Romans 9:5 - Athanasius and Basil

Steven Avery

Administrator
Athanasius (corrected from Basil)
https://books.google.com/books?id=rya0v9bgwT8C&pg=PA55

Readings in the History of Christian Theology, Volume 1, Revised Edition: From Its Beginnings to the Eve of the Reformation, Volume 1
https://books.google.com/books?id=NWWICgAAQBAJ&pg=PA43

Athanasius - First Discourse Against the Arians

1635618161902.png
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member

Actually, the above snippet is from Athanasius​

It is actually not Basil speaking here, but Athanasius, from his First Discourse Against the Arians (1.3.10). The Greek tradition does not support the loss of "God," though in patristic writings it is common to find passages quoted elliptically. When Athanasius speaks of the Son as "God from God," and "over all blessed for ever," there is no ambiguity that he understood the passage as wholly referring to Christ, and sufficiently enough to support a claim of Deity against the Arians.

In the very next chapter, Athanasius goes on to write as follows when reasoning on passages that declare the eternal Deity of Christ:

For, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God John 1:1.' And in the Apocalypse he thus speaks ; 'Who is and who was and who is to come.' Now who can rob 'who is' and 'who was' of eternity? This too in confutation of the Jews has Paul written in his Epistle to the Romans, 'Of whom as concerning the flesh is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever Romans 9:5;'
He sees this in the aspect of Christ being eternal God. And again, in his Fourth Discourse Against the Arians, he begins by combining John 1:1 and Romans 9:5 to demonstrate Christ is "God from God":

1. The Word is God from God; for 'the Word was God John 1:1,' and again, 'Of whom are the Fathers, and of whom Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen Romans 9:5.' And since Christ is God from God, and God's Word, Wisdom, Son, and Power, therefore but One God is declared in the divine Scriptures.​

Basil of Caesarea (364)​

Basil (commenting on John 17:3), writes,

Did the Apostle, when he styled the Saviour God over all, describe Him as greater than the Father? The idea is absurd. The passage in question must be viewed in the same manner. The great God cannot be less than a different God. When the Apostle said of the Son, we look for ’that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,’ did he think of Him as greater than the Father? It is the Son, not the Father, Whose appearance and advent we are waiting for."
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
.... Athanasius, from his First Discourse Against the Arians (1.3.10). The Greek tradition does not support the loss of "God," though in patristic writings it is common to find passages quoted elliptically. When Athanasius speaks of the Son as "God from God," ....

1. The Word is God from God; for 'the Word was God John 1:1,' and again, 'Of whom are the Fathers, and of whom Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen Romans 9:5.' And since Christ is God from God, and God's Word, Wisdom, Son, and Power, therefore but One God is declared in the divine Scriptures.​

The very fact that such non-Biblical language was being used in the 4th century works against too much analysis and mind-reading of how they were thinking about verses, unless it is an extremely specific citation.
 

Brianrw

Member
The very fact that such non-Biblical language was being used in the 4th century works against too much analysis and mind-reading of how they were thinking about verses, unless it is an extremely specific citation.
This is called "poisoning the well." Their reading of it matches all the known rules of Greek grammar. I've approached this from as many angles as possible.
  1. The Greek construction is very unambiguous that Christ is "God over all." It is one of the most basic, simple constructions one might find in the Greek New Testament praising Christ as God. There is exactly one valid translation.
  2. That being the case, we should expect that point to be validated in the interpretation of the Greeks, which is the case.
  3. The Greek writers of every age utilized this passage against the heretics, and yet there is not a single known point of refutation of their understanding of it. There is no known variation in that understanding from the earliest quotation to the latest, even from before the Christological heresies of the 4th century.
  4. Analyzing the quotations of the Greek writers does not involve "mind reading." When they say directly that Paul here calls Jesus "God over all," there is no ambiguity. E.g., Basil, above, Did the Apostle, when he styled the Saviour God over all, describe Him as greater than the Father? There is no ambiguity that "Saviour" here speaks of Christ. It's because they are reading the article the same way that I am.
  5. Because the Greek construction is unambiguous, the Socinians subjected the passage to shameless tampering, so that it is clear they, too understood the passage as it stands speaks of Christ as God:
    • Removing θεὸς
    • Removing ὢν
    • Transposing ὢν and ὁ
    • Saying ὁ ὢν really means "I AM," and refers to the Father.
    • Saying ὁ ὢν really means "He who" even though there is a direct antecedent
    • Saying θεὸς εὐλογητὸς really should be understood as εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς
    • Changing the punctuation
    • Bending the rules of Greek grammar
    • Inserting additional words into their English versions unsupported in the Greek text.
  6. Even Abbot, a Unitarian, notes that the reading of the "common version," which is the AV, speaks of Christ as God.
  7. The English involves an apposition (i.e., Christ as "God"), thus the comma usage after "over all".
  8. All the English authors I could find that comment on this verse from the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s all understood it as referring to Christ as God. Only the Socinians objected, but they did so by any one of the nine dishonest methods employed above.
  9. Metzger and Murray, and others besides, note why the Unitarian/Socinian "translations" are without merit.
  10. Even after all of this, I spoke with someone I know very well yet who was unfamiliar with the passage in English. They are an English teacher and grammarian. They affirmed the same thing: the passage in the KJV is calling Christ "God," the comma is there because an apposition is involved.
I have fully satisfied all the points of examination on this verse, to say one simple thing: "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever" in the English text refers to Christ as both "over all" and "God," and that you are simply misreading it because your view of it has been colored by Socinian and Unitarian sophistry. That is not me changing the text, though for what reasons I know not what, you are accusing me of such a thing. That is me defending it, and not abandoning the high ground that was maintained for centuries against the enemies of the cross.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
I have fully satisfied all the points of examination on this verse, to say one simple thing: "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever" in the English text refers to Christ as both "over all" and "God,"

