isn't it a well known fact that the nearest possible antecedent isn't always the correct one? I agree in terms of it being a doxology to God and not to Jesus, surely this statement could have been reconstructed if it was meant for Christ
The usage of the article in this case is significant as whenever the Father is called God it is always with the article.
Goodspeed rendered it the best in my opinion, in a way that can be taken either or
I copied and pasted the text from a pdf, so I did not scan it. I can only make it so big on Blogger due to formatting. I will try to do what I can. Best regards.
Nincsnevem:Here is my note on Romans 9:5, Mr. Foster, would you take a look at it?
https://justpaste.it/3d2p4https://justpaste.it/3d2p4 I found this to be an excellent defense of modalism/ oneness theology,but a falsification of the Nicene creed.
Romans ch.9:5NAB"theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all 3 be blessed forever. Amen."
If the unipersonal Christ is that one God who is over all then manifestly the Nicene creed is false.
Romans ch.9:5CJB"the Patriarchs are theirs; and from them, as far as his physical descent is concerned, came the Messiah, who is over all. Praised be Adonai for ever! Amen."
Romans ch.9:5CEV"They have those famous ancestors, who were also the ancestors of the Christ.[a] I pray that God, who rules over all, will be praised forever![b] Amen."
Romans ch.9:5GNT"they are descended from the famous Hebrew ancestors; and Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race. May God, who rules over all, be praised forever![b] Amen."
Romans ch.9:5TLB"Great men of God were your fathers, and Christ himself was one of you, a Jew so far as his human nature is concerned, he who now rules over all things. Praise God forever!"
Romans ch.9:5NAB(RE)"They are Israelites; theirs the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5 theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all[c] be blessed forever. Amen."
Romans ch.9:5NLV"The early preachers came from this family. Christ Himself was born of flesh from this family and He is over all things. May God be honored and thanked forever. Let it be so."
Romans ch.9:5RSV"to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever.[a] Amen."
I know I keep citing Goodspeed and Moffatt but in my opinion they were honest in their translating rather than pushing an agenda - would have loved to see their translations of the other biblical texts.
is there any examples in the LXX for point of comparison? (the NT is so limited in examples)
The Watchtower’s interpretation of Romans 9:5 in the New World Translation (NWT) creates a clear distinction between Jesus and God by translating the phrase as a doxology to God the Father rather than as an affirmation of Christ’s deity. However, this interpretation faces significant challenges from both the syntax of the Greek text and the traditional patristic and theological understanding of this verse.
In the original Greek text, the phrase reads: "ho on epi pantōn, theos eulogētos eis tous aiōnas". The phrase “ho on” (“who is”) naturally links back to “ho Christos” (“the Christ”), suggesting that Paul is speaking about Christ and not introducing a separate subject. The construction flows more smoothly if “θεός” is a predicate of Christ, particularly since the phrase does not use any grammatical indicator to shift subjects (like δέ or καί).
Greek syntax here favors the interpretation that the phrase “theos eulogētos” (“God blessed”) is an appositive to Christ. Church Fathers such as Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Augustine interpreted Romans 9:5 as affirming Christ’s deity, seeing it as an explicit declaration of Christ as “God over all.” This view was widespread in early Christian exegesis, as these interpreters did not view the verse as a doxology to the Father but as an affirmation of Christ’s divine nature.
The objection that "θεός" lacks a definite article, which would supposedly preclude it from applying to Christ, is based on a misunderstanding of Greek grammar. In Koine Greek, especially in predicative positions, the article is often omitted. For instance, other passages where Christ is referred to as divine (like John 1:1, “θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”) also lack the article but are widely accepted as references to Christ’s deity. This absence does not diminish the qualitative nature of “θεός” when applied to Christ.
While the Watchtower cites modern scholars who favor a doxological reading, many mainstream scholars and Bible translations (such as the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version) recognize the grammatical and contextual support for taking “θεὸς” as referring to Christ. They argue that Paul’s statement on the incarnation of Christ “according to the flesh” naturally leads into an affirmation of His divine identity as “God over all,” an interpretation that is theologically harmonious with Paul’s high Christology seen elsewhere, such as in Philippians 2:6 and Colossians 1:15-20.
