Romans 9:5 and the Deity of Christ

 

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

From: The “Proper Deity of the Word” 1834 (Page 22) by John Scott Porter

Let us now consider...Romans 9:5,-“Of whom, as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.” I have no reluctance, whatever, to let this verse stand as it is, without the slightest alteration or amendment of the common translation, although the words will readily admit of a different rendering; and, still, I maintain, that it does not carry out the proof of our Lord's Proper Deity.

[The Rev. Mr. Bagot, in the printed Abstract of his Sermons, has favoured his readers with five different methods of eluding the force of this passage, proposed by anti-Trinitarians. This was very kind in him; and, of course, the Unitarians are most grateful. At the same time, his kindness was thrown away, as the force which he ascribes to the passages, can be eluded, with equal ease, even if we admit the common reading. If Dr. DRUMMOND chose to suggest a transposition and alteration of the original text, Dr. DRUMMOND is, alone, responsible. The Unitarian body are no more accountable for Dr. DRUMMOND's criticisms, than the Episcopalians of Ireland are for Mr. Bagot's.]

We have, already, seen with what latitude the epithet “God," is used in Scripture. We have seen it applied both to men and angels. Our Saviour, himself, assures us, that the title was bestowed upon all “to whom the Word of God came.” How very applicable, therefore, would it be to Him to whom “the Father bath given the Heathen for an inheritance, and the uttermost bounds of the earth for a possession?” How very applicable would the title be to Him, “who must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet:” till Death himself be destroyed: till, having no more enemies to curb, he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; and “himself be subject unto Him, who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” And here, too, as on every other disputed point, we are anxious, that the quotation may not be read separately from the context; for the verses preceding it abundantly prove, that the Apostle had no idea, whatever, of ascribing Proper Deity to the person whose doctrine he was recommending to the Jews. The context will not justify us in awarding the title God, to our Saviour, in any other sense than as subordinate to the Father.

But, it was not necessary, for our argument, to have shown the insufficiency of this alleged proof. The Rev. Gentleman, at the commencement of his discourse, discarded the term Christ as an improper phrase; because, as he asserted, Christ was the name of a complex Being, and expressive of Proper Manhood, not less than of Deity. But, here, the Apostle uses no other name than Christ. He even traces his descent from the Father's, according to the Flesh. And, it is with reference to the FLESH, that he calls him “God over all, blessed for ever.” The Rev. Gentleman was, therefore, bound by his own rules not to have advanced this text: but even if it had established his point, it would have proven, not the Proper Deity of the WORD, but the Proper Deity of the Man.
Let him, however, avail himself of it, if he will, and apply it to our Lord; and he cannot, by any power of argument, deduce from it unequivocal proof of his Proper Deity.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

See also On the Construction of Romans 9:5 by Ezra Abbot 1881
"...Christ, who is God over all, forever praised. Amen." New International Version

Now compare:

"God who is over all be forever praised." NIV footnote
"...God, who is over all, [be] blessed forever. Amen." NWT
"May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen" New English Bible
"God, who is over all be blessed for ever." Revised Standard Version
"Blessed for evermore be the God who is over all!" Moffatt
"May God, who rules over all, be praised forever!" Good News Bible/TEV
"God who is over all be blessed forever." Smith&Goodspeed's An American Translation
"May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen" Revised English Bible
"I pray that God, who rules over all, will be praised forever!" Contemporary English Version
"He who is over all, God, blessed unto the ages." Rotherham's Emphasized Bible
"God is over everyone, Praise Him forever." Simple English Bible
"God be blessed who is above all things forever." Unvarnished NT/Andy Gaus
"God who is over all be blessed forever." New American Bible*
"God is over everyone, Praise Him forever." International English Bible
"May God, who reigns over all, be blessed through the ages." Pre-Nicene New Testament
"God be exalted throughout the Eons." Eonian Life Bible New Testament
"May God who is over all, be blessed forever." Wilton Translation New Testament

"Does Paul speak of Jesus as 'God/god'? The debate here revolves round one text in particular - Rom. 9.5...the juxtaposition of 'the Messiah' and 'he who is over all, God' would most obviously suggest different referents, rather than the same person in different status...to infer that Paul intended Rom. 9.5 as a benediction to Christ as 'God' would imply that he had abandoned the reserve which is such a mark of his talk of the exalted Christ elsewhere. And this would be no insignificant matter. For it would not allow any of the qualification outlined above in terms of God sharing his sovereignty with the exalted Christ. For 'he who is over all, God' can hardly be other than the one God, the Creator, elsewhere described by Paul (in his benedictions!) as 'the God and Father of'our Lord Jesus Christ.'" The Theology of Paul the Apostle by James D. G. Dunn

