Romans 9:5 - understanding the English AV text

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Read this saying and tell me if a comma can change the meaning of a phrase.

From a t-shirt.

Let’s eat Grandma.

Let’s eat, Grandma.

The first instance proposes cannibalism (they are gonna eat grandma).

The second refers to sharing a meal WITH the dear, precious and dearly beloved grandma.

Punctuation saves lives.

That’s great for your Grandma or not. Lol!

However, in Romans 9, it doesn’t and didn’t change what Paul was telling the Jews about who God was/is.

It was very simple and matter of fact. He was talking and writing to people who weren’t going to be hung up on a comma, which as Esaias also said - It doesn’t change the meaning.

I don’t know what else to say.

It was so beautifully written and explained, and now it is getting sullied up over a comma. The debate is coming across as crafting a Trinitarian narrative and subtly trying to cause a reader to become confused. All the while it is power, beauty and very simple.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

That’s great for your Grandma or not. Lol!

However, in Romans 9, it doesn’t and didn’t change what Paul was telling the Jews about who God was/is.

It was very simple and matter of fact. He was talking and writing to people who weren’t going to be hung up on a comma, which as Esaias also said - It doesn’t change the meaning.

I don’t know what else to say.

It was so beautifully written and explained, and now it is getting sullied up over a comma. The debate is coming across as crafting a Trinitarian narrative and subtly trying to cause a reader to become confused. All the while it is power, beauty and very simple.

Maybe I should let Steven Avery sort this all out. One of us is confused. Remember though, he asked us to focus on the meaning of one phrase: “God blessed for ever”.

I missed it at first but he corrected me.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Maybe I should let Steven Avery sort this all out. One of us is confused. Remember though, he asked us to focus on the meaning of one phrase: “God blessed for ever”.

I missed it at first but he corrected me.

Generally your posts are excellent, you can not pretend the comma, or not, is unimportant.

One reason I got involved with these studies is because I simply read the AV text, and without the comma it does not have the apposition claimed, Christ is God. And if people do not understand English, I surely will be skeptical of their Greek mastery.

Another reason was that I had seen that there was a tendency to come up with ultra-dubious claims of Christ is God verses, especially from the Granville Sharp verses, that try to correct the AV.

Trinitarians are in fact the biggest pushers of the Christ is God Romans 9:5 textual narrative. However, it is also popular in oneness circles, see my quoting of David Bernard.

Oh, I definitely agree with your "slippery slope" comment .
Very astute!

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The comma does not change the meaning, though due to modern people's lack of English skills some folks may arrive at an erroneous conclusion. It isn't a translation issue (nothing was translated by any comma as there is no comma in the Greek, and Greek commas do not necessarily mean what modern English commas do anyway).

.... I haven't found a commentary yet that takes the phrase to mean Christ is blessed by God. Which inclines me to think the interpretation "blessed by God forever" is a modern result of bad English skills.

All commenters seem divided into either "Christ is over all, He is God who is blessed forever", or "Blessed be God forever who is over all". That latter however I believe is sufficiently refuted by both the English and the Greek grammar. The former is a perfectly good rendering of both the Greek and English.

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.

A comma after God does in fact make a radical change in meaning.

a) it creates the definite apposition, Christ == God.
b) it separates God from blessed, which is a natural association

You might claim (a) without the comma, but you have to work with a double or triple ellipsis. It is an awkward claim at best.

Thus without the comma leads to different interpretations than with the comma. In fact, many writers who discuss this verse simply quietly add the comma after God.

Early Greek manuscripts often do have punctuation, as do some dozens of cursives. This is not really relevant, since we are studying the AV text, but I want to correct what you say above.

You are right that most all commentators fall into that dichotomy. And many early church writers like the Christ is God understanding. There seems to be a bandwagon effect, with the taking of sides. No middle ground, no nuanced understanding. Simply reading the AV text for its plain sense, you have a high Christology, but you do not have Christ is God.

