Romans 9:5 - understanding the English AV text

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

That is a key debate between the Oneness and Trinity positions. Both affirm that Jesus is being called God, but in what way? As the Father, or as God the Son?



This one has a little more depth to it, in that Paul is here quoting from Psalm 45:6.

In order to correctly understand Paul's use, it's important to see how the Psalm plays out:

Psalm 45:6-7 (ESV),



According to Paul in Hebrews, the owner of the throne is Jesus, the Son of God, and he uses Psalm 45:6 to support that view.

But look at Psalm 45:7:

Speaking prophetically to the Son per Hebrews 1:8, the psalmist writes (to the Son) "Therefore God, your God, has anointed you [that is, has anointed Jesus the Son of God]..."

So, if Jesus is the God of Psalm 45:6 and Hebrews 1:8, and there seems to be no other conclusion, then who is the God of this God in Psalm 45:7?

Is it not the Father?

And these questions are tangentially related to Romans 9:5, because Trinitarians who affirm Christ's deity and say Romans 9:5 calls Christ "God", additionally state that it must be a reference to His deity as God the Son, since the verse says He is over all, but recognize that in other writings, Paul insists that God the Father has not been put in subjection to the Son, therefore meaning Christ is over all with the exception of the Father:

1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (ESV),

Trinitarians assume "Son" refers to a divine person known as God the Son without direct reference to the incarnation. So whenever the Son is addressed as God they immediately refer it to "the second divine person" rather than to the Man from Galilee.

Psalm 45:1-5 KJV
My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer. [2] Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever. [3] Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty. [4] And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things. [5] Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; whereby the people fall under thee.

The Psalm is essentially a wedding psalm for the king of Israel. Verse 2 says God has blessed the king unto the ages.

Psalm 45:6-7 KJV
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. [7] Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

The question is "What is verse 6 saying?" Is it an interruption, a benediction of praise to God inserted into the psalm? Possibly.

Or is it a declaration that the king is "God"? Yet not in the sense that the king is Jehovah, but elohim?

The word elohim, usually translated "God" or "god" is occasionally applied to mortal human rulers. For example, Ex 21:6 uses elohim to refer to the judges/rulers, and Gen 23:6 calls Abraham an "elohim prince" (elohim translated as mighty).

Which would mean the king is being styled "elohim" the same way Abraham and the rulers/judges were, as a term expressing one who has power and authority. In this case, verse 7 is a reference to Jehovah. Which is why it says "therefore God - even thy God..." etc.

And this would mean that the psalm 45 citation in Hebrews is not pointing specifically to the Son being incarnate Deity (that point being made elsewhere) but that the Son has been anointed and blessed "above all thy fellows", and that His throne (dominion or reign) is eternal.

Now it is quite possible that Psalm 45:6 is being used in a somewhat oblique manner to indicate the Son's divine nature, but we shouldn't take that in a trinitarian sense (second person of a trinity) because trinitarian thought had not developed, and therefore cannot possibly what the apostle was trying to say. Instead, like several other instances in Scripture, the ambiguity of the old testament language is used to suggest lines of thought that reveal Christological themes that would likely have been beyond the original author's intention. An example of this would be Matthew 2:15 quoting Hosea 11:1.

That the Son has a God is without any controversy, He affirmed it Himself repeatedly. But when trinitarian concepts of the Son being an eternal divine second person of a trinity are introduced, that's when problems develop. Why? Because such concepts render the Sonship independent of the human nature of Jesus. Biblically, the Son is ALWAYS including the human nature in view, it cannot be separated from His humanity.

The Son is God because the man is the human manifestation of Jehovah. The Son has a God because the man is indeed a man, who serves and obeys Jehovah.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Trinitarians assume "Son" refers to a divine person known as God the Son without direct reference to the incarnation. So whenever the Son is addressed as God they immediately refer it to "the second divine person" rather than to the Man from Galilee.

Psalm 45:1-5 KJV
My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer. [2] Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever. [3] Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty. [4] And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things. [5] Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; whereby the people fall under thee.

The Psalm is essentially a wedding psalm for the king of Israel. Verse 2 says God has blessed the king unto the ages.

Psalm 45:6-7 KJV
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. [7] Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

The question is "What is verse 6 saying?" Is it an interruption, a benediction of praise to God inserted into the psalm? Possibly.

