or clause continues on afterwards (without a parenthesis in the loose senser comprising a self-contained τὸ κατὰ σάρκα clause).

The example you quoted me from Clement so clearly showed the whole sentence as contextualized by τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. Why do you deny it?

If you are going to introduce a context by τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, then you stick to it. Seems reasonable, except that it negates the Trinitarian endeavour here.
We have been discussing one this whole time, cjab: Rom. 9:5. The sentences I have shown you were to illustrate your errors on specific points. For you to pull one out of context (And I don't even remember quoting Clement; I'm not sure that I did.) and say it proves an entirely different point is another of your sleazy diversions.

If you have to make exceptions to your "rules" to make them fit as you have done here (without a parenthesis in the loose senser [sic] comprising a self-contained τὸ κατὰ σάρκα clause [sic]), you are admitting that they are of no value. The truth is you shouldn't even need to know Greek to understand how ridiculous your position is here.
 
cjab said:
Hippolytus
6. Let us look next at the apostle’s word: “Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.” [Romans 9:5]. This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father.” He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is yet God for ever.
By placing the words in that order, it looks like Hippolytus understands the text as "God blessed (is Christ)" which is the natural reading of the AV. This is based on the English above properly reflecting the Greek text.

This is worth reposting.
 
We have been discussing one this whole time, cjab: Rom. 9:5. The sentences I have shown you were to illustrate your errors on specific points. For you to pull one out of context (And I don't even remember quoting Clement; I'm not sure that I did.) and say it proves an entirely different point is another of your sleazy diversions.

If you have to make exceptions to your "rules" to make them fit as you have done here (without a parenthesis in the loose senser [sic] comprising a self-contained τὸ κατὰ σάρκα clause [sic]), you are admitting that they are of no value. The truth is you shouldn't even need to know Greek to understand how ridiculous your position is here.
A parenthesis in the looser sense isn't an exception, because in the Greek as in English you can hang off a single noun multiple participles with individuated participle clauses, as to which participle clauses: they may be, in so far their participle are concerned and along with their participle, effectively parenthetical, even if they don't conform to Winer's "whole sentence" parenthesis definition.

Moreover you can construct a never-ending sentence using multiple or multiply nested participle clauses. It's poor syntax, but it's possible. Winer doesn't really give any thought to the artificial prolongation of sentences in this manner. He's citing a general rule.

That is to say, individiual participle clauses can be construed as parenthetical vis-a-vis their participle, in a less pedantic sense of "parenthesis", as in Rom 1:3 and 1:4 where successive participle clauses bear no relation to each other.

Here you are seeking to construct the "never ending sentence" by seeking to decontextualize a participle and its clause where (a) we would have no issue in otherwise seeing it in the first attribute position in a new sentence, (b) the participle and its clause bears no contextual relation to τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.

It is clear you have yet to provide any adequate answer to why you are continuing a τὸ κατὰ σάρκα clause, as if τὸ κατὰ σάρκα itself had never been written. If you want to read a sentence in a way which reeks of incredibly bad grammar, then I suggest it is on your shoulders; and nothing can be resolved by so doing.





___________________
Winer: "According to the above definition we cannot, in the first place, regard as a parenthesis any accessory sentence which is introduced (even though it be of considerable length), if–either by means of a relative or as a genitive absolute–it stands connected in construction with the principal sentence….Still less can this name be given to appositional clauses…to clauses which are appended to a completed sentence to give an illustration, explanation, or reason…or, lastly, to clauses which grammatically support any part of the sentence which lies beyond their own limits."
 
Last edited:
How about if you wanted God first, before blessed, for emphasis.
Here is the only clear example using only these words that I could find.
Ruth 2:20 καὶ εἶπεν Νωεμιν τῇ νύμφῃ αὐτῆς Εὐλογητός ἐστιν τῷ κυρίῳ, ὅτι οὐκ ἐγκατέλιπεν τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ζώντων καὶ μετὰ τῶν τεθνηκότων. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ Νωεμιν ᾿Εγγίζει ἡμῖν ὁ ἀνήρ, ἐκ τῶν ἀγχιστευόντων ἡμᾶς ἐστιν.
 
Back
Top