Number 4
whose are the patriarchs and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh who is over all God blessed forever Amen Romans 9:5
Henry Alford in his
The New Testament for English Readers vol. II (p. 80-81) states
—and of whom is Christ, so far as regards the flesh (the expression implies that He was not
entirely sprung from them, but had another nature;
'on His human side,"—"as far as pertains to His human body"),
who is God over all (this word all is of uncertain gender in the original, but must be probably taken as neuter:
all things, not
"all persons " compare ch. xi. 36),
blessed for ever. Amen. — The punctuation and application of this doxology have been much disputed. By the early Church it was generally rendered as above, and applied to Christ. Passages, it is true, have been collected from the fathers to show that they applied the words
"God over all" to
the FATHER
alone, and protested against their application to the SON; but these passages themselves protest only against the erroneous Noetian or Sabellian view of the
identity of the Father and the Son, whereas in Eph. iv. 5, 6,
"one Lord," "one God and Father of all, who is over all," are plainly distinguished. That our Lord is not, in the strict exclusive sense,
"the God who is over all," every Christian will admit, that title being reserved for the Father : but that He is
God over all" none of the above-mentioned passages goes to deny. — The first trace of a different interpretation, if it be one, is found in an assertion of the Emperor Julian, who says that our Lord is never called God by St. Paul, nor by St. Matthew, or St. Mark, but by St. John only. The next is in the punctuation of two of our later manuscripts of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, which arrange the sentence thus : "of whom as concerning the flesh is Christ. God over all [be] blessed for ever." This is followed by several among the moderns, and generally by Socinians. The objections to this rendering are, (1) ingenuously suggested by Socinus himself, and never yet obviated,—that without one exception in Hebrew or Greek, wherever an ascription of the blessing is found, the predicate blessed
precedes the name of God. (2) That the words
who is on this rendering, would be superfluous altogether (see below). (3) That the doxology would be unmeaning and frigid in the extreme. It is not the habit of the Apostle to break out into irrelevant ascriptions of praise; and certainly there is here nothing in the immediate context requiring one. If it be said that the survey of all these privileges bestowed on his people prompts the doxology,—surely such a view is most unnatural : for the sad subject of the Apostle's sympathy, to which he immediately recurs again, is the apparent
inanity of all these privileges in the exclusion from life of those who were dignified with them. If it be said that the
incarnation of Christ is the exciting cause, the words
according to the flesh" come in most strangely, depreciating, as it would on that supposition, the greatness of the event, which then becomes a source of so lofty a thanksgiving. (4) That the expression
"blessed for ever" is twice besides used by St. Paul, and each time unquestionably not in an ascription of praise, but in
an assertion regarding the subject of the sentence. The places are, ch. i. 25, and 2 Cor. xi. 31 : whereas he uses the phrase
"Blessed be God" as an ascription of praise, without joining
"for ever." See the rest of the discussion in my Greek Test. I have shewn there, that the rendering given in the text is not only that most agreeable to the usage of the Apostle,
but the only one admissible by the rules of grammar and arrangement. It also admirably suits the context : for, having enumerated the historic advantages of the Jewish people, he concludes by stating one which ranks far higher than all,—that from them sprung, according to the flesh, He who is God over all, blessed for ever.—
Amen is the accustomed ending of such solemn declarations of the divine Majesty : compare ch. i. 25
James White summarizes the reasons he believes
Rom. 9:5 does refer to Christ as God.
The arguments in favor of seeing this passage as a reference to the deity of Christ are many. I will summarize them here.8
(1) It is the natural reading of the text to see the entire verse as referring to Christ. Breaking the sentence up into two parts leads to difficulties in translation and interpretation. Some words become superfluous,9 and the balance of the sentence is thrown off.10
(2) The phrase "who is" is used by Paul elsewhere to modify a word in the preceding context ( as in
2 Corinthians 11:31, a very close parallel), and would naturally do so here as well.
(3) The form of the doxology simply will not allow for it to be separated from the preceding context, Paul's consistent usage connects the doxology to the discussion of Christ. In his other doxologies11 he follows this pattern.
(4) In the Greek New Testament, and in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint), the word "blessed" always12 comes
before the word "God," but here in
Romans 9:5 it follows, which would indicate that the "blessing" is tied to what came before (i.e., the discussion of Christ). So strong is this last point that Metzger said it is "altogether incredible that Paul, whose ear must have been perfectly familiar with this constantly recurring formula of praise, should in this solitary instance have departed from established usage."13
Add to these weighty considerations the testimony of many of the early [Church] Fathers as well,14 and the conclusion is inescapable: Paul breaks into praise at the majesty of the person of the Messiah who has come into the world through the Jewish race. The very God who is over all has entered into flesh, and for this, Paul gives glory and honor.
-James White, The Forgotten Trinity, pp. 73-74
Note # 8. For discussions of this passage and the various translational issues involved, see. C. E. B. Cranfield,
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans in
The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh
: T&T Clark, 1979), II:464–470; Henry Alford,
The New Testament for English Readers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), II:920–921; Douglas Moo,
The Epistle to the Romans in
The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 565–568.
Note # 9. Specifically, there is no reason to include ὁ ὢν [this is the best I could reproduce the Greek - AP] in the final phrase if there is no direct connection to what has gone before.
Note # 10. Paul has spoken of the fleshly nature of the Messiah, and now speaks of the Messiah's spiritual nature as God. Breaking up the sentence leaves Paul speaking only of the Messiah "according to the flesh."
Note # 11.
Romans 1:25;
11:36;
2 Corinthians 11:31;
Galatians1:5;
2 Timothy 4:18.
Note # 12. There is one possible exception at
Psalm 67:19, though the text seems questionable at that point.
Note # 13. B.M. Metzger, "The Punctuation of
Rom. 9:5" in
Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule, ed. B. Lindars and S. Smalley (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1973), 107.
Note # 14. Metzger mentions Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Theodoret, Augustine, Jerome, and Cyril of Alexandria, among others, as reading the passage in support of the deity of Christ.
-Notes found on page 205 in
The Forgotten Trinity by James White
