Romans 9:5 - the natural association of God and blessed

[Steven Avery]

Normally we discuss this from Murray Harris.

Here is a similar example.

Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (1883)
Frédéric Louis Godet
https://books.google.com/books?id=E91JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA345

 

[Brianrw]

Godet is disputing the breakup of two clauses into three appositions referring directly back to Christ, not the calling of Jesus "God." Again, as with Harris (which has been discussed elsewhere at length) you are reading "blessed by God" into "God blessed," when a full read of the commentary shows that's not actually what he is trying to present. And you are operating under the presupposition that in order to not read this as a compound adjective, one must certainly place a comma here. That view is also not correct.

Your explanations involve a presupposition that "God blessed" means "blessed by God," therefore in all places you see "God blessed" you read in the same supposition even when the context suggests otherwise.

To recap Harris (since you mention it):

In both translations, he uses "God blessed for ever." But neither instance uses it adjectivally in the sense of "blessed by God."

 

[Steven Avery]

Gess has your position.
Did you notice that he shows your double ellipsis?
And he has the comma after God that your position needs to create the apposition.

 

[Steven Avery]

Your explanations involve a presupposition that "God blessed" means "blessed by God," therefore in all places you see "God blessed" you read in the same supposition even when the context suggests otherwise.

What are these “all places” where I supposedly do something?

 

[Brianrw]

Gess has your position.
...
And he has the comma after God that your position needs to create the apposition.

Gess doesn't have my position, since he forms an appositional phrase that forms three clauses out of two and makes "blessed" appositional of Christ, instead of modifying God, which is why Godet decries the separation of "God" from "blessed." You should actually read the whole commentary. This is precisely why there should be no comma after "God."

When speaking on the notion that Paul is calling Christ "God," Godet goes on to relate two paragraphs after your snippet that

It seems to us, therefore, beyond doubt that Paul here points, as the crown of all the prerogatives granted to Israel, to their having produced for the world the Christ, who now, exalted above all things, is God blessed for ever.​

If you find it ambiguous enough to support your view, in 1886 Godet writes,

The exegetical necessity which compels us to apply the adoring exclamation, (Rom. ix. 5,) "God over all, blessed for ever," to Jesus Christ, has been proved in a manner which may well be called definitive, in the classical dissertation of M. Schultz.​

​

This is discussion he is referring to in the next paragraph after the snippet you produce.

 

[Steven Avery]

Gess doesn't have my position, since he forms an appositional phrase that forms three clauses out of two

It seems to me that you, like many commentators, are taking the position that the following three descriptions all apply to Christ.

over all
God (apposition)
blessed for ever

And that the missing comma after God is related to differing punctuation when this was written. (This claim fails, but you are still stuck with it.)

Three descriptions of Christ is the view of Gess described above.

In that view "blessed for ever" is directly connected grammatically to Christ, and then to God by apposition, since you claim they are the same referent.

It is ultra-awkward, but I see Gess and you as the same.

=========================================

You still have not answered what God this is, if it is not God the Father.
There is a special post on that question.
How does Paul describe another God that is not God the Father.
(Search Hubeart to find.)

 

[Steven Avery]

And if you try to agree with Godet then you have the super-awkward claim of God doing double duty:

"is over all God blessed" is the WHO (at the same time that God is supposed to be in apposition.)

This is wacky because "who is over all" is a subordinate (non-restrictive) phrase describing Christ that can be removed without changing the grammatical substance..

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.

So you can not agree with Godet either.

 

[Brianrw]

It seems to me that you, like many commentators, are taking the position that the following three descriptions all apply to Christ.

over all
God (apposition)
blessed for ever

And that the missing comma after God is related to differing punctuation when this was written. (This claim fails, but you are still stuck with it.)

Three descriptions of Christ is the view of Gess described above.

In that view "blessed for ever" is directly connected grammatically to Christ, and then to God by apposition, since you claim they are the same referent.

It is ultra-awkward, but I see Gess and you as the same.

The comma used by Gess makes "Christ" directly the object of blessed. Without the comma, blessed is a predicate of "God" so that Christ as God is blessed. You're committing the fallacy of accent. Godet decries separating it from "God."

"is over all God blessed" is the WHO (at the same time that God is supposed to be in apposition.)

This is wacky because "who is over all" is a subordinate (non-restrictive) phrase describing Christ that can be removed without changing the grammatical substance..

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.

So you can not agree with Godet either.

You've ceased making sense; removing "who is over all" still results in an appositional phrase. Godet refers to Christ as "God blessed" and "God over all, blessed," so it is plain how he understands the passage--that both refer to Christ as God. I don't see how you can use Godet to refute Godet, or me for that matter.