The Watchtower argues that some manuscripts contain a stop after "sarxa" ("flesh"), indicating a separation. However, early manuscripts lack standardized punctuation, which was introduced by later scribes. The interpretation of a full stop after “flesh” as necessitating a separate doxology to God is therefore interpretative rather than definitive. The overwhelming testimony of patristic sources and the lack of a clear textual basis for such a pause undercuts this argument.
Within Romans 9, Paul’s lament over Israel’s rejection of the Messiah culminates in a statement affirming Christ's divine majesty. Following a list of Israel’s privileges, Paul emphasizes that the highest privilege is that the Christ came from them “according to the flesh.” This phraseology invites an antithesis: although Christ came from Israel “according to the flesh,” He is nonetheless “God over all,” blessed forever. This rhetorical structure is characteristic of Paul, who often presents a juxtaposition between Christ’s human and divine natures, as seen in Philippians 2:5-11.
In conclusion, the Watchtower’s interpretation of Romans 9:5 in the NWT, which changes the predicative “θεός” to a separate subject and applies it to the Father, diverges from both the Greek syntax and the historical understanding of the passage. The patristic consensus, grammatical construction, and contextual flow within Romans support the traditional interpretation that Paul is indeed affirming the deity of Christ in Romans 9:5. Thus, the translation offered by the NWT appears to be motivated more by doctrinal considerations than by linguistic or exegetical evidence.
Fitzmyer notes that early manuscripts lack punctuation, and he describes different punctuation possibilities, one of which supports the NWT’s division of Romans 9:5 into two separate statements. However, the lack of punctuation in early manuscripts means that any punctuation we use today is interpretative rather than definitive. Early Church Fathers like Irenaeus, Chrysostom, and Augustine—who were much closer in time to the original texts and whose native language was Greek—interpreted this verse as an attribution of divinity to Christ. This traditional interpretation emphasizes continuity with the theological understanding of early Christianity, lending weight to interpretations that affirm Christ’s deity in this passage.
Fitzmyer and others argue that “according to the flesh” suggests a contrast in Christ’s nature, potentially opening the door to a divine attribution. This phrase aligns well with the interpretation that Paul, having affirmed Jesus’ human lineage, now highlights His divine status as “God over all.” If the verse were intended merely as a doxology to God the Father, there would be no need to mention “according to the flesh,” as it does not logically lead into a separate doxology.
Fitzmyer raises the point that typical Jewish and Christian doxologies in both Scripture and the LXX usually place “blessed” before “God” (e.g., “Blessed be the Lord”). However, in Romans 9:5, the structure is unusual for a doxology, as it reads, “θεὸς εὐλογητὸς” (theos eulogētos, “God blessed”). This atypical structure for a doxology reinforces that Paul is not offering a standard doxology to God the Father but instead is using a structure more fitting for a declarative statement about Christ’s identity.
Fitzmyer acknowledges that while Paul does not frequently call Christ “God” (theos), there are Pauline statements (e.g., Philippians 2:6 and Colossians 2:9) that support Christ’s divine nature. This broader Pauline context weakens the argument for a doxology to the Father and strengthens the case for viewing Romans 9:5 as an affirmation of Christ’s deity. In Philippians 2:6, for instance, Paul refers to Christ as being “in the form of God” (morphe theou), which parallels the high Christological language used in Romans 9:5. Therefore, while Fitzmyer might argue that calling Christ “God” is uncommon, it is consistent with Paul’s theology.
A significant point Fitzmyer acknowledges indirectly is that early Church Fathers overwhelmingly interpreted Romans 9:5 as a statement of Christ’s deity. Writers like Irenaeus and Augustine saw this verse as a direct affirmation of Christ as “God over all,” not as a separate doxology to the Father. This traditional view is critical because it reflects the interpretation of those who read and understood Koine Greek more naturally than later interpreters and who did not view Paul’s attribution of deity to Christ as controversial or out of place.