My side is whatever the pure Bible, the AV, tells me . We should let the pure Bible text inform our doctrine, and not change the text to match our doctrines.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Gen.1

[22] And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
[28] And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen.2

[3] And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Gen.9

[1] And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
Gen.25

[11] And it came to pass after the death of Abraham, that God blessed his son Isaac; and Isaac dwelt by the well Lahai-roi.
Deut.33

[1] And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death.
1Chr.26

[5] Ammiel the sixth, Issachar the seventh, Peulthai the eighth: for God blessed him.
Rom.9

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

I meant as in "blessed by God", as in "Jedidiah was God blessed for his faith". In the examples you cited (except the last), "God" is the subject of the clause in which it appears. Romans 9:5 does not follow that construction according to those who think the passage is saying Christ was "God blessed", for in that case the subject of the clause would be "Christ" and "God blessed" would function as a compound passive verb of the predicate.

The 1 Chron26 citation is "Moses the man of God blessed" not "God blessed" and so doesn't even apply to the discussion.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I meant as in "blessed by God", as in "Jedidiah was God blessed for his faith". In the examples you cited (except the last), "God" is the subject of the clause in which it appears. Romans 9:5 does not follow that construction according to those who think the passage is saying Christ was "God blessed", for in that case the subject of the clause would be "Christ" and "God blessed" would function as a compound passive verb of the predicate.

The 1 Chron26 citation is "Moses the man of God blessed" not "God blessed" and so doesn't even apply to the discussion.

I saw that after I posted but I was too lazy to edit.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

He is, therefore, the supreme “over all”, eternally blessed God.

He clarified in these two passages that he was deeply concerned and loved the nation Israel. And while he has to tell them that Moses’ law is over and cannot save them, it doesn’t mean that he and God are not still concerned for the whole nation.

That is why I agree with JFB - “we have here no doxology at all, but a naked statement of fact, that while Christ is "of" the Israelitish nation "as concerning the flesh," He is, in another respect, "God over all, blessed for ever."

While I am sympathetic to the Israel with Christ emphasis, you are using phrases that are not in the AV text:

eternally blessed God
God over all

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.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

A comma after God does in fact make a radical change in meaning.

a) it creates the definite apposition, Christ == God.
b) it separates God from blessed, which is a natural association

You might claim (a) without the comma, but you have to work with a double or triple ellipsis. It is an awkward claim at best.

Thus without the comma leads to different interpretations. In fact, many writers who discuss this verse simply quietly add the comma.

Early Greek manuscripts often do have punctuation, as do some dozens of cursives. This is not really relevant, since we are studying the AV text, but I want to correct what you say above.

You are right that most all commentators fall into that dichotomy. And many early church writers like the Christ is God understanding. There seems to be a bandwagon effect, with the taking of sides.

My side is whatever the pure Bible, the AV, tells me . We should let the Bible text inform our doctrine, and not change the text to match our doctrines.

Well yes, but the pure Bible text is the Greek Textus Receptus not English.

The theological dichotomy is between Christ according to the flesh and its necessary corrolary "according to the spirit", which is supplied by "who is over all, God blessed for ever". God is by nature "over all", thus Christ is God by nature. And of course God is "blessed unto the ages" which is a brief doxological statement as was and is common to devout Judeans (like Paul).

Apparently this verse was assumed by practically everyone except the Arians to be a direct and uncontroversial statement of Christ's deity. I believe it was also contested between trinitarians and so called "Sabellians" as to what exactly it signified (centering on the definite article - or lack thereof). Those who tried to deflect from the verse's statement of Christ's deity resorted to serious eisegesis in trying to make it read "Blessed be God forever who is over all" or some variation thereof. (This is the "doxology" interpretation JFB referenced in Pressing On's posts above.) Needless to say, such an approach is a wrangling not only of the Greek but the English of the AV as well.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I saw that after I posted but I was too lazy to edit.

It's all good. I, too, get lazy betimes.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

While I am sympathetic to the Israel with Christ emphasis, you are using phrases that are not in the AV text:

eternally blessed God
God over all

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.

Edit: nevermind, you didn't want to get into the Greek.

Can the English determine grammatically if the term God is a predicate object of "who is"? Or if it definitively is NOT and that "blessed" is definitely a predicate of the subject "God"?