One of your respondents in Reddit did you a favor some days ago (it seems) by quoting an early modern English grammar by John Fell (in response to your question):

3. If the adjective be followed by a preposition with its attendant case, or if it govern another word, then it must be placed after its substantive: thus, hte gave me money sufficient for the year, a house suited to my taste, and fields yielding a large increase.​

And the fourth (which they did not mention) adequately explains why "blessed" is placed after the "God" as emphatic when such writers call Christ "God blessed."

4. If the adjective be an epithet of honour, or if it be emphatic, or a numeral, it may be placed after the substantive: thus, Alexander the Great; Plato the wise; he was a man learned and religious; Henry the Fifth; George the Second.​

 

[Steven Avery]

One of your respondents in Reddit did you a favor some days ago (it seems) by quoting an early modern English grammar by John Fell (in response to your question):

3. If the adjective be followed by a preposition with its attendant case, or if it govern another word, then it must be placed after its substantive: thus, hte gave me money sufficient for the year, a house suited to my taste, and fields yielding a large increase.​

This was one of the dumbest, convoluted rule attempts.

for ever
is a composite adverb in 1611, the 1769 editions and the c. 1900 Pure Cambridge Edition.

Again, you embarrass yourself by looking for totally irrelevant "rules" instead of trying to actually understand the English text of the AV.

======================================

Vasileios Tsialas, Athens, Greek

"Grammar books do not make language; it is language that makes grammar books. In other words, language existed long before grammar books came into existence. So language is a natural phenomenon that cannot be enclosed in a technical enchiridion."

======================================

 

[Steven Avery]

And the fourth (which they did not mention) adequately explains why "blessed" is placed after the "God" as emphatic when such writers call Christ "God blessed."

4. If the adjective be an epithet of honour, or if it be emphatic, or a numeral, it may be placed after the substantive: thus, Alexander the Great; Plato the wise; he was a man learned and religious; Henry the Fifth; George the Second.​

So you are giving up your arguments that it should say "blessed by God" if it was to be God blessing Christ.

Thanks!

You successfully refuted your own argument. You do not beleive that they call Christ "God blessed". You believe the awkward idea that they call Christ "God, who is blessed".

 

[Steven Avery]

removing "who is over all" still results in an appositional phrase. Godet refers to Christ as "God blessed" and "God over all, blessed," so it is plain how he understands the passage--that both refer to Christ as God. I don't see how you can use Godet to refute Godet, or me for that matter.

Godet in 1883 offers a confusing, contradictory attempt, as I showed in post 7. You ignore that, which is your style.

 

[Brianrw]

I'm not giving up on anything, I don't know what you're talking about. You think Godet is confused and contradictory because you are not following the argument correctly. You do that in many other places where you rushed to judgment and had to backtrack.

This was one of the dumbest, convoluted rule attempts.

for ever
is a composite adverb in 1611, the 1769 editions and the c. 1900 Pure Cambridge Edition.

Again, you embarrass yourself by looking for totally irrelevant "rules" instead of trying to actually understand the English text of the AV.

======================================

Vasileios Tsialas, Athens, Greek

"Grammar books do not make language; it is language that makes grammar books. In other words, language existed long before grammar books came into existence. So language is a natural phenomenon that cannot be enclosed in a technical enchiridion."

======================================

Rather, "for" is a preposition, and "ever" is an adverb. They specifically accord with εἰς, a preposition and τοὺς αἰῶνας (translated ever).

Your argument is that for an adverb to act adverbally in a prepositional clause, it must be a "composite adverb"? The prepositional clause will naturally function in an adverbial sense because ever is an adverb.

Let's see the steps involved in your corruption of the text through exposition:

1. Translate the predicate adjective construction from the Greek.
2. Once in English, treat the adjective as a participle verb, not a predicate adjective, then make a compound out of "God blessed"
3. Insist that "God" only works as an appositive when a comma falls after it and call it an "appositive theory."
4. Deny the actual rule of early modern English grammar by insisting that a prepositional phrase involving an adverb is really just an adjective and ignoring the other half of the rule.
5. Deny that a prepositional phrase involving a preposition has a preposition at all.
6. Fish for support, but insist it's been the truth all along.
7. Dismiss all the inconvenient evidence as a "bandwagon effect."
8. Support it with bad grammar arguments then dismiss anyone who would dare correct you as being too caught up on grammar.

It's literally the messiest most convoluted explanation of any passage of scripture I've ever seen.

Let's make this simple:

A predicate adjective construction in Greek is a predicate adjective construction in English!
Not a compound adjective, not a prepositional phrase. So, we can do this any way that the English allows.

 

[Steven Avery]

Once in English, treat the adjective as a participle verb, not a predicate adjective, then make a compound out of "God blessed"

Quote me making a specific word into a participle verb.

 

[Brianrw]

I said it's how you're treating it. A compound adjective headed by a noun has limited options, and in your case and usage it's a past participle verb since there is an implied action where "God" is performing the action. This is why I made the original point that you are actually using a compound verb and it should be hyphenated. You're only saying it's one thing. But the way you describe it, it's another.

