Re: Re. Is Christ declared to be God in Romans 9:5!
Don Wilkins (email@example.com)
Tue, 3 Dec 1996 17:29:13 -0600
At 3:57 PM 12/3/96, Paul F. Evans wrote:
>Please comment on the following:
>wJn oiJ patere", kai ex wJn oJ Cristo" to kata: oJ wn epi pantwn qeo"
>In who are the fathers, and out of whom is Christ according to the flesh...
> euloghto" ei" tou" aiwna, amhn.
>The NIV seems to take this hO CHRISTOS... hO... QEOS... as a predicate,
>equivalent to "Christ is God." Am I even close here with the rationale?
>The NASB avoids directly asserting this, but indirectly ascribes deity with
>"who is over all...," taking the hO as a substantive reference to Christ.
>Does the separation between hO and QEOS mean that they are not connected
>and that the QEOS is therefore anarthrous? Or is the QEOS articular, in
>which case we are back with the NIV, it would seem to me. How can we deal
>with the phrase hO WN EPI PANTWN QEOS EULOGHTOS EIS TOUS...? How are we to
>understand EULOGHTOS, which in my simplistic understanding would be a key
>to unlock the phrase. If it is subjective of the blessedness Christ
>receives from God, then the NASB must be nearer the mark, if it is
>objective of the praise ascribed to Christ then the NIV is closer.
>It troubles me that the NASB seems to have divorced this phrase from what
>has gone before it so that it stands alone. However, something about the
>NIV just doesn't "click." I know that "clicking" is not a very scienticfic
>method, but believe me it about all I have to go on here with my pitiful
>understanding of Koine.
The NIV takes QEOS as a predicate noun with WN, the same as if we had the
relative clause hOS ESTI QEOS. This seems a bit awkward to me, however
because of the WN (i.e. why not just hO EPI PANTWN QEOS?). The NASB takes
WN more as a statement of existence with the prepositional phrase as a
qualifier. QEOS is then in apposition with the preceding article. In any
case, the NASB does not divorce QEOS from what goes before; taking QEOS in
apposition identifies it with the article and (ultimately) CRISTOS.
>How does the WV function? The nearest I can come in finding help is that
>it is an adverb, (present, part. of EIMI) meaning something like truly, in
>truth, really. Does it function in a way that reenforces the deity of
>Christ, so that it means something like, " who is really God...?"There is
>no hint of its force in either translations that I can detect, almost
WN is the "is" you find in the translations, so no, it does not reinforce
the deity of Christ (which is clear enough already).