The text on the clear and simple read says
Christ is:

1) over all, and
2) God blessed for ever.

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.

Why not stick with pure Scripture text?

Why accuse those who stick to the Bible text?

Its funny, John Gill actually adds a comma after God, in order to justify your interp, but even the 1611 has no comma.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3316688&view=1up&seq=364&skin=2021
http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1392

1611 AV
1636316832653.png
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
My "interpretation" is a straight reading of the AV, I don't propose a comma after "God." I'm not sure where you are getting that from. What happened to all the English commentator references I sent you from the 1600s to the early 1800s (here and more here), where no comma was present and they still understood it as referring to Christ as God? Did you go through them? Why am I only hearing John Gill, who I did not include?

The comma after God, which some prefer, is an issue with the doxology that follows, there is no real discernable difference between the meaning of the texts. I believe Murray discusses it. If you understand "who is over all, God, blessed..." as referring to Christ as God but not "over all, God blessed forever" (not, "God is blessed" or "Blessed is God," "blessed by God," "blessed be God"). Both still refer to Christ as God, "God" is an appositive of Christ, hence there is a comma after "over all."

The appositive is as clear in English as it is in Greek. Please interpret the sentence, "God blessed for ever" without adding or subtracting words ("by," "is," "be") to what is written, and by not altering "blessed" from an adjective to a verb (εὐλογητός, "blessed," in Greek is an adjective, not a verb; the verb form is εὐλογέω). It is either an appositive or a fragment.

You are essentially changing the passage to reflect what would, in the Greek, be ευλογημένος από τον Θεόν. The problem with that is it again departs from the Greek. θεὸς εὐλογητὸς is in the nominative, and εὐλογητὸς is an adjective.

Why not stick with pure Scripture text?

Why accuse those who stick to the Bible text?
I read this passage before I learned Greek, and understood it. When I was taught it, I understood it. When I learned Greek, I understood it. When I read old English commentaries, and Greek commentaries, I see the same interpretation. Nothing has changed. I've defended the KJV since I was barely an adult, without accusing the text of being in error. Not once before you have I had to defend the passage to anyone other than Unitarians. But I'm being accused by you of wanting to "improve" or change the text, fairly consistently, so I think there's a better way to approach the disagreement; if you want to dish out criticism, please be willing to take it. The reading and its interpretation is the same to me in the English authors from the 1600s and from the spectrum of Greek authors at least as far back as Hippolytus (170-235), Against Noetus, 6 and Novatian (200–258), On the Trinity. As for the Latins, as far back as Tertullian (155-222) in his work Against Praxeas (13, 15) and also Cyprian (210-258) in the his section on passages that refer to Christ as God (Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews, 2.6).

Irenaeus (130-202) Against Heresies, 3.16.2, reasoning how Christ is both perfect God and perfect man, quotes Romans 9:5 of Christ. It is thus suitable in the context, but is open to some debate as to whether it can certainly be ascribed to him affirming Christ's Deity, or if it is indeterminate [Edit: i.e., in regards to the present discussion where you insist "God blessed" means "blessed by God"]. He applies it to the Son only, and not the Father, so Burgon is correct in maintaining it against the Socinian gloss in the RV margin. However, as he pairs it with Galatians 4:4-5, and does not clearly affirm this as a place where the scriptures call Him "God," I would regard it as indeterminate so far as my discussion with you is concerned.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Please interpret the sentence, "God blessed for ever" without adding or subtracting words ("by," "is," "be") to what is written,

The simple continuous sense -

(Christ is ... or regarding Christ)
God blessed for ever.

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.