 

[Steven Avery]

I said it's how you're treating it.

So it was just your conjectural fabrication.

 

[Steven Avery]

CARM
https://forums.carm.org/threads/trinitarian-confusion-at-romans-9-5.8316/page-23#post-664647

Let us look at what Murray Harris actually said about the natural association on p. 166 of Jesus as God (later affirmed by spin.) It is unclear whether he is actually consistent but this paragraph is incredible! In the past Brian has ignored this paragraph and jumped all over the Harris map.

Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus - 2006 edition, originally 1992
by Murray J. Harris
https://books.google.com/books?id=U9VLAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA166

Not a few scholars who find a reference to Christ in Romans 9:5b, construe θεὸς with ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων,79 “(Christ,) who is God over all.” Alternatively, θεὸς could be taken as being in apposition to ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων (Prümm 140) “(Christ,) who, as God, is/rules over all.”80 Both of these constructions sever the natural association of θεὸς with εὐλογητὸς and cohere better with the word order ὁ ὢν θεὸς ἐπὶ πάντων. Also, as Cranfield notes (Romans 469), if Paul had said that Christ is “God over all,” he could have been misunderstood to suggest “that Christ is God to the exclusion of, or in superiority over, the Father."

79. Olshausen 326; Philippi 68; B. Weiss, Theology 1:393 and n. 5; Alford 2:405; Schlatter,
Gerechtigkeit 295; Nygren 358; Faccio 110, 135; O. Michel, Römer 229. See also table 4, no. 6.

80. Cf. Cassirer: “(Christ...,) he who rules as God over all things.”

Rejected as breaking the natural association of God and blessed!

“(Christ,) who is God over all.”
“(Christ,) who, as God, is/rules over all.”

We can call this the elephant in the living room.

======================================

Originally made into HTML from pic here:
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ippolytus-natural-association.2289/#post-8934

 

[Steven Avery]

Reddit challenge to prove related to natural association

https://www.reddit.com/r/grammar/co...&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/grammar/comments/rew8p1/_/i3fgkrr
===========

Why don’t you simply give your appositive translation that you believe is in harmony with the “natural association.”
Thanks!

===========

This is an exceedingly simple question, so I do not want it to get lost in the reddit thread complexity

Why don’t you simply give your appositive translation that you believe is in harmony with the “natural association.” Thanks!

We will be comparing it to the critical paragraph from Murray Harris above. Which was excellent. (And yes, it harmonizes well with what was written by spin and with the AV text.)

Remember, your Greek to English translation must have:

1) a clear apposition of Christ and God

2) natural association of God and blessed (contiguous words, both nominative, singular masculine)

Note: Harris goes all over the map, we are focusing on his one super-clear paragraph on the natural association.

 

[Steven Avery]

From p. 163,

REJECTED
"God who is over all be blessed for ever!"
"he who is God over all is blessed for ever"

 

[Brianrw]

You're taking what he is saying out of context. Harris is saying that any passage that makes "blessed" refer back to "Christ," directly, separates it from the actual noun it's supposed to modify, which is "God." I agree.

You've given the words "natural association" a meaning and life of their own other than what Harris intends. For example, did you find the page yet where he describes the "natural association" as meaning "blessed by God"? Did you find that in Godet, either? You're wasting a lot of words getting absolutely nowhere. You haven't proven your assertion that "natural association" means "blessed by God."

Quote the opposite, Harris takes "God blessed" exactly the same as I do--as a noun modifying the adjective it is next to:

To recap Harris (since you mention it):

In both translations, he uses "God blessed for ever." But neither instance uses it adjectivally in the sense of "blessed by God."

Try not to miss the bottom line. In other words, you've been blowing a lot of hot air and having nothing to show for it. Anyone with a working knowledge of Greek would understand what "natural association" means--it just means the adjective should modify the noun it is next to which matches it in case, number and gender--not a noun many words prior.

If you can't point to any meaningful statement at all from Harris or Godet, other than your own inference, that "God blessed" means "blessed by God," this discussion is effectively over.

 

[Steven Avery]

You're taking what he is saying out of context. Harris is saying that any passage that makes "blessed" refer back to "Christ," directly, separates it from the actual noun it's supposed to modify, which is "God." I agree.

In p.163 he is rejecting two forms where it modifies God.

In p. 166 is ambiguous.

You accept p.163 rejections because you often accept “God over all” .

========

What he accepts is simply tortured English.

“(Christ,) who is supreme above all as God blessed forever”

Thanks for pointing out your translation disaster.
I’ll bring it over to CARM.

Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

Edit insults I didn't mangle anything, and it's not a translation I adopt. I'm quoting Harris to clear up the fact that you are misrepresenting him to justify your interpretation of the text. Otherwise, there'd be no discussion. In case you forgot, Harris was one of the sources you brought up...

forums.carm.org