Who does Paul identify as creator at Romans 11:36?

Question

Bible writers frequently identify the main participants at the beginning of their books. The first instance of “God” in Romans is anarthrous.

He almost immediately hints at God’s identity in verses 3-4 when he introduces Jesus as God’s Son, where God is still anarthrous

The Salutation concludes with God being explicitly identified as “God our Father” in verse 7.

At Romans 6:4,11 and 8:15-16 God is again identified as the Father.

At Romans 15:6 Paul identifies the Father as “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

One verse is debated depending on how it is punctuated, Romans 9:5. The RSV is one which is consistent with Paul's consistent identification and the immediate context at 9:8 where Christians are “children of God.” [1]

So, based on Paul's consistent identification of God as the Father, is there any reason not to identify Him as the Father at 11:36? (Cp. 11:33-34 where 34 further explains 33 and identifies the Lord in 34 as God in 33)

---

1 The grammar of Greek anaphora also identifies God as the Father. See the paper https://drgregoryblunt.wordpress.com/anaphora/

Answer 1

In Romans 11:36, 'of him and through him and to him' refers back to 'Lord' in verse 34. But is there more than one Lord ?

---

In the 110th Psalm, David says :

The LORD said unto my Lord ... [Psalm 110:1 KJV]

Sit thou, said the LORD, at my right hand, which is in heaven.

Then a voice speaks to David ...

The Lord at thy right hand... [verse 5]

That Lord is at David's right hand, on earth, saith the voice of a Spirit.

These are divine mysteries, known only to those who, like David, experience them. And they are written for our learning. That we may perceive aright what it is that we experience, in our own day.

---

The word 'Lord' in Romans 11:34 conveys a title for Deity. And in the New Testament scriptures that title is most commonly ascribed to Jesus Christ throughout the books of the Greek scriptures from Matthew to Revelation.

Specific to this question, Paul, in the epistle to the Romans, applies the title 'Lord' to Jesus Christ about eighteen times, almost all of those being the direct title 'Lord Jesus Christ'.

Elsewhere in this epistle, written to all that were in Rome, beloved of God, Paul uses the title 'Lord of Sabaoth' and refers to Lordship in respect of the whole earth (Romans 10:12 and Romans 10:13).

But there are occasions, and this is one of them, when Lordship is not confined to a particular person (the Father or the Son, or the Spirit - who, on occasion, is also referred to as 'Lord'). One might see this in the previous references I have made, or one might suggest that the Father, only, is in view. Personally, I would say the former, but I would not expect everyone to agree with me on that.

'Lord' in verse 34 refers back to 'God' in verse 33.

The particular subject of verse 33 is wisdom and knowledge : its depth of richness within Deity. That is to say within Deity as such. Within Divine nature. Not exclusive to any person within deity - it is so of divine nature as such.

Thus I do not see that the word 'Lord' in verse 34 refers to the Father. I see it to refer to divine nature as such : to the Lordliness that is appropriate to divine nature due to the depth of the riches of wisdom and knowledge within that divine nature, a depth of riches that is common to divine nature, as such, and not peculiar to any one person, in particular.

Any one person possessing that divine nature, will have that rich depth within their being : a rich depth of wisdom and knowledge within the divine nature which they possess as the means by which their being is expressed, the consequence of possessing such capacities being : Lordship over all that which does not possess that characteristic of deeply rich knowledge and wisdom, and many other characteristics also.

Thus, no, I do not see that the Father is being singled out, in this particular case.

'For' connects an argument with a previous statement and progresses to the conclusion of the argument. This is so because of ... something else.

'For' follows on immediately from the previous wording ... and then rests on the next statement as a conclusion.

'For who hath known' refers to 'the depth' which is 'unsearchable'. So, nobody knew. Because of the depth.

And the depth is within deity, who is Lord.

---

But some might say that this is just an opinion. That the difference between seeing 'God' (that is to say Deity) or seeing 'The Father' as being in focus, is just an opinion. I would say not so.

But if the majority were to say it is so, then perhaps the question is asking for an opinion, in which case the majority might think the question is opinion based.

But I would simply enquire that if Paul meant to say 'Father' then why did he not say so and why did he say 'God' . . . and further refer to 'Lord' ?

To me, the reason is because Paul is conscious, not only of Deity who is Lord of the whole earth, but is also conscious of Deity as such, the nature of Deity as distinct from Person.

Paul can distinguish when to refer to the Deity of the Father (his nature) and when to refer to the Person of the Father, whose nature it is.

Which very fact reveals a truth about Deity. Were there but one Person in the Godhead then were there no reason to distinguish between nature and Person, to distinguish between 'God' and 'Father' and 'Lord'.

He would be but one Entity and these terms would not apply.

God would be an unknown spirit, with no way of communicating with human beings. And with no way of saving them in their humanity.

Thank God, it is not so.

Answer 2

Paul identifies the Almighty God, the father of Jesus Christ as the Creator at Romans 11:36. The same God he quoted in Romans 11:34 which was also quoted in Isaiah 40:13 American Standard Version which says, who hath directed the Spirit of Jehovah, or being his counselor hath taught him? The same creator he mentioned in Romans 1:20

Answer 3

Romans 1:20 is speaking about the "Godhead", not merely just the isolated operational capacity of God as being the Spirit Father that produced the Son of God at a certain point in time--"this day have I begotten thee". That Son was not only the "Son of God" as being the "mighty" Spirit God, but also was the flesh, blood and bone "Son of man". The FATHER was not the sole "creator", in fact, it would be highly speculative to say that God was operating in the capacity as the Father of Jesus at the time of the beginning of creation. Rather, God, in His many operative capacities, including the WORD of God who was later made the Son of God, was also the creator, as it is written, "And God "said", Let ...", over and over again in Chapter one of Genesis.

Moreover, Gen 1:26 even says, "And God said, Let us make ..." Gen 3:8 speaks of that same WORD of God as being the "voice" of the LORD God who was "walking". That "voice" who was walking was, in the same sentence, also identified as the "LORD God" himself, revealing that the voice of God--one with God--was the "connection" (intercesser) between God and the man that had been created in God's spirit image and after His complex--multi-functional (see Gen 5:1-2) likeness. This would later continue to be the operative capacity of the WORD of God/Son of man/Son of God, Christ Jesus, all through scripture and into eternity.

Isaiah 9:6 further declares that the Son-- will be called the mighty God and the everlasting Father. Unless God has a distinct purpose for doing so and has shown His intent to do so, we should not arbitrarily attempt to diminish the ONENESS of the ONE TRUE GOD. For example, in John chapter five, the intent of Jesus is clearly to show both their unity, yet distinguish as to their operational capacities. John 5:21-22 declares:

For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: (My emphasis)

And then explains just why in verses 25-27:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. (My emphasis)

However, to show the ONENESS of the "creator", John wrote in John 1:1-2:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. (My emphasis)

Yet, verses 3-6 distinguishes the WORD God as to the matter of the Word being specifically included in the "making"--the action of building and forming all things seen from those things not seen--from those invisible gaseous-like "waters."

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (My emphasis)

This acknowledges that the invisible gaseous-like "waters" from which all things seen were "made" of things not seen, typify the "WORD of God". The "light" was in the invisible gaseous-like "waters", then formed--transformed--into "light" (God's first Law of thermodynamics) when the Spirit of God "moved" upon the face of the waters.

THEREFORE, to attempt to use Romans 11:36 to show that it was God acting in the operative capacity of the Father, is not merited.