Romans 9:5

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Justin Cofer
Posts: 47
Joined: October 20th, 2012, 12:25 pm

Romans 9:5

Post by Justin Cofer »

As I was reading from my Greek NT, I came across the following clause in Romans 9:5 ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν. Exactly what is θεὸς syntactical function here? Is it appositive? Or is it functioning as the predicate?

Thanks
timothy_p_mcmahon
Posts: 259
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:47 pm

Re: Romans 9:5

Post by timothy_p_mcmahon »

It's the predicate.
Evan Blackmore
Posts: 43
Joined: October 29th, 2012, 8:44 pm

Re: Romans 9:5

Post by Evan Blackmore »

Justin Cofer wrote:Exactly what is θεὸς syntactical function here? Is it appositive? Or is it functioning as the predicate?
The old 1885 RV offered no less than four alternate translations of this clause:

"... flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever."

"... flesh. He who is God over all be/is blessed for ever."

"... flesh. He who is over all is God, blessed for ever."

"... flesh, who is over all. God be/is blessed for ever."

The first was placed in the text, but each of the other three must have had powerful committee advocates, for all three of them to get into the margin.

You'll find an extended discussion of the options, running for several pages of small print, in Sanday and Headlam.

Of more recent commentaries known to me, the fullest discussion is in Cranfield's ICC, vol. 2, pp. 464-70.
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Romans 9:5

Post by David Lim »

Justin Cofer wrote:As I was reading from my Greek NT, I came across the following clause in Romans 9:5 ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν. Exactly what is θεὸς syntactical function here? Is it appositive? Or is it functioning as the predicate?
The reading you choose will depend on your interpretation. Besides the ones that Evan gives, there is even a fifth quite distinct possibility:
"... flesh. The God who is over all [be] blessed for ever, amen."
δαυιδ λιμ
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Romans 9:5

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Justin Cofer wrote:As I was reading from my Greek NT, I came across the following clause in Romans 9:5 ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν. Exactly what is θεὸς syntactical function here? Is it appositive? Or is it functioning as the predicate?
As Cranfield's commentary points out (cited in this thread), it's basically a punctuation issue and the identification of the syntactic function depends on the punctuation.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Justin Cofer
Posts: 47
Joined: October 20th, 2012, 12:25 pm

Re: Romans 9:5

Post by Justin Cofer »

thanks all
brianrw
Posts: 2
Joined: December 6th, 2021, 12:41 pm

Re: Romans 9:5

Post by brianrw »

A very late addendum to this response to supply some lacking details. The function of θεὸς in the sentence is a predicate (nominative), which is making assertion about Christ. The most natural way of interpreting the text is that the attributive participle, ὁ ὢν, sets off a relative, equative clause where everything that follows is descriptive of Christ. This is the unanimous interpretation of the Greek fathers. Our option is to take θεὸς into English as a predicate "who is God over all" or an appositive "who is over all, God".

In modern times, there was a proposal that that the sentence be punctuated after σάρκα, making ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν a new sentence. It was proposed to form a doxology to the Father, "He who is God over all [be] blessed forever." The other proposal was to place a period after πάντων, and thus "God [is] blessed forever." Thus these alternate readings (above) in the RV margin. The punctuation is inserted based not upon the natural sense of the passage, but upon the supposition that Paul would not refer to Christ as God.

Against these proposals are the following points:

(1) That it involves a theological supposition, which invites accusations of eisegesis. For example, if κύριος were written in place of θεὸς, would the same arguments be made?

(2) That neither is supported in the writings of any Greek father, even as far back as Irenaeus in the 2nd century.

(2) The punctuation forces a conflict with Paul's usage elsewhere when forming a doxology to the Father: εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς (Ephesians 1:3, 2 Corinthians 1:3), "blessed [be] God." In both instances also, he adds καὶ πατὴρ. We find the same is true in Peter's epistle (1 Peter 1:3) and also in Luke (1:68, Εὐλογητὸς κύριος ὁ θεὸς).