"Paul’s clear statements elsewhere, such as 1 Corinthians 8.6 and Ephesians 4.5-6, on the same subject should indicate his intent in Romans 9.5b. Plus, his constant practices of affirming strict monotheism, distinguishing Christ and God, subordinating Christ to God, and identifying only the Father as God indicate he could not have intended to call Christ “God” in Romans 9.5b." Kermit Zarley

"Rom. 9.5 is disputed. After Paul has expounded the position of Israel in salvation history and has emphasized as an especial advantage the fact that Christ according to the flesh, stems from this people, he adds a relative clause, which runs lit. “who is over all God blessed for ever. Amen.” Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur anywhere else in Paul. The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God, stemming from Jewish tradition and adopted by Paul. Overwhelmed by God’s dealings with Israel, Paul concludes with an ascription of praise to God. The translation would then read, 'The one who is God over all be blessed for ever. Amen.” or alternatively, “God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.'" J. Schneider, “God” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 2, ed. Colin Brown, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 80.

John 1:1, Exodus 7:1 and the Indefinite Article

 

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

From Rammohun Roy (Raja) "Works on Christianity" 1901 (Page 43)

They...render the last sentence of the verse “the word was God," without the indefinite article “a” before “God,” while they translate Exod. 7:I, "I have made thee (Moses) a God to Pharoah," though, in the original Hebrew, there stands only the word Elohim or "God," without the indefinite article “a” before it. If regard for the divine unity induced them to add the article "a" in the verse of Exodus, a God to Pharoah,” why did not the same regard, as well as a desire of consistency, suggest to them to add the article “a” in John 1:1, “the word was a God”? We may, however, easily account for this inconsistency. The term “God” in Exodus is applied to Moses, the notion of whose deity they abhor; but as they meant to refer the same term in John 1:1, to Jesus, (whose deity they are induced by their education to support) they leave the word “God” here without the article “a,” and carefully write it with a capital G. Lastly. If eternity be understood by the phrase "In the beginning," in John 1:1, and Jesus Christ be literally understood by the “word," then we shall not only be compelled to receive Christ as an eternal being, but also his apostles; since Luke (ch. 1:2) speaks of himself and his fellow disciples, as "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word from the beginning.”

This book, "The Impersonality of the Holy Spirit by John Marsom" is available on Amazon for only 99 cents. See a local listing for it here; Buy The Absurdity of the Trinity on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

John 1:1 a Unitarian Text

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

From: The “Proper Deity of the Word” 1834 (Page 19) by John Scott Porter

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This is a text on which our Trinitarian brethren rely with peculiar confidence. Yet, in my mind, it does not clearly establish their point. And, if it does not do this, clearly and unequivocally; if, after having carefully examined it, a doubt exists in the mind, NOT PROVEN must be the verdict of any upright judge. Let us examine the text. It asserts that “the Word was God.". Now, I admit, that our Saviour is here designated as “the Word;" and the Word, God. In short, I admit that our Saviour is here styled God; but I deny, that the Evangelist, in giving him this title, could possibly have meant to lay down the doctrine of his Proper Deity. For, look to the language he employs. He says, indeed, that the Word was God, but, when he also says, the Word was with God, does he not clearly show, that he speaks of Christ in an inferior sense? If our Saviour was Proper Deity, how could John say of him, he was with God? that he was with himself? Would not this be perfect nonsense? If, then, it would be absurd to say that God was with himself, does it not follow, that he must have been with a separate and distinct Being; and, if we admit this separate and distinct Being to be infinite, does it not follow, that there were, in the beginning, two infinite Beings, dwelling together; or, in other words, that there were more Gods than one? This never could have been the Evangelist's meaning. The interpretation of our Trinitarian brethren goes too far, even for themselves. It would justify Polytheism.

Surely those who teach the Proper Deity of our Lord, and try to prove it by the text under consideration, are bound, if not in equity, at least in charity, to tell us, clearly, what their meaning is, when they use the words, and furnish the world with an intelligible paraphrase of this important passage.

We think that our interpretation of the introduction of John, is the only one that is intelligible to the reader, consistent with the general tenor of Scripture, or honourable to the Supreme Being. We say that Christ was with God,” by the close affinity which subsisted between Him and the Father. He had no feeling, no purpose at variance with his will. In this sense, he was one with him.