God blessed is adjectival in English, to the implied noun.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Lectures, explanatory and practical, on the doctrinal part of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans - Vol 2 (1831)
David Ritchie (1763-1844)
https://books.google.com/books?id=HJUHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA172

Ritchie covers the basics, that there are problems with both the identity and the Socinian attempts. Maybe he is more accurate because he was a Professor of Logic at Edinburgh. However, he ends up with a conclusion that is not itself logical :).

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.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
God blessed is adjectival in English, to the implied noun.
There is no implied noun, and "God" is an appositive of Christ. Is it that you mean, "Christ is . . . blessed by God forever"? Or, "Christ is . . . God-blessed forever"? Because the Greek doesn't allow that construction, which would be ὁ Χριστὸς . . . ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, ευλογημένος από τον Θεόν...

"God" is an appositive to "Christ" in the English construction (a predicate in the Greek). In other words, "Christ . . . who is over all, God" is the one who is "blessed for ever."

At this point, I absolutely have no idea how you read this passage, only that you take exception to Christ being called "God" in it, and that you also reject the Socinian interpretation that makes it a doxology to the Father. I can only presume that you are reading it as I have posited above, which I have never heard before. Not even after defending it in many dialogues against the heterodox for the better part of 27 years. To be sure, I've examined about 36 English works at present from the 1600s to the very beginning of the 1800s, and found no one understanding the passage other than speaking of Christ as God. Even the Socinians make it clear with their emendations that they know the text should be read otherwise.

Ritchie covers the basics, that there are problems with both the identity and the Socinian attempts.
I don't know why you are setting Ritchie against me, who agrees with my position almost completely? Ritchie is very clear that the passage denotes the passage demonstrates the Deity of Christ:

It does not seem possible to imagine language which could denote more unequivocally the proper Deity of our blessed Saviour...
...They [the Socinians] proceed from no difficulty or ambiguity in the words themselves . . . they are under the necessity of attempting to find, or to make some other meaning conformable to their previous opinions on the subject. But it is wholly impracticable to deduce any of their translations from the words, unless we either arbitrarily alter the Apostle's language, without the shadow of authority for so doing; or else offer such violence to it as is utterly at variance with every sound principle of interpretation.
The words, indeed, are perfectly plain and intelligible. "Christ is over all"--he is Lord over all created beings. This, perhaps, he might be without being strictly and properly God. But, to remove all doubt on this most essential point, he is also declared to be "God blessed for ever"...
But what is the true inference to be drawn from the application of this peculiar title of Deity to the Son of God, our Saviour? For that it is so applied in this passage, it is impossible, without perverting the Apostle's language, to deny. The inference is plainly this, That the Son is God equal with the Father, seeing the same special title of the true God is applied, without distinction, to both.
But it has been maintained, that these words are an ascription of blessing to God the Father, and should be interpreted, "God be blessed for ever." This, however, is an opinion which it is impossible to justify for this is not a translation of the words, it is an alteration of them.
...we must admit, that, according to the unquestionable doctrine of Scripture, our blessed Saviour is truly God, as well as truly man. (pp. 170, 172, 173)

He objects to the translation "God over all," as it might give the false impression that the Son is God also over the Father, which is purely exegetical. Conversely, if he is over "all," then no things excepting, is He over the Father as well? But we know that the Son is not greater than the Father, because, as the Hebrew idiom is concerned, all fathers are greater than their sons. I happen to agree that "who is over all, God," is the best rendering (and perhaps there is some wisdom in Ritchie's note), grammatically, because Paul has given prominence to "over all" in the Greek order of words. But it is not necessary in English.

If that were true, then that would be the AV text.
As a passing reference, it is fine. Unless you want to argue over semantics that don't really change the meaning of the text.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
In other words, "Christ . . . who is over all, God" is the one who is "blessed for ever."

And I take the learned men of the AV over your analysis.

If this is what Paul meant, that is what would be the AV text.

You pulled God out of its correct phrase and leave the blessed for ever up in the air, who is blessing?

He objects to the translation "God over all," as it might give the false impression that the Son is God also over the Father, which is purely exegetical.

Again, it is neither the AV text, nor is it exegetically sound, however it seems to be your fav.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
And I take the learned men of the AV over your analysis.

If this is what Paul meant, that is what would be the AV text.

You pulled God out of its correct phrase and leave the blessed for ever up in the air, who is blessing?
It is "God blessed for ever" in the AV, not "God-blessed for ever." The "learned men of the AV" translated it correctly, so that it testifies to the Deity of Christ. θεὸς εὐλογητὸς has both a noun and an adjective in the nominative case, and are preceded by the verb ὤν which is the participle of the Greek verb εἰμί, "to be." These together are part of an appositional phrase to ὁ Χριστὸς ("Christ").