Or is it a declaration that the king is "God"? Yet not in the sense that the king is Jehovah, but elohim?

The word elohim, usually translated "God" or "god" is occasionally applied to mortal human rulers. For example, Ex 21:6 uses elohim to refer to the judges/rulers, and Gen 23:6 calls Abraham an "elohim prince" (elohim translated as mighty).

Which would mean the king is being styled "elohim" the same way Abraham and the rulers/judges were, as a term expressing one who has power and authority. In this case, verse 7 is a reference to Jehovah. Which is why it says "therefore God - even thy God..." etc.

And this would mean that the psalm 45 citation in Hebrews is not pointing specifically to the Son being incarnate Deity (that point being made elsewhere) but that the Son has been anointed and blessed "above all thy fellows", and that His throne (dominion or reign) is eternal.

Now it is quite possible that Psalm 45:6 is being used in a somewhat oblique manner to indicate the Son's divine nature, but we shouldn't take that in a trinitarian sense (second person of a trinity) because trinitarian thought had not developed, and therefore cannot possibly what the apostle was trying to say. Instead, like several other instances in Scripture, the ambiguity of the old testament language is used to suggest lines of thought that reveal Christological themes that would likely have been beyond the original author's intention. An example of this would be Matthew 2:15 quoting Hosea 11:1.

That the Son has a God is without any controversy, He affirmed it Himself repeatedly. But when trinitarian concepts of the Son being an eternal divine second person of a trinity are introduced, that's when problems develop. Why? Because such concepts render the Sonship independent of the human nature of Jesus. Biblically, the Son is ALWAYS including the human nature in view, it cannot be separated from His humanity.

The Son is God because the man is the human manifestation of Jehovah. The Son has a God because the man is indeed a man, who serves and obeys Jehovah.

Winner, winner, Chicken Dinner.

I think you have it absolutely correct, particularly the use of elohim and its applied sense to other beings, even humans, apart from the God of Israel.

The question then is, does Paul in Romans 9:5, or other writers of the NT, for that matter, use theos in the same way, as various OT authors used elohim?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Winner, winner, Chicken Dinner.

I think you have it absolutely correct, particularly the use of elohim and its applied sense to other beings, even humans, apart from the God of Israel.

The question then is, does Paul in Romans 9:5, or other writers of the NT, for that matter, use theos in the same way, as various OT authors used elohim?

I think each passage would have to be looked at individually. In this present case, the apostle is quoting an OT scripture, so the underlying sense is to be derived from that OT passage. Then, the NT use of that passage is examined to see how it is being understood and applied. In other cases, where the NT is not quoting the OT, we have to consider the context and how the original audience would have likely understood what was being claimed by the writer/speaker.

One thing is certain: Christianity in its earliest forms ascribed deity to Christ in some fashion, for a reason. That being done, Christians have (since then) argued what the significance of it is, and how it affects our understanding of Biblical monotheism, with some arguments being better than others, etc.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I think each passage would have to be looked at individually. In this present case, the apostle is quoting an OT scripture, so the underlying sense is to be derived from that OT passage. Then, the NT use of that passage is examined to see how it is being understood and applied. In other cases, where the NT is not quoting the OT, we have to consider the context and how the original audience would have likely understood what was being claimed by the writer/speaker.

One thing is certain: Christianity in its earliest forms ascribed deity to Christ in some fashion, for a reason. That being done, Christians have (since then) argued what the significance of it is, and how it affects our understanding of Biblical monotheism, with some arguments being better than others, etc.

Perhaps we could start with one verse and go from there?

I am interested in your thoughts about Exodus 7:1 (ESV),

And the LORD said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.

If you look at the Hebrew here:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/7-1.htm

you can see that there is no word for "like". There is no prefix attached to אֱלֹהִ֖ים. It is simply elohim, or God/god.*

So, the text might read better as "See, I have made you God/god to Pharaoh..."

Clearly, Moses did not experience apotheosis and actually become a divine being worthy of being called God/god. He remained fully human. So, something different appears to be happening here. It looks to me more like an investiture of supreme, divine power and authority being given to him over Egypt. It reminds me of Matthew 28:18 (All authority in heaven and on earth has been given unto Me).

If this is so, what bearing, if any, would this idea have on the nature and being of Christ?

* I note the definite article is not present, making elohim anarthrous, so perhaps, the phrase could/should read "I am have you a God/a god...".