(3) If we force punctuation to create a doxology to the Father, the participle is superfluous. It could be simply written, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν:

(4) ὁ ὢν, without referring back to a substantive, usually takes on an indefinite sense, e.g. "he who" as in "one who/anyone who" (John 3:31), and with πᾶς, "everyone" (John 18:37). In John 6:46 and 8:47, Christ refers elliptically to himself, so that we understand ὁ Ἰησοῦς is implied. These examples aside, ὁ ὢν most often refers back to a substantive (John 1:18, 3:13, 12:27, Revelation 5:5). In 2 Cor. 11:31, the closet equivalent, "who is (ὁ ὢν) blessed forever." In Revelation, it takes the form of an appellative "who is, and who was, and who is to come," (Rev. 1:4) and similar, but not identical phrases (4:8, 11:17, 16:5). It also conflicts with Paul's usage elsewhere, where he uses an alternate position for the predicate, εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς (Ephesians 1:3, 2 Corinthians 1:3), "blessed [be] God." We find the same is true in Peter's epistle (1 Peter 1:3) and also in Luke (1:68, Εὐλογητὸς κύριος ὁ θεὸς). Of additional note is Romans 9:5, where we find, of "the Creator," ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν, "who is blessed forever, amen."
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4158
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Romans 9:5

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Stephen Carlson wrote: November 24th, 2012, 8:42 am
Justin Cofer wrote:As I was reading from my Greek NT, I came across the following clause in Romans 9:5 ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν. Exactly what is θεὸς syntactical function here? Is it appositive? Or is it functioning as the predicate?
As Cranfield's commentary points out (cited in this thread), it's basically a punctuation issue and the identification of the syntactic function depends on the punctuation.
One small nit: I think it's more accurate to say that there are several reasonable ways to interpret this sentence, and the punctuation chosen by a critical edition reflects their interpretation.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Romans 9:5

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Jonathan Robie wrote: December 7th, 2021, 8:45 am
Stephen Carlson wrote: November 24th, 2012, 8:42 am
Justin Cofer wrote:As I was reading from my Greek NT, I came across the following clause in Romans 9:5 ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν. Exactly what is θεὸς syntactical function here? Is it appositive? Or is it functioning as the predicate?
As Cranfield's commentary points out (cited in this thread), it's basically a punctuation issue and the identification of the syntactic function depends on the punctuation.
One small nit: I think it's more accurate to say that there are several reasonable ways to interpret this sentence, and the punctuation chosen by a critical edition reflects their interpretation.
Tomato, tomahto, …
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Gregory Hartzler-Miller
Posts: 122
Joined: May 23rd, 2015, 10:09 pm

Re: Romans 9:5

Post by Gregory Hartzler-Miller »

brianrw wrote: December 6th, 2021, 2:47 pm A very late addendum to this response to supply some lacking details. The function of θεὸς in the sentence is a predicate (nominative), which is making assertion about Christ. The most natural way of interpreting the text is that the attributive participle, ὁ ὢν, sets off a relative, equative clause where everything that follows is descriptive of Christ. This is the unanimous interpretation of the Greek fathers. Our option is to take θεὸς into English as a predicate "who is God over all" or an appositive "who is over all, God".
Yes, that fits. Also, persuaded by Carlson, I accept the τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ variant for Galatians 2:20 as authorial. And so, this is another case were arguably, Paul is equating Christ, the Anointed one, with God (as I think he is doing).

In what sense? Could it be that Paul is equating God and Christ in the sense that had been articulated in Ps. 45:6-7 and which was later quoted in Hebrews:

Hebrews 1:7-8
And indeed as to the angels He says:
“The One making His angels winds,
and His ministers a flame of fire.”

But unto the Son:
“Your throne, O God, is to the age of the age,
and the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and have hated wickedness;
because of this, God, Your God,
has anointed You
with the oil of exultation
above Your companions.”

In Rom 9:5, could Paul be calling the Anointed one "God" in this subordinationist sense?

Also, I'm wondering if Christ is being pictured as "God"/King over "all" flesh i.e. both formerly Jewish flesh and formerly Gentile flesh (Cf. Eph. 2:11-16).
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”