Is Romans 9:5 a proof text for the deity of Christ?

Introduction

In addition to Tit 2:13, Rom 9:5 is the other text cited most often in a ‘proof-text’ approach to the deity of Christ. Again, it is a text where commentators disagree at the level of the Greek, but the majority in favour of a ‘deity’ reading is less than that for Tit 2:13. This is shown by the differing verdicts of translation committees through the decades (see below). Individual commentators may express themselves dogmatically on the matter or not, but the arguments pro and con have remained the same over the years. The issue is how to read the Greek punctuation. The main argument in favour of a non-deity reading is that Paul would not have used qeo.j of Christ. The main argument in favour of a deity reading is that Rom 9:5^cd is not a natural grammatical expression for an ascription of praise to God the Father.

B. M. Metzger, in his 1971 textual commentary on the Greek New Testament (GNT, 3^rd ed.),^[1] advises that the main article to read for a non-deity reading is an 1881 one by E. Abbot, “On the Construction of Romans ix. 5”;^[2] he advises reading a 19c. commentary by Sanday and Headlam^[3] for the deity reading, but we will take his own 1973 essay “The Punctuation of Rom. 9: 5” for the opposing corner.^[4] These two essays are representative of more or less all aspects of the discussion and the large number of commentaries on Romans can be put to one side as just repeating the arguments on either side found in these essays.

The argument of this chapter is that the correct translation of Rom 9:5^cd is, ‘The one who is over all, God, be blessed forever. Amen’. This maintains Paul’s use of qeo.j elsewhere in relation to the one God of Israel, the Father. This is a far stronger argument than the one that says Rom 9:5^cd is not a natural grammatical expression for a doxology to God the Father.^[5] Dunn’s opinion is that “The argument on punctuation certainly favours a reference to Christ as ‘god’. But Paul’s style is notably irregular and a doxology to Christ as god at this stage would be even more unusual within the context of Paul’s thought than an unexpected twist in grammatical construction.”^[6] Dunn’s conclusion is apt because our own finding below is that the deity reading imposes a modern Grammarian’s regularity on Paul’s words and phrases which is unwarranted by his usage of those same words and phrases elsewhere in his letters.

Manuscript Issues

The rendering of the Greek in English follows two different paths:

…whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. (KJV, NKJV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NIV NJB, NET)
…to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen. (RSV, NEB, REB, NAB)
w-n oi` pate,rej kai. evx w-n o` Cristo.j to. kata. sa,rkaÎÐ o` w’n evpi. pa,ntwnÎÐ qeo.jÎÐ euvloghto.j eivj tou.j aivw/naj( avmh,nÅ (GNT)

The first option ascribes qeo.j to Christ; the second closes the verse with a doxology. Most versions list the alternative to their choice for their main text in the margin or as a footnote. The debate is over the shaded boxes and how to punctuate – whether with nothing, a full-stop or a comma. Comfort, reviewing the manuscript evidence on punctuation, concludes, “This data tells us that some of the earliest scribes left the text ambiguous, and later ones did not.”^[7] This pattern is to be expected, given the development of doctrine in the church towards divine views of Christ. Metzger’s review of the evidence of the Versions (Syriac, Ethiopic, but not Latin), as well as Patristic citations, shows the possibility of this analysis.^[8] We might well suspect that the Trinitarian convictions of scholars in the more recent eras of the church have also influenced their subsequent analysis of the punctuation. As one of the most discussed texts in NT studies, the decision is clearly not cut and dried.^[9]

A textual emendation has been suggested, making w’n o` the original, which would offer,

…whose are the fathers, and of whom is the Christ concerning the flesh, and whose is God over all blessed forever. Amen. (NA27)^[10]

The only argument for the emendation is that it matches the relative clauses that precede it; however, it lacks mss. support and so can be dismissed.^[11]

Metzger, in his 1971 textual commentary on the Greek New Testament (GNT, 3^rd ed.), says there are three punctuation possibilities:^[12]

1. A comma after ‘flesh’ giving a relative clause referring to Christ, “…who is God over all blessed forever.”
2. A colon or full stop after ‘flesh’, giving a new sentence, “God who is over all be blessed forever.”
3. Placing a comma after ‘flesh’ and a colon or full stop after ‘all’ giving a relative clause referring to Christ and a shorter doxology: “…who is over all. God be blessed forever.”

