I have strong grammatical evidence that decisively identifies "God" at Romans 9:5 as the Son. It is based on the anaphoric article. The Greek article developed from the pronoun, being a later addition to the language. Apollonius Dyscolus documented this in the second century.
See Debrunner-Funk (BDF). In its introduction to the article, it says:
Since the article with "God" in verse 9 is anaphoric, it identifies θεὸς in verse 8 as the God of the king. The objective grammar trumps a subjective contextual argument every time.
Think of the definite article in the same way you think of a pronoun. If one finds a pronoun that matches a noun it directly follows in case, number and gender, the first interpretation is always that it refers to that noun, right? It is considered the antecedent. The definite article is like that but more specific. It modifies a noun in addition to matching in case number and gender. So it is definitive in disambiguating the antecedent.
So, how can this help with Romans 9:5?
RO95.jpg
See Debrunner-Funk (BDF). In its introduction to the article, it says:
Since the article with "God" in verse 9 is anaphoric, it identifies θεὸς in verse 8 as the God of the king. The objective grammar trumps a subjective contextual argument every time.
Think of the definite article in the same way you think of a pronoun. If one finds a pronoun that matches a noun it directly follows in case, number and gender, the first interpretation is always that it refers to that noun, right? It is considered the antecedent. The definite article is like that but more specific. It modifies a noun in addition to matching in case number and gender. So it is definitive in disambiguating the antecedent.
So, how can this help with Romans 9:5?
RO95.jpg
Comment