Again, our Saviour might be called God, in perfect consistency with Hebrew usage, and Hebrew phraseology. If those to whom the Word of God came, are called Gods, in Scripture, well might He receive the same title, “who was the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of his person;" “and in whom, was the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” That this interpretation of John, 1:1, is as Scriptural, as it is simple and intelligible, may be seen by consulting many portions of holy writ. See Genesis, 3:5,“In the day, that ye eat thereof, ye shall be as Gods,” i. e., as angels. See also, Judges, 13:22,-"Then Manoah said unto his wife, we shall surely die, because we have seen God.” Here, the epithet God is applied without any circumlocution to one, who was evidently nothing more than God's messenger. Again, this title is applied to mere men; as Exodus, 7:1,-"See I have made thee a God to Pharaoh, &c." And, again, Ist Samuel, 28:13,-“And the woman said unto Saul, I saw Gods ascending out of the earth: and he said unto her, what form is he of? And she said unto him, an old man cometh up, and he is covered with a mantle. This passage is interesting in more ways than one; it not only illustrates the Hebrew custom of applying the epithet God, to a mere mortal; but it also proves, that this people often made a plural noun, to express a singular meaning. The woman said, she saw Gods ascending out of the earth, and the monarch asked, what form is HE of not, what form are THEY of, as would have been said, had plurality of persons been implied by the woman, or understood by the King.

It would be tiresome to recount all the passages in which the title God is ascribed to persons vastly beneath that rank which every Unitarian awards his Saviour. Suffice it to state, that the title is ascribed to the Judges of Israel; to other eminent men; to angels, and even to false deities. O, but our opponents answer, “Although we admit the truth of what you affirm, we hold, that in all the places where such titles are given, the rank of the individuals can be easily learned from the collateral passages.” This is, undoubtedly, true. The inferiority of such beings, to God, may be easily learned by such a comparison. And, by the same steps we affirm, may our Lord's inferiority to the Father be ascertained. As a proof of this, look to the 14th verse of the chapter before us. We there read, “that the 'Word' was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld his glory; the glory, as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” Here (then) the passage explains itself. Here it demonstrates, in the most unequivocal manner, the inferiority of our blessed Lord to the Father. "The Word became flesh," not

the Father. God could not become flesh, for he is a Spirit. He might, indeed, (as the orthodox hold) unite himself with flesh and blood; and, if it were so stated in Scripture, we could not argue against the doctrine. But the Evangelist does not even say that the Divine Word attached itself to the man Christ, so as to exhibit, at once, two perfect natures. There is no such union even hinted at. “The Word, itself,” he affirms, “became flesh, and dwelt amongst us, and we beheld his glory.” What glory? The glory as of the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God.” If this be not broad, plain, on equivocal, downright Unitarianism, language has no meaning.

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

 

A Non-Conservative Look at Liberal Bible Translations

 

I came across this entry at https://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_Bible_Translations on Liberal Bible Translations, which I found rather amusing. 

It starts out by saying: "Liberal bible translations are attempts to distort Biblical text to support liberal ideals." 

In fact, it has been my experience that Evangelical bible translations are attempts to distort Biblical text to support Evangelical ideals.

The examples it gives of Liberal Bibles are: 

Today's New International Version

Amplified Bible

Jerusalem Bible

New Jerusalem Bible

Moffatt Bible

Goodspeed Bible

Revised Standard Version

Revised English Bible

New American Bible

First, let's discard the TNIV and the Amplified Bible, which no one their right mind believes are Liberal Bibles. This leaves us with:

Jerusalem Bible

New Jerusalem Bible

Moffatt Bible

Goodspeed Bible

Revised Standard Version

Revised English Bible

New American Bible

The problems with these Bibles, as indicated on the site, are:

"Political correctness towards gender by using "gender inclusive" language

Downplaying the existence of Hell and God's judgment

Downplaying the deity of Jesus

Downplaying the power of the Holy Spirit

Denying the prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus

Downplaying the prohibition on homosexuality

Downplaying the differences between men and women

Editorializing on passages to push a liberal point of view

Adding content"

Of the above Bibles, only the New Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible can be accused of using "gender inclusive" language. While I myself may prefer the traditional use of "man", when I check out even older works like Vine's Dictionary, Strong's Dictionary and Thayer's Lexicon, they give "human being" as the primary definition of anthropos (see also BAGD and BDAG)

As for "Downplaying the existence of Hell and God's judgment" I notice that the Revised Standard Version uses the word "hell" 14 times, as does the New Jerusalem Bible. In fact, near as I can tell, of the above list of Bibles, only the Catholic New American Bible refrains from using the word Hell. No Bible should use the word Hell. Hell is translated from the words Sheol, Hades, Gehenna and Tartarus. A good Bible should translate with those words, instead of adding a word that has no right to be there. 

