Trinitarian's Textual Issue on Roman's 9:5

There are plenty of verses in today's world that are always misinterpreted and used by Many Snake-Deceivers as we know today, “Trinitarians”. They are hungry and eager to find any verse to get their hands on and twist, or add to the text to aid their heretical Theology. Sadly, Romans 9:5 is commonly used to support their notion of Jesus being equal to the Father due to the same action that the Father is accounted for, is “applied” to the Son. A simple quick flawed Misunderstood philosophical equation of, 1. Only God can X, Jesus can do X, Therefore Jesus is God.

Here is how it goes, in Psalm 97:9 the Father is set to be over all things as the most high - Connecting that with Romans 9:5 as Claiming to be Jesus who is over all things as well. The problem here is that this assertion is a bit ambiguous to really say who is being referred to as “God over all” but it's set to be the Father since Ephesians 4:6 makes it clear who it is. However, the punctuation in Romans 9:5 is challenging and mostly used to make it a run-on sentence as in “ONE” simple statement. However, I believe there should be a period at the end of the Word ‘Christ’. Which we can say that the second statement is a doxology referring to the Father. This is shown consistently in Verses like Romans 1:25 and Galatians 1:5. We also have Some early manuscripts that would support us that the Period should be at the end of the word Christ. Read down below:
After flesh(σάρκα) there is a full stop in the Greek
After flesh(σάρκα) there is a full stop in the Greek
  1. The naturalness of a pause after σάρκα [sarʹka] is further indicated by the fact that we find a point after this word in all our oldest MSS. that testify in the case,—namely: Alexandrinus / 5th Century Vaticanus / 4th Century Ephraemi Rescriptus / 5th Century Regius / 8th Century Also, beside unicals at least 26 cursives which have a full-stop after σάρκα. The main point is a thought is ended at the full stop then a new one starts as a doxology to God.


Scholars and Sources that Agree upon The doxology being referred to the Father
Highly-regarded trinitarian NT scholar, F. F. Bruce writes concerning Ro. 9:5: "God who is over all be blessed for ever. The relation of these words to those which precede is disputed. RSV takes them as an independent ascription of praise to God, prompted by the mention of God's crowning his many blessings on Israel by sending them the Messiah (similarly NEB, GNB)." Bruce then gives reasons for and against such an understanding and concludes with: "It is, on the other hand, impermissible to charge [accuse] those who prefer to treat the words as an independent doxology [praise to God] with Christological unorthodoxy. The words can indeed be so treated, and the decision about their construction involves a delicate assessment of the balance of probability this way and that." – p. 176, The Letter of Paul to the Romans, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Revised Ed., Eerdmans Publ., 1985. However, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology is forced to acknowledge that even if such a trinitarian rendering of the Greek were accurate, "Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as 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 [praise] directed to God." - Vol. 2, p. 80, 1986.  
Another Trinitarian scholar John L. McKenzie also admits: "Paul's normal usage is to restrict the noun [God'] to designate the Father (cf 1 Co 8:6), and in Rm 9:5 it is very probable that the concluding words are a doxology, `Blessed is the God who is above all.'" – p. 318, Dictionary of the Bible, Macmillan Publ., 1979 printing. The trinitarian United Bible Societies (UBS) makes the same admission: "In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was considered tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ's greatness by calling him `God blessed for ever'." And, "Nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate ho christos [the Christ'] as theos [God or god']." - p. 522, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971. The UBS has therefore punctuated their NT Greek text in such a way as to show the separateness of Christ and God at Ro. 9:5.

Comments

  1. TApril 6, 2024 at 4:12 PM

    Comment by Ezra Abbot in his book on Romans 9:5-

    “The use of the word eulogetos, ‘blessed,’ which never occurs in the New Testament in reference to Christ. If we refer eulogetos to God, our passage [Ro. 9:5] accords with the doxologies Rom. i. 25; 2 Cor. i. 3; xi. 31; and Eph. i. 3. …. [This] strongly favors the reference of the eulogetos to God. It alone seems to me almost decisive.”

    Abbot then discusses several other aspects of this verse and finally concludes that the understanding that the eulogy applies to God alone: "It is absolutely decisive." (p. 363) - Ezra Abbot, pp. 361-363, The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel. (emphasis added.)] 

    Now let's look at a some bible translations of Roman 9:5:

    The Revised Standard Version (RSV), 1971 ed. - "... of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen." - See p. 165, So Many Versions? (SMV), Zondervan, 1983.