Hence Fitzmyer’s analysis attempts to offer several potential readings, one of which aligns with the NWT approach. However, when considering the linguistic structure, Pauline theology, contextual flow, and patristic consensus, the interpretation that Romans 9:5 identifies Christ as “God over all” is stronger. The NWT’s interpretation, which introduces a doxology to God the Father, lacks support from the Greek syntax, the context of the verse, and historical Christian understanding, ultimately appearing more as a theological preference than a natural reading of the text.
While it’s true that the nearest antecedent is “not always” the correct one, Greek grammar generally prioritizes the nearest antecedent as the default unless the context strongly suggests otherwise. In Romans 9:5, the phrase "ho on epi panton theos" ("who is over all, God") directly follows "Christ according to the flesh." This natural reading links the description of Christ as "over all" and "God," especially as there is no grammatical marker indicating a shift in subject.
If this phrase were intended as a separate doxology to the Father, we would expect a stronger grammatical break or marker. For example, Paul frequently uses phrases like "blessed be God" (e.g., 2 Corinthians 1:3) when making an explicit doxology to the Father, making this wording in Romans 9:5 atypical for a doxology. The lack of a clear separation here suggests that theos (God) is predicative to Christ, supporting the traditional interpretation.
The argument that “God” in the New Testament always refers to the Father when preceded by an article (ho theos) is problematic here. In Romans 9:5, the absence of the article before "theos" does not exclude Christ from being identified as God. In Koine Greek, the use of the article can be flexible, and it is not a strict rule that the presence of "ho theos" is required to denote the Father.
In John 1:1, for example, "theos" is used without the article when describing the Word's nature, which underscores the Word’s deity rather than equating Him to the Father explicitly. Similarly, in Romans 9:5, "theos" is used to express the deity of Christ without needing an article, aligning with the broader New Testament portrayal of Jesus as fully divine.
Goodspeed’s translation, along with others cited, can indeed be read ambiguously. However, these translations do not disprove the interpretation that Christ is identified as God in Romans 9:5. Goodspeed’s translation—"God who is over all be blessed forever"—could refer to either the Father or Christ, depending on context and interpretation.
While some translations (like Goodspeed’s and Moffatt’s) opt for a doxological reading, others (e.g., KJV, Douay-Rheims, NIV) affirm that this phrase refers to Christ as “God over all.” The diversity in translations does not weaken the traditional view; instead, it highlights the interpretative challenge and supports the possibility of Christ being called God in this verse, as early Church Fathers and commentators overwhelmingly believed.
Examining the LXX can indeed be helpful for context. For instance, doxological statements typically follow a predictable word order, as seen in passages like Psalm 41:13 ("Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, from everlasting and to everlasting"), where "blessed" precedes the divine title.
In Romans 9:5, however, “God” (theos) appears before “blessed” (eulogetos), which deviates from the common LXX structure for a doxology. This suggests that Paul is not offering a doxology to God the Father but is making a declarative statement regarding Christ’s divine identity. In contrast, the structure in Romans 9:5 aligns with a predicative statement about Christ, not a doxological form aimed at the Father.
So while it’s acknowledged that some translations suggest a doxological reading, this is not definitive and does not rule out the traditional interpretation. Contextually, grammatically, and structurally, the passage more naturally reads as an attribution of deity to Christ. Thus, Romans 9:5 can indeed be understood to affirm Christ as “God over all, blessed forever,” reflecting the belief held by early Christians and aligning with the broader Christology of the New Testament.
13 comments:
Here is my note on Romans 9:5, Mr. Foster, would you take a look at it?
https://justpaste.it/3d2p4
By the way, could I ask you to scan the text into a larger resolution so that the OCR can do something with it?
isn't it a well known fact that the nearest possible antecedent isn't always the correct one?