Downplaying the deity of Jesus: Rudolf Bultmann’s wrote that "In describing Christ as _God_ the New Testament still exercises great restraint." Also, "There is scarcely one text alleged by the Trinitarians which is not otherwise expounded by their own writers".—John Locke (Common Place Book)

"When we consider further the fact...that Christ is nowhere called God in any unambiguous passage by any writer of the New Testament and that it is nowhere recorded that he ever claimed this title, we cannot reasonably regard this abstinence from the use of the term as accidental." Ezra Abbot

The Bible downplays the deity of Jesus, not Liberal Bible Translations.

As for "Downplaying the power of the Holy Spirit" I wish I had some examples to go on.

Moving on to "Denying the prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus" I have to assume this means Isaiah 7:14. The King James Version here uses the word "virgin" while the above "Liberal" Bibles use the words "young woman." [The Jerusalem Bible actually uses "maiden" and some editions of the New American Bible use the word "virgin." See above image.] However, while even I prefer the word "virgin" here, most of my lexicons give "young woman" as the primary definition of the Hebrew word Almah.

As for "Downplaying the prohibition on homosexuality" I went straight to 1 Corinthians 6:9 to see what words the above Bibles used. While the King James Bible uses the watered-down term "effeminate", the RSV and REB uses "sexual perverts" [the REB's predecessor, the New English Bible used "homosexual perversion"], the JB & NJB and Moffatt uses "sodomites", Goodspeed uses "given to unnatural vice" while the NAB uses "practicing homosexuals." It doesn't sound like they downplayed anything in this regard. 

As for the rest, like "Downplaying the differences between men and women" seems to me to be part of the first complaint, "Political correctness towards gender by using "gender inclusive" language."

Editorializing on passages to push a liberal point of view, and Adding content is too vague to comment on, especially since Evangelical Bibles can also be accused of the same.

As we can see, supposed Liberal Bibles hold up well to the complaints brought against them, and can complement any Bible library. Also, it is not lost on me that many of the Bibles on their list are Catholic Bibles (there are popular Catholic editions of the RSV as well). Protestant and Evangelicals claim to derive their beliefs from the Bible, so they add their beliefs into the text of their Bible translations. Catholics on the other hand don't derive their beliefs from the Bible. As Robert M. Price stated in the review of Jason Beduhn's book: "Catholics can be freer with the details of the text because they don’t have to pretend to find their theology in it in full-blown form." http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/beduhn_truth.htm 

See also Your Bible Version Probably Isn't That Good

This Kindle book is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

metatron3@gmail.com

The Codex Sinaiticus on This Day in History

 

This Day in History: The Codex Sinaiticus was discovered in Egypt on this day in 1859, though it was probably discovered earlier. This Codex is important as the oldest major manuscript of the New Testament, with sections of the Old Testament as well. This was a major find in the area of Textual Criticism, and with the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus these set the ground for newer translations of the Bible with a move away from the Greek text of the King James Bible. Constantin von Tischendorf found them in a monastery in Egypt with an interesting story. He wrote that during his first visit to the Saint Catherine's Monastery, he saw some leaves of parchment in a waste-basket. They were "rubbish which was to be destroyed by burning it in the ovens of the monastery", although this is firmly denied by the Monastery. After examination he realized that they were part of the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), written in an early Greek uncial script. He retrieved from the basket 129 leaves in Greek which he identified as coming from a manuscript of the Septuagint. He asked if he might keep them, but at this point the attitude of the monks changed. They realized how valuable these old leaves were, and Tischendorf was permitted to take only one-third of the whole, i.e. 43 leaves. 

As he stated, this codex was written in uncial script. This means it was written in all capital letters, with no spacing. So, John 1:1 would read, "INBEGINNINGWASTHEWORDANDTHEWORDWASWITHTHEGODANDGODWASTHEWORD

Something recently posted on twitter: "Not to be 'that guy' but aren't both Testaments old now?"

"They also cancelled Vivaldi after just four seasons..."

See also Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus & Alexandrinus Greek, 70 Books on DVDROM