It's not merely "my" analysis. It's the same analysis given by Metzger, Murray, and Ritchie above, as well as at least 36 published English writers of the 1600s and 1700s, and the extant writings of the Greek writers going back as far back as we can find. Even Ezra Abbot--a Unitarian--understood the passage in the AV ("common version") as speaking of Christ as God (Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1881) "On the Construction of Romans ix. 5," p. 112). Had the passage merely said Christ was blessed by God, the Socinians would not have acted so foolishly as to emend the Greek text of a passage against something it doesn't say at all.

It is far easier to be a contrarian than it is to defend your position. Your reading of it doesn't come up as a solution in any of the above, even among the authors you produce. And for good reason: pulling "God-blessed" out of the Greek text requires an emendation far more egregious than anything the Socinians have proposed: ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, ευλογημένος από τον Θεόν (and not as it is, θεὸς εὐλογητὸς).

You pulled God out of its correct phrase and leave the blessed for ever up in the air, who is blessing?
If I pull "God" out of the phrase, it means "and of whom as concerning the to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, blessed for ever." Removing the appositive does not affect the grammatical structure, which is also why the Socinians tried to emend the passage by removing θεὸς.

The same construction, as translated by the "learned men of the AV" is in Romans 1:25, so I will let them demonstrate it:

καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν,
"and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

And also in 2 Corinthians 11:31, which they translate,

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ("who is blessed forevermore").

"Blessed" in these cases (as in Romans 9:5 AV) follows the definition "held in reverence: venerated; honored in worship: hallowed," ("Blessed," M-W.com, full definition 1a, b), and in other words, "praised, magnified, extolled," etc. (Cf. verb form "Bless," Webster's 1828, no. 7) as it very often is in the AV.

Again, all to say, simply, you are just reading the passage wrong.

Again, it is neither the AV text, nor is it exegetically sound, however it seems to be your fav.
I've read all your posts. It might help if you actually read mine. I told you already that I prefer the AV rendering. But how do you suppose ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς is translated when such a phrase is divorced from the passage? "God over all." You can find that in the English translations of the Greek. Otherwise, it becomes, "The one who is over all, God." You're splitting hairs over semantics.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Even Ezra Abbot--a Unitarian--understood the passage in the AV ("common version") as speaking of Christ as God (Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1881) "On the Construction of Romans ix. 5," p. 112).

Here is what he wrote:
https://books.google.com/books?id=SCtVAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA361

1636434431739.png


Abbot simply said that the verse in our pure Bible is consistent with a Christ is God view, he did not say the wording "Christ is God" is mandated by the grammar or construction.
 

Brianrw

Member
As for the Greeks, etc, who clearly understand the passage in the same way, which you dismiss at the same time, I will refer you back to your own post on Facebook: "As an analogy think of an Oriental for whom all their skills came from a Tokyo classroom, and how you would laugh if they were constantly telling you how to speak English." My wife is from Tokyo. Trust me, I listen to her when she corrects my Japanese.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
It is "God blessed for ever" in the AV, not "God-blessed for ever."

What is your objection to the simple understanding, that Christ is "God blessed for ever"?
What difference to you see if a hyphen was there? Are you trying to imply "he is.." before God? Why? It is not in the text.

As I am still trying to understand why you try to change the AV text.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
You're trying too hard.

No, I constantly see you shading what folks write, and sometimes I take the time to check it out, and yep, the shading is there. I figured you had done so with Abbot. The difference is fundamental.

Plus I needed a direct url to the page, you gave one to the huge JSTOR article, hard to navigate.

btw, on Romans 9:5 quoting Joseph John Gurney (an earlier list of ECW) or Burgon on the ECW really does not mean anything in our conversation without the actual texts to examine. Many are likely simply affirming the AV text and high Christology, without the identity error that you want in two verses. Gurney is especially interesting since he takes some time on many sources. While his goal is to ultimately land in a singular Deity element for the verse, he shows that the evidences are rather diffuse.

Dual addressing is common in the New Testament, dozens of verses. Yet when it comes to two verses (Romans 9:5 and Titus 2:13) you want to change the AV text to make it singular addressing. Why not just accept the pure Bible?
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
As for the Greeks, etc, who clearly understand the passage in the same way,

Again, most all have a high Christology view, with various difficulties involving Origen and quite a few others. Some declare that the verse says Jesus is God.

Look at my new page on high Christology verses in the NT. Ultimately, Romans 9:5 is complimentary to all of them, and is NOT radically different in its declaration.

There are at least two different views in the "same way". It is a distinction you try hard to obscure.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
If I pull "God" out of the phrase, it means "and of whom as concerning the to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, blessed for ever." Removing the appositive does not affect the grammatical structure, which is also why the Socinians tried to emend the passage by removing θεὸς.

The problem was not removing "God" (a diversion), it is your attempt to move "God" to a different phrase-spot than in the AV text.
 
Top