I agree in terms of it being a doxology to God and not to Jesus, surely this statement could have been reconstructed if it was meant for Christ
The usage of the article in this case is significant as whenever the Father is called God it is always with the article.
Goodspeed rendered it the best in my opinion, in a way that can be taken either or
Dear Nincsnevem,
I copied and pasted the text from a pdf, so I did not scan it. I can only make it so big on Blogger due to formatting. I will try to do what I can. Best regards.
Nincsnevem:Here is my note on Romans 9:5, Mr. Foster, would you take a look at it?
https://justpaste.it/3d2p4https://justpaste.it/3d2p4
I found this to be an excellent defense of modalism/ oneness theology,but a falsification of the Nicene creed.
Romans ch.9:5NAB"theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all 3 be blessed forever. Amen."
If the unipersonal Christ is that one God who is over all then manifestly the Nicene creed is false.
Romans ch.9:5CJB"the Patriarchs are theirs; and from them, as far as his physical descent is concerned, came the Messiah, who is over all. Praised be Adonai for ever! Amen."
Romans ch.9:5CEV"They have those famous ancestors, who were also the ancestors of the Christ.[a] I pray that God, who rules over all, will be praised forever![b] Amen."
Romans ch.9:5GNT"they are descended from the famous Hebrew ancestors; and Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race. May God, who rules over all, be praised forever![b] Amen."
Romans ch.9:5TLB"Great men of God were your fathers, and Christ himself was one of you, a Jew so far as his human nature is concerned, he who now rules over all things. Praise God forever!"
Romans ch.9:5NAB(RE)"They are Israelites; theirs the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5 theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all[c] be blessed forever. Amen."
Romans ch.9:5NLV"The early preachers came from this family. Christ Himself was born of flesh from this family and He is over all things. May God be honored and thanked forever. Let it be so."
Romans ch.9:5RSV"to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever.[a] Amen."
Good points, Anonymous, and you're right about the antecedent in Greek.
Goodspeed: "and the patriarchs, and from them physically Christ came—God who is over all be blessed forever! Amen."
I know I keep citing Goodspeed and Moffatt but in my opinion they were honest in their translating rather than pushing an agenda - would have loved to see their translations of the other biblical texts.
is there any examples in the LXX for point of comparison? (the NT is so limited in examples)
For examples, see https://repository.sbts.edu/bitstream/handle/10392/3953/Carraway_sbts_0207D_10066.pdf
Might not accept his conclusion but that part of his study about the LXX could be useful.
https://www.livingwater-spain.com/Rom_9_5.pdf
The Watchtower’s interpretation of Romans 9:5 in the New World Translation (NWT) creates a clear distinction between Jesus and God by translating the phrase as a doxology to God the Father rather than as an affirmation of Christ’s deity. However, this interpretation faces significant challenges from both the syntax of the Greek text and the traditional patristic and theological understanding of this verse.
In the original Greek text, the phrase reads: "ho on epi pantōn, theos eulogētos eis tous aiōnas". The phrase “ho on” (“who is”) naturally links back to “ho Christos” (“the Christ”), suggesting that Paul is speaking about Christ and not introducing a separate subject. The construction flows more smoothly if “θεός” is a predicate of Christ, particularly since the phrase does not use any grammatical indicator to shift subjects (like δέ or καί).
Greek syntax here favors the interpretation that the phrase “theos eulogētos” (“God blessed”) is an appositive to Christ. Church Fathers such as Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Augustine interpreted Romans 9:5 as affirming Christ’s deity, seeing it as an explicit declaration of Christ as “God over all.” This view was widespread in early Christian exegesis, as these interpreters did not view the verse as a doxology to the Father but as an affirmation of Christ’s divine nature.
The objection that "θεός" lacks a definite article, which would supposedly preclude it from applying to Christ, is based on a misunderstanding of Greek grammar. In Koine Greek, especially in predicative positions, the article is often omitted. For instance, other passages where Christ is referred to as divine (like John 1:1, “θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”) also lack the article but are widely accepted as references to Christ’s deity. This absence does not diminish the qualitative nature of “θεός” when applied to Christ.