The GNT committee of that era did not consider as decisive the manuscripts that favour (b), namely, the four uncials, Alexandrinus (5^th CE.), Vaticanus (4^th CE.), Ephraemi Rescriptus (5^th CE.), Regius (8^th CE.), as well as some miniscules, since the punctuation marks post-date Paul. Similarly, the committee did not consider the interpretive preference of the church fathers for (a) to be decisive as regards the Greek punctuation, because of their dogmatic interests. It is worth noting that the Chester Beatty Papyrus II (2^nd CE.), the Sinaiticus (4^th CE.)  and Claromontanus (6^th CE.) have no punctuation marks in the verse. As regards the manuscript evidence, the correct way to read Rom 9:5^cd therefore is an open question; the Greek punctuation in the Patristic period is varied.

The committee of the UBS GNT 3^rd edition decided in favour of (b) and the RSV tradition of translation because of what they saw as the “general tenor of his [Paul’s] theology”.^[13]

God the Father or Christ

The use of ‘Amen’ makes Rom 9:5^cd an ascription of praise. In general terms, the key arguments for treating Rom 9:5^cd as a doxology directed towards God the Father are:

(1) There is a repetition of ‘according to the flesh’ at the end of Paul’s argument which gives a natural closure to his expression of sorrow and pride about his own people. This means that Rom 9:5^cd is a new sentence:

For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen,

according to the flesh,

who (oi[tine,j) are Israelites,

whose (w-n) are

the sonship, and
the glory, and
the covenants, and
the giving of the law, and
the service, and
the promises,

whose (w-n) are the fathers,

and of whom (evx w-n) is the Christ,

according to the flesh.

The one who is (o` w’n) over all, God, be / is blessed forever.

The implied contrast here is that Israelites are Paul’s kinsmen according to the flesh but not the Spirit and so also is Christ. The contrast has been made explicit in Romans 8.^[14]

(2) It would have been more in keeping with his choice of language in this passage to use a strict relative pronoun (o[j evstin) had he been wanting to say ‘Christ…who is over all, God blessed forever’. Paul has just used four such pronouns. This suggests that Rom 9:5^cd is a new sentence and a closing doxology.

(3) Paul’s preference is to use the relative pronoun (o[j evstin). Usage in the NT for this construction is predominantly Pauline (in GNT, 15x compared to 3x; e.g. Rom 1:25; 4:16; 5:14; 16:5). If we just look at relative clauses that are christological, i.e. elaborate on the understanding of Christ, o[j evstin is Paul’s construction of choice (1 Cor 3:11; 2 Cor 4:4; Gal 3:16; Eph 4:15; Col 1:15, 18; Col 2:10). This suggests that o` w’n introduces a new sentence rather than a relative clause.

(4) Nowhere in Paul’s letters is Christ called ‘God’, seeing that we have argued against taking Tit 2:13 as such a text. The difficulty that scholars feel is Paul’s Jewish heritage and influence – they are skeptical that a Jew could have addressed Christ as ‘God blessed forever’.

(5) Paul has recited a catalogue of the blessings of the Jews (vv. 4-5a), after which an ascription of praise to God is natural.^[15]

Since o` w’n is a pronominal construction (only 2x in Paul) that can introduce a relative clause or open a sentence, (1) – (5) are general points in favour of seeing it as the beginning of a closing sentence, a doxology.

Textual Elements

The textual elements in Rom 9:5 are worth aligning with comparable examples.

(1) euvloghto.j eivj tou.j aivw/naj (‘blessed forever’).

It is significant that 2 Cor 11:31 uses this in a description of God the Father,

The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, the one who is blessed forever, knows that I do not lie.
o` qeo.j kai. path.r tou/ kuri,ou VIhsou/ oi=den( o` w’n euvloghto.j eivj tou.j aivw/naj( o[ti ouv yeu,domaiÅ

To this we should add that Paul says ‘Blessed be God’ in his greetings (2 Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3), and he uses ‘blessed forever’ in a description of God in Rom 1:25, which is picked up by a closing ‘Amen’ and turned^[16] into an ascription of blessing,

…because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (RSV)
oi[tinej meth,llaxan th.n avlh,qeian tou/ qeou/ evn tw/| yeu,dei kai. evseba,sqhsan kai. evla,treusan th/| kti,sei para. to.n kti,santa( o[j evstin [gk]euvloghto.j eivj tou.j aivw/naj( avmh,nÅ

It is inherently unlikely therefore that Paul would use this language of ‘blessed forever’ of Christ (cf. Luke 1:68; Mark 14:61; 1 Pet 1:3).

We might add to this argument the Second Temple evidence of ‘blessed forever’ language being used of God (1 Enoch 61:11; 77:1; Jub. 25:11; Philo, Sacr. 1:101).