    The New American Bible (NAB), 1970 ed. - "... from them [Israelites] came the Messiah (I speak of his human origins). Blessed forever be God who is over all!"


    The New American Bible (NAB), 1991 ed. - "[From the Israelites], according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever, Amen."


    The New English Bible (NEB), 1961 ed. - "... from them, in natural descent, sprang the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed forever!"


    Revised English Bible (REB), 1989 ed. - "... from them by natural descent came the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed forever!"

    An American Translation (AT), 1975 printing - "... and from them physically Christ came - God who is over all be blessed for ever!"

    Today's English Version (TEV), 1976 ed. - "Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race. May God, who rules over all, be praised forever!"

    The Living Bible (LB) - "...Christ was one of you ... he who now rules over all things. Praise God forever!" - Tyndale House Publishers, 1971.


    The Bible, A New Translation, (Mo) by Dr. James Moffatt, 1954 - "[From the Israelites] (so far as natural descent goes) is the Christ. (Blessed for evermore be the God who is over all! Amen.)" [Bracketed words are mine]

    New Life Version (NLV) - "Christ himself was born of flesh from this family, and He is over all things. May God be honored and thanked forever." - Victor Books, 1993.

    "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



    "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

    https://onlytruegod.org/defense/romans9.5.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LitigiosusNovember 14, 2024 at 7:09 AM

      In the structure of this sentence, the phrase “ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς” (translated as "who is over all, God") most naturally connects back to “ὁ Χριστὸς” (Christ) as the subject. The relative pronoun “ὁ” (who) links directly with the preceding noun, making Christ the most immediate referent of both “God” and “blessed forever.” This grammatical structure strongly supports the interpretation that Paul is referring to Christ as “God over all,” rather than breaking the thought into a separate doxology.

      The argument that early manuscripts support a full stop after “flesh” (σάρκα) is misleading, as early Greek manuscripts lack consistent punctuation. Punctuation as we understand it today was not standardized in ancient texts, leaving readers to interpret meaning from the natural flow of the text. The Nestle-Aland 28th edition and Westcott-Hort Greek texts, respected modern critical editions, use a comma after “flesh,” indicating continuity and reinforcing the traditional interpretation that the entire phrase applies to Christ.

      Early Christian interpreters such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus uniformly read Romans 9:5 as an affirmation of Christ’s deity. These early theologians were closer to the apostolic era, familiar with the nuances of Koine Greek, and less influenced by later theological disputes. Their unanimous testimony underscores the historical understanding of this passage as a declaration of Christ’s divine nature.

      In Romans 9:1-5, Paul lists Israel’s privileges, culminating in the greatest honor—that from them came the Messiah, “who is over all, God blessed forever.” Ending with a doxology directed to the Father would interrupt the logical flow. By attributing divine titles to Christ, Paul emphasizes the enormity of Israel’s privilege and the tragedy of rejecting their own Messiah, who is "God over all." This climactic structure is lost if one views the verse as merely shifting to praise God in an isolated doxology.

      Ezra Abbot and others argue that “εὐλογητὸς” (blessed) is used only for God the Father elsewhere in the New Testament. However, this interpretation imposes a theological preference onto the text rather than following grammatical and contextual cues. While it is true that “εὐλογητὸς” is often applied to God in a doxological context, its use here does not preclude its reference to Christ, especially when it follows Paul’s identification of Christ as “God.” Furthermore, in Greek, adjectives like “εὐλογητὸς” can legitimately apply to anyone described as divine or supreme, which aligns with Paul’s exalted Christology.

      Paul consistently describes Christ in terms that imply deity, such as “Lord of all” (Romans 10:12) and “the form of God” (Philippians 2:6). In Titus 2:13, Paul uses a similar construction to Romans 9:5 when he calls Jesus “our great God and Savior.” This pattern of language aligns with an interpretation of Romans 9:5 that applies the title “God” to Christ. Claiming that Paul’s strict monotheism prohibits him from calling Christ “God” misunderstands Paul’s integrated view of Christ as sharing in God’s divine identity.

      F.F. Bruce himself leans toward the traditional reading, which aligns with attributing “God” to Christ. He notes that while it is “permissible” to treat the verse as a doxology, it does not outweigh the traditional understanding. Similarly, citing scholars like John L. McKenzie and Kermit Zarley selectively overlooks that these scholars are not dismissing the traditional reading outright but rather engaging with interpretive possibilities, not certainties.