While the Watchtower cites modern scholars who favor a doxological reading, many mainstream scholars and Bible translations (such as the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version) recognize the grammatical and contextual support for taking “θεὸς” as referring to Christ. They argue that Paul’s statement on the incarnation of Christ “according to the flesh” naturally leads into an affirmation of His divine identity as “God over all,” an interpretation that is theologically harmonious with Paul’s high Christology seen elsewhere, such as in Philippians 2:6 and Colossians 1:15-20.
The Watchtower argues that some manuscripts contain a stop after "sarxa" ("flesh"), indicating a separation. However, early manuscripts lack standardized punctuation, which was introduced by later scribes. The interpretation of a full stop after “flesh” as necessitating a separate doxology to God is therefore interpretative rather than definitive. The overwhelming testimony of patristic sources and the lack of a clear textual basis for such a pause undercuts this argument.
Within Romans 9, Paul’s lament over Israel’s rejection of the Messiah culminates in a statement affirming Christ's divine majesty. Following a list of Israel’s privileges, Paul emphasizes that the highest privilege is that the Christ came from them “according to the flesh.” This phraseology invites an antithesis: although Christ came from Israel “according to the flesh,” He is nonetheless “God over all,” blessed forever. This rhetorical structure is characteristic of Paul, who often presents a juxtaposition between Christ’s human and divine natures, as seen in Philippians 2:5-11.
In conclusion, the Watchtower’s interpretation of Romans 9:5 in the NWT, which changes the predicative “θεός” to a separate subject and applies it to the Father, diverges from both the Greek syntax and the historical understanding of the passage. The patristic consensus, grammatical construction, and contextual flow within Romans support the traditional interpretation that Paul is indeed affirming the deity of Christ in Romans 9:5. Thus, the translation offered by the NWT appears to be motivated more by doctrinal considerations than by linguistic or exegetical evidence.
Fitzmyer notes that early manuscripts lack punctuation, and he describes different punctuation possibilities, one of which supports the NWT’s division of Romans 9:5 into two separate statements. However, the lack of punctuation in early manuscripts means that any punctuation we use today is interpretative rather than definitive. Early Church Fathers like Irenaeus, Chrysostom, and Augustine—who were much closer in time to the original texts and whose native language was Greek—interpreted this verse as an attribution of divinity to Christ. This traditional interpretation emphasizes continuity with the theological understanding of early Christianity, lending weight to interpretations that affirm Christ’s deity in this passage.
Fitzmyer and others argue that “according to the flesh” suggests a contrast in Christ’s nature, potentially opening the door to a divine attribution. This phrase aligns well with the interpretation that Paul, having affirmed Jesus’ human lineage, now highlights His divine status as “God over all.” If the verse were intended merely as a doxology to God the Father, there would be no need to mention “according to the flesh,” as it does not logically lead into a separate doxology.
Fitzmyer raises the point that typical Jewish and Christian doxologies in both Scripture and the LXX usually place “blessed” before “God” (e.g., “Blessed be the Lord”). However, in Romans 9:5, the structure is unusual for a doxology, as it reads, “θεὸς εὐλογητὸς” (theos eulogētos, “God blessed”). This atypical structure for a doxology reinforces that Paul is not offering a standard doxology to God the Father but instead is using a structure more fitting for a declarative statement about Christ’s identity.
Fitzmyer acknowledges that while Paul does not frequently call Christ “God” (theos), there are Pauline statements (e.g., Philippians 2:6 and Colossians 2:9) that support Christ’s divine nature. This broader Pauline context weakens the argument for a doxology to the Father and strengthens the case for viewing Romans 9:5 as an affirmation of Christ’s deity. In Philippians 2:6, for instance, Paul refers to Christ as being “in the form of God” (morphe theou), which parallels the high Christological language used in Romans 9:5. Therefore, while Fitzmyer might argue that calling Christ “God” is uncommon, it is consistent with Paul’s theology.