(2) o` w’n (‘He/The one who is…’)

It is worth noting a difference in style here in Paul’s ‘blessed forever’ formulations:

o[j evstin euvloghto.j eivj tou.j aivw/naj( avmh,n
Rom 1:25
o` w’n evpi. pa,ntwn qeo.j euvloghto.j eivj tou.j aivw/naj( avmh,n
Rom 9:5<sup>cd</sup>
o` w’n euvloghto.j eivj tou.j aivw/naj
2 Cor 11:31

The referent of the relative pronoun in Rom 1:25 is the Creator, who is mentioned in the previous clause. But o` w’n does not include a relative pronoun and is strictly ‘He/The one who is…’ (with an adjectival expression).  In 2 Cor 11:31, the construction o` w’n is not referentially dependent on ‘The God and Father’ because we have two independent referring clauses^[17] that are completed by the predicate expression, ‘knows that I do not lie’.

There is also a connection here between 2 Cor 11:31 and Rom 9:5^cd which can be easily overlooked. It is significant that Rom 9:1 also has Paul affirming that he does not lie, “I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying”. Vv. 2-5^ab are then Paul’s expression of his attitudes to Israel at the conclusion of which he includes a blessing upon God.^[18] Paul’s blessing of God in both cases is a surety for his truthfulness.

If we make o` w’n into just an English relative pronoun, as in ‘…who is over all’, we strip away its independence, i.e. the potential of the definite article with or without a noun to refer in conjunction with a participle and an adjectival expression. There is a difference between the functionality of ‘The one who is…’^[19] and ‘…who is…’ in terms of referential dependency which we should keep in translation.

Romans 9:5 and 2 Cor 11:31 are the only two places where Paul uses o` w’n. It is used elsewhere in the NT in GJohn and Revelation. It is a pronominal construction (John 1:18; 3:31; 6:46; 8:47; 12:17; 18:37; Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17; 16:5).^[20] It is naturally translated in English with either a relative pronoun or a pronominal construction and the choice is determined by the degree to which its referential function is dependent on a prior referring expression.

For example,

No one has ever seen God; the only begotten son, who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has made him known. John 1:18
Qeo.n ouvdei.j e`w,raken pw,pote\ o` monogenh.j ui`o,j( o` w’n eivj to.n ko,lpon tou/ patro,j( evkei/noj evxhgh,sato. (Byz)

The English translation uses a relative pronoun for o` w’n and this makes the clause dependent on ‘the only begotten son’ for questions of identity. However, the Greek pronominal construction makes complete sense without ‘the only begotten son’ clause: ‘No one has ever seen God; the one who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has made him known.’ This shows a semantic quality of o` w’n in Rom 9:5, which a simple ‘…who is…’ doesn’t translate.

Another example,

He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth belongs to the earth, and of the earth he speaks; he who comes from heaven is above all. John 3:31
~O a;nwqen evrco,menoj evpa,nw pa,ntwn evsti,n\ o` w’n evk th/j gh/j evk th/j gh/j evstin kai. evk th/j gh/j lalei/Å o` evk tou/ ouvranou/ evrco,menoj Îevpa,nw pa,ntwn evsti,nÐ\ (GNT)

This example shows the pronominal character of o` w’n in the English, since there isn’t a prior referring expression for a ‘…who is…’ translation.

(3) o`…qeo.j (‘God’)

The difference between the two traditions of English translation as regards qeo.j is, roughly, one between subject and predicate. So far we have been discussing the following two translations,

(a) ‘…Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever’ incorporates qeo.j  into a predicate about Christ.

(b) ‘The one who is over all, God, be/is blessed forever’ puts qeo.j into the appositional subject position of specifying the one who is over all.

If we instead take o` with the noun, we could translate our clause as ‘God who is overall’. However, this thought could simply be expressed with o` evpi. pa,ntwn qeo.j because the w’n is superfluous for conveying this sense.^[21]  Accordingly, the two alternatives reassert themselves: o` w’n is either to be taken as a relative pronoun or a pronominal construction.

Why does Paul want to emphasize, ‘He/The one who is over/above all…’? Why is it not superfluous?^[22] It is not difficult to see why there would be such an emphasis. Paul is discussing the relationship between Jew and Gentile under God in Romans 9-11. God is not just a God of the Jews but also of the Gentiles: “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him” (Rom 10:12; cf. 3:29). This is in effect a statement of what it is to be God over all.

This theme is a reason why a translation that paraphrases ‘over all’ as ‘supreme’, as in ‘God who is supreme’, is misleading (e.g. NEB). Equally, it is the reason why we cannot translate as ‘He who Is, God over all, be blessed forever.”^[23] This introduces God’s existential eternity into the text (following Exod 3:14, LXX) and detracts from the emphasis of ‘The one who is over all’.

