Appositive phrase

[Soup]

The original sentence is:
There is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.

The pronoun those functions substantively as a noun. That is, it's short for, or stands in for, say for example, those followers, believers, people, and it's modified by the relative clause who are in Christ Jesus.

Ex: There is now no condemnation to those [people] who are in Christ Jesus.

Note that, an appositive can be a noun or a pronoun, but never a relative clause.

[Soup]

An appositive is a noun or pronoun — often with modifiers — set beside another noun or pronoun to explain or identify it.
Those is a demonstative pronoun. Who is a relative pronoun. It's right next to those. It gives information about 'those'. Seems to fit the definition of an appositive nicely, wouldn't you agree Svartnik?

If it were an appositive, then omitting it shouldn't render the sentence ungrammatical, yet it does:

Ex: ?There is no condemnation to those.

[Pedroski]

Tut tut Gabber, may no one contradict you? Smacks of despotism!

[Pedroski]

Thanks Soup, I know I'm a pest, but it did seem to fit the bill.

Someone said 'who are in Christ Jesus' was an adjunct, think it was Philo. he meant that particular phrase. But as you say, take it a away and you get:

There is now no condemnation for those. (It was for not to, but that is, I think, not relevant.)
Don't know if that is a sentence or not, but I would never write it like that!

[Pedroski]

That should be IF he meant that particular phrase.

[Pedroski]

Sorry to hark on about this, but for my personal clarity, please, let me know what you think of this:

The man, a boxer, bought some gloves. Then the man and a boxer are appositives?

The man, who was a boxer, bought some gloves. 'Who was a boxer' is a relative clause, so here there is no apposition?

[svartnik]

Sorry to hark on about this, but for my personal clarity, please, let me know what you think of this:

The man, a boxer, bought some gloves. Then the man and a boxer are appositives?

The man, who was a boxer, bought some gloves. 'Who was a boxer' is a relative clause, so here there is no apposition?

Pedrovski, your understanding of appositives operates under the false idea that juxtaposition of noun phrases equals apposition.
Do you read the comments? It has been reiterated many times that this is a necessary but insufficient condition. In case of noun apposition, the consecutive noun phrases carry equal syntactic weight in the sentence.

Furthermore,

The man, who was a boxer,

IYO, is it two NPs?
What part of speech is "who was a boxer" is? Is it nominal?

If it were a nominal relative clause, it would not have an antecedent in the matrix clause. But "who" does. So it cannot be nominal. Thus, no two consecutive NPs. Where is the apposition without any two consecutive NPs?

[Pedroski]

Obviously my understanding of this does not exist! But I'll get there! Don't mean to get on your nerves! Just ignore me if you like!

'who was a boxer' is a relative clause, right?

Don't know how you weigh things syntactically, least not yet!

[Pedroski]

Got some interesting examples in my search for a better understanding of apposites.

"Miniver Cheevy, child of scorn,
grew lean while he assailed the seasons."
(E.A. Robinson, "Miniver Cheevy")

• "Schlitz--the beer that made Milwaukee famous."
  (advertising slogan for Schlitz beer)

"Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins."
(Vladimir Nabokov, Lolita)

Apposition never sounded so poetic!

[philo2009]

Hallelujah - some progress in understanding seems to have been made in my absence!

You'll find, Pedrowski, that, in this context, 'equal syntactic weight' is simply another way of expressing syntactic parallelism: i.e. an essentially identical relation of two elements to the rest of the clause, meaning that, by definition, they must perform the same syntactic function (both nominal, etc.).