A significant point Fitzmyer acknowledges indirectly is that early Church Fathers overwhelmingly interpreted Romans 9:5 as a statement of Christ’s deity. Writers like Irenaeus and Augustine saw this verse as a direct affirmation of Christ as “God over all,” not as a separate doxology to the Father. This traditional view is critical because it reflects the interpretation of those who read and understood Koine Greek more naturally than later interpreters and who did not view Paul’s attribution of deity to Christ as controversial or out of place.
Hence Fitzmyer’s analysis attempts to offer several potential readings, one of which aligns with the NWT approach. However, when considering the linguistic structure, Pauline theology, contextual flow, and patristic consensus, the interpretation that Romans 9:5 identifies Christ as “God over all” is stronger. The NWT’s interpretation, which introduces a doxology to God the Father, lacks support from the Greek syntax, the context of the verse, and historical Christian understanding, ultimately appearing more as a theological preference than a natural reading of the text.
While it’s true that the nearest antecedent is “not always” the correct one, Greek grammar generally prioritizes the nearest antecedent as the default unless the context strongly suggests otherwise. In Romans 9:5, the phrase "ho on epi panton theos" ("who is over all, God") directly follows "Christ according to the flesh." This natural reading links the description of Christ as "over all" and "God," especially as there is no grammatical marker indicating a shift in subject.
If this phrase were intended as a separate doxology to the Father, we would expect a stronger grammatical break or marker. For example, Paul frequently uses phrases like "blessed be God" (e.g., 2 Corinthians 1:3) when making an explicit doxology to the Father, making this wording in Romans 9:5 atypical for a doxology. The lack of a clear separation here suggests that theos (God) is predicative to Christ, supporting the traditional interpretation.
The argument that “God” in the New Testament always refers to the Father when preceded by an article (ho theos) is problematic here. In Romans 9:5, the absence of the article before "theos" does not exclude Christ from being identified as God. In Koine Greek, the use of the article can be flexible, and it is not a strict rule that the presence of "ho theos" is required to denote the Father.
In John 1:1, for example, "theos" is used without the article when describing the Word's nature, which underscores the Word’s deity rather than equating Him to the Father explicitly. Similarly, in Romans 9:5, "theos" is used to express the deity of Christ without needing an article, aligning with the broader New Testament portrayal of Jesus as fully divine.
Goodspeed’s translation, along with others cited, can indeed be read ambiguously. However, these translations do not disprove the interpretation that Christ is identified as God in Romans 9:5. Goodspeed’s translation—"God who is over all be blessed forever"—could refer to either the Father or Christ, depending on context and interpretation.
While some translations (like Goodspeed’s and Moffatt’s) opt for a doxological reading, others (e.g., KJV, Douay-Rheims, NIV) affirm that this phrase refers to Christ as “God over all.” The diversity in translations does not weaken the traditional view; instead, it highlights the interpretative challenge and supports the possibility of Christ being called God in this verse, as early Church Fathers and commentators overwhelmingly believed.
Examining the LXX can indeed be helpful for context. For instance, doxological statements typically follow a predictable word order, as seen in passages like Psalm 41:13 ("Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, from everlasting and to everlasting"), where "blessed" precedes the divine title.
In Romans 9:5, however, “God” (theos) appears before “blessed” (eulogetos), which deviates from the common LXX structure for a doxology. This suggests that Paul is not offering a doxology to God the Father but is making a declarative statement regarding Christ’s divine identity. In contrast, the structure in Romans 9:5 aligns with a predicative statement about Christ, not a doxological form aimed at the Father.
So while it’s acknowledged that some translations suggest a doxological reading, this is not definitive and does not rule out the traditional interpretation. Contextually, grammatically, and structurally, the passage more naturally reads as an attribution of deity to Christ. Thus, Romans 9:5 can indeed be understood to affirm Christ as “God over all, blessed forever,” reflecting the belief held by early Christians and aligning with the broader Christology of the New Testament.
http://books.google.hu/books?id=NrEeAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA57
Post a Comment