Re: Re. Is Christ declared to be God in Romans 9:5!

Don Wilkins (
Tue, 3 Dec 1996 18:11:33 -0500 (EST)

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).

Don Wilkins
UC Riverside