      Doxologies in the New Testament typically begin with “εὐλογητὸς” (e.g., 2 Corinthians 1:3 and Ephesians 1:3), positioning “blessed” before “God.” In Romans 9:5, however, “εὐλογητὸς” follows “θεὸς,” creating a different structure that implies attribution rather than a separate praise to God. This structural difference suggests that the verse is not a typical doxology but rather an ascription of deity directly to Christ.

      Delete
  2. LitigiosusDecember 18, 2024 at 6:27 AM

    The argument presented here seeks to deny the deity of Christ in Romans 9:5 by suggesting that this verse is a doxology directed solely to the Father, not a declaration of Jesus’ divine nature. However, examining the Greek text, early manuscripts, patristic interpretations, and the structure of Paul’s epistle as a whole reveals why this claim does not hold up.

    Romans 9:5 in the Greek reads: "ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν." Translations that render this as “Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever” most naturally interpret the grammatical structure. The phrase "ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς" applies directly to Christ, not as a separate doxology to the Father. This view is supported by the presence of "ὁ ὢν," which is a relative clause seamlessly connecting the preceding mention of Christ with the descriptive titles that follow, indicating a continuous subject.

    Contrary to the claim that a full stop after “flesh” (σάρκα) signifies a separate doxology, the earliest manuscripts are not consistent with punctuation, and any suggestion of a break is more a matter of interpretive choice than grammatical rule. For instance, the Nestle-Aland 28 and Westcott-Hort critical editions of the Greek New Testament both retain a comma after "σάρκα," which implies that what follows refers to Christ. Furthermore, the inconsistency in ancient manuscript punctuation suggests that the separation claimed here is not inherent in the original text but rather an interpretive decision influenced by theological biases.

    Early Church Fathers, who had access to the original Greek manuscripts and understood the language and context, unanimously interpreted Romans 9:5 as a reference to Christ’s deity. Figures like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus explicitly cited this verse as evidence of Jesus being "God over all." The patristic interpretation lends considerable weight to the traditional reading, as these early theologians were less influenced by later theological controversies about the Trinity and were closer to the apostolic teachings.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Colwell's rule and John 1:1

Image
A closer look at John 1:1 and the application of Colwell's rule. ...και θεος ην ο λογος - John 1:1 "...and the Word was ___" …God, divine, or a god? Colwell's rule is used to insist the translation should be the definite "God". In his 1933 article entitled A definite rule for the use of the article in the Greek New Testament  he proposes this rule: " A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb, it does not have the article when it precedes the verb ".  Let's first define what these terms mean:  The predicate is the part of a sentence which describes or modifies the subject . For example John 1:5 begins "And the light shines in the darkness" - the light is the subject of the sentence, and shines in the darkness is the predicate. The function of the predicate therefore is to tell us something about the subject   and almost always contains a verb plus anything following that verb.  The subject + predicate i...
Read more

Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22

In Proverbs 8:22, We get to see that Wisdom (Title for Christ) is being spoken about being created or possessed, made, Brought forth, etc. The Hebrew word used in v22 is "Qanah" קָנָה   which means to get, acquire, create, buy, or possess . However, A lot of Bible translations such as the KJV, ESV, ASV, YLT, and DRA render 'Qanah' as Possessed, which Trinitarians use to argue that this is related to the eternal Attribute of God. But this is clearly illogical, Possessed denotes a beginning always, so if we look at it from the Trinitarian Perspective, The Lord possessed his wisdom? As it's been seen before, nearly every time "possessed" is used in the King James Bible (For example), it means to take something for a possession, or obtaining it. Did God have to obtain his own wisdom? Not the attribute, but the person of his Son, who is the wisdom of God personified. Now in the context of this verse, we have v23-25 Did God bring forth and set up his own wi...
Read more

The Two Christian Hopes and The Partakers of The New Covenant (Covenant Particularity)

  The Two Hopes in Relation to the New Covenant There is no doubt that the bible holds out a hope for everlasting life on earth. Revelation 21:3-4 describes realities that don't exist in heaven , so for them to be done away with it must make sense this is referring to the earth where that reality of death does exist. Martha certainly believed in an earthly hope when she said of her brother “I know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.” (John 11:24) True, the Sadducees of the time denied the resurrection. (Mark 12:18) However, in his book Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era , George Foot Moore says: “Writings . . . of the second or first centuries before our era attest the belief that at the expected turning-point in the history of the world the dead of former generations would be brought to life again on earth.”   No such thing as heaven being the “in between” then coming back.  When Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus he explicitly mentions ...
Read more