Ernst Kasemann on Romans 9:5

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99  cents

Subject:  Kasemann on Romans 9:5

From the Commentary on Romans by Ernst Kasemann [Eerdman's, 1980], pp. 259, 260:

It can hardly be the last member in the chain, as the conjecture of a relative link WN hO seeks to assert (according to BAGD, 357a dating from the Socinian J. Schlichting; Barth; Lorrimer, "Romans IX, 3-5"; Bartsch, "Rom. 9, 5," 406ff.; cf. the discussion in Sanday and Headlam; Murray, 245ff.; Michel). We thus have the alternative debated from the days of Arianism (cf Schelkle, Paulus, 331ff.;
Lyonnet, Quaestiones, 11, 21ff.): christological apposition to v. 5a or praise of God in an independent clause looking back to vv. 4-5a. The problem cannot be solved dogmatically, although this has
constantly been attempted. The apostle never directly calls Christ God, let alone the emphatic hO EPI PANTWN QEOS, which would be hard to imagine in view of the subordinationism in I Cor 15:27f. It can hardly be accepted, then, that in an extreme paradox anticipating the later doctrine of the two natures, he is according this title to the earthly Messiah of Israel. On the other hand, like Hellenistic
Christianity in general, he obviously sees in, Christ the pre-existent heavenly being to whom the ISA QEW of Phil 2:6 applies. Theologically interpretation will always build on either the one aspect or the other according to one's total understanding of christology, and arguments to the contrary will be rejected. Today, however, it is only along the lines of stylistic criticism that the debate can be conducted.

One must admit that the form of the doxology is unusual, for elsewhere the predicate comes first, closely related to what precedes (Zahn; Kilhl; Lagrange; Prat, Theology, 11, Calif.; Cullmann,
Christology, 312f.; Ridderbos). Even more unusual, however, would be a Christ doxology, for which the acclammation of the Kyrios in 1 Cor. 8:6; 12:3; Phil 2:11 in Paul, and the DOXA acclamations in Rev. 1:6; 2 Pet. 3:18, only prepare the way, no such doxology being actually found in the NT. In keeping with this is the fact that predicating Christ directly as God is also singular and that it would obscure the emphasis of the context. The main point here is that of Israel's blessings. A doxology is appropriate, since God has given the blessings and in so doing, as in blessings granted to the Christian community (Eph 4:6), he has shown himself to be hO WN EPI PANTWN namely, the one who directs history (Luz, Geschichtsverstandnis, 27; Berger, "Abraham," 79; Cerfaux, Christ, 517ff.; Taylor; Julicher; Lietzmann; Dodd; Kuss, "Rolle," 129). There is a parallel in the doxology in 11:33-36, and such a doxology impressively manifests the solidarity of the apostle to the Gentiles with his people. Insertions between the article and QEOS are to be found elsewhere (Champion, "Benedictions," 124f.). The dominant christological interpretation should be rejected.

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here