(4) evpi. pa,ntwn (‘above/over all’)

Is this phrase more likely to have been used of Christ or of God? Paul uses the expression only once and of God the Father,

One God and Father of all, the one above all (o` evpi. pa,ntwn), and through all, and in all. Eph 4:6

This supports option (b). qeo.j is placed in a position of apposition to an introduction, giving ‘He/The one who is above all, God, be blessed forever’.

We can now see why we shouldn’t we put a full stop after pa,ntwn. This would give us a doxology ‘God be blessed forever’ but relate o` w’n to o` Cristo.j. This is option (c). This proposal goes against Eph 4:6 and our discussion of the pronominal construction o` w’n in (2) above.

(5)  avmh,n (‘Amen’)

Paul uses ‘Amen’ in ascriptions of praise that close a thought or are interjected into his flow of thought. The closest parallel is Rom 1:25 where Paul blesses^[24] the Creator:

Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. Rom 1:25 (RSV)

The argument here is that Paul is more likely to have blessed God in Rom 9:5. Two other ‘Amen’ ascriptions of praise in Romans similarly involve God,

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. Rom 11:36 (RSV)
To the only wise God through Jesus Christ, to whom (w-|) be glory for evermore. Amen. Rom 16:27

These examples should be distinguished from Rom 15:33, which is not an ascription of praise but an expression of good-will towards fellow-believers.

The God of peace be with you all. Amen. Rom 15:33 (RSV)

The use of this word at the end of Rom 9:5^cd suggests that we have a doxology just like other doxologies in Paul.

Pauline Doxologies

It is worth listing^[25] Paul’s doxologies to see how he constructs them:

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him (auvtw/|) be glory forever. Amen. Rom 11:36
To the only wise God through Jesus Christ, to whom (w-|) be glory for evermore! Amen. Rom 16:27
…according to the will of God and our Father: To whom (w-|) be glory for ever and ever. Amen. Gal 1:5
Unto him (auvtw/|) be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. Eph 3:21
Now unto God (tw/| de. qew/|) and our Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen. Phil 4:20
Now unto the King (tw/| de. basilei/) eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. 1 Tim 1:17
The Lord will rescue me from every evil and save me for his heavenly kingdom. To whom (w-|) be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. 2 Tim 4:18^[26]

They all use the dative, which is to be expected; three use a relative pronoun; two have a personal pronoun; two use nouns; and two use the disjunction (de). This is all natural and varied Greek but the list raises the question as to whether Paul is sensitive to a distinction between ascription of praise using the dative and an ascription of praise using just the verb ‘to be’ and possibly in ellipsis.

When we look at Paul’s ‘blessing’ doxologies, the pattern is for a use of the verb ‘to be’ either present or in ellipsis (Rom 1:25; 2 Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3). This in turn shows that Rom 9:5^cd should be compared to the ‘blessing’ doxologies and not the ‘glory’ doxologies which use the dative.^[27] The ‘blessing’ doxologies all relate to God the Father.

It is also worth noting that Paul’s ‘blessing’ doxologies have the verb or verbal adjective precede ‘God’ in 2 Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3 – ‘Blessed be God’ (following Hebraic/Semitic style), but not for Rom 1:25; 9:5^cd. However, these latter texts are not simple blessing doxologies. Rom 1:25 is a relative clause attached to a condemnation of false worship and Rom 9:5^cd has a subject clause with a noun in apposition. We shouldn’t make the syntax of simple ‘blessing’ doxologies a pattern for Paul’s more complicated sentences that include a doxological element.^[28] A more complicated structure with a description of praise (Rom 1:25) can have that description become a doxology through the device of attaching ‘Amen’ at the end.

Old Testament

The Old Testament background to the doxology is Jehoshaphat’s prayer,

And said,

“O Lord, God of our fathers, art thou not God in heaven? Dost thou not rule over all the kingdoms of the nations? 2 Chron 20:6

The connections are given below:

Romans 9:1-5	2 Chron 20:6
whose are the fathers	our fathers
who are Israelites	thy people Israel
whose are … the promises	gave the land
the glory, the service of God	built thee a sanctuary, the Presence
God	God
over all	over all

Conclusion

The grammatical issue of whether to take o` w’n as equivalent to a relative pronoun or just as a pronominal construction is not a matter of right or wrong grammar. Further, it is not a matter of what is ‘natural’ or ‘likely’ viewed from the position of a textbook on grammar. Rather, it is a matter of Paul’s usual style of expression across his letters with regard to the point he wants to make in Rom 9:5^cd. Here we can see that the various parallel texts show that Paul, under inspiration, has added an expression of blessing to God whom he has identified as the one over all. He has done this in surety of his truthfulness.