2

According to an interlinear translation, Romans 9:5 reads as follows:

Christ according to the flesh being over all Theos blessed Romans 9:5 Interlinear

Some less literal translations explain this as that Jesus is God. For example, the NIV reads, “The Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised.”

Other less literal translations interpret this as saying that the theos in this verse refers to the Father, not to the Son. For example, the Contemporary English Version reads, “They … were also the ancestors of the Christ. I pray that God, who rules over all, will be praised forever."

Thirdly, quite a number of more literal translations retain the word order of the Greek but also the ambiguity of the Greek and say, "Christ ... who is over all, God blessed" (NASB).

Given this variability in translations (see BibleHub), how do we interpret this verse?

Andries
  • 835
  • 2
  • 12
  • 1
    A related question. – Lucian Oct 08 '21 at 17:36
  • @Lesley Hopefully he wasn't embarrassed off Stack Exchange. I haven't seen any mistakes here more embarrassing than some I've made considering my education level that demands more responsibility from me. We can't an Op not to ack a duplicate question when it's migrated onto the list. – Perry Webb Oct 08 '21 at 22:00
  • Thanks - will search more carefully next time - I really appreciate the information you guys make available through this platform. – Andries Oct 12 '21 at 05:22

1 Answers1

0

A comma would settle the debate, but there were none in the original.

Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen. KJV

Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all God, blessed for ever, Amen.

The KJV translation could actually support Christ not being called God if you take it to mean Christ is God blessed. I lean to the second translation, however, as did most of the early church fathers, like Tertullian, Hippolytus, Athanasius, and Jerome, but that doesn't mean Christ was being touted as equivalent to the Father.

I would go deeper into this but it sounds like there is a similar question out there.

Martin Hemsley
  • 1,403
  • 7
  • 27
  • "Who is over all God..."? That doesn't even make sense. It would actually change from "over all" (preposition + determiner/pronoun) to "overall" (adjective) in order to fit the sentence grammar--and still it would have an awkward meaning in this context. If he were "overall" God, what would He be the rest of the time? Sorry, but, I don't accept this explanation which does obvious violence to the grammar and meaning of this Bible verse. – Polyhat Oct 08 '21 at 23:59
  • @Polyhat I was merely using those two translations to show how the placement of the comma can change the meaning. I would not translate the verse that way normally. You can view it as an adjective or as a pronoun with the implied referent being "things". The Berean Literal Bible is one which captures this meaning. "whose are the patriarchs; and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, being God over all, blessed to the ages. Amen. – Martin Hemsley Oct 09 '21 at 01:53
  • 1
    There is a huge difference between saying "God over all" and "overall God." The way you placed the comma in your translation gave the latter. However, the Bible does not call Jesus God, for if it did, it would have contradicted itself. God is not a man, nor the son of man (Num. 23:19) as Jesus was; God cannot be tempted with evil (James 1:13) as Jesus was (Mt. 4:1); and God cannot die (1 Tim. 6:16) as Jesus did. Jesus' God was the Father: "Jesus saith unto her, ... I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." (John 20:17). We are to worship Jesus' God, the Father. – Polyhat Oct 09 '21 at 02:37
  • @Polyhat I gave a short answer because it sounded like people wanted to close the question. Greek is very fluid with word position which can lead to confusion. But there are good Greek translations that challenge your view. Take the ESV, "To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen." It might help for you to distinguish between God the Father and God the Son. Your quotes refer to God, the Father. Thomas worshiped Jesus and Christians still do in many prayers, hymns, and worship songs. – Martin Hemsley Oct 09 '21 at 03:31
  • 1
    Martin, you can edit an answer that is already posted, even if the question has been closed. I don't consider the ESV a good translation. The Bible's teaching is not that Jesus was God, but that God was in Christ. Remember, no one has seen God--that is explicit in scripture--because God is invisible. I'm sure you believe that people saw Jesus--therefore, Jesus cannot have been God. – Polyhat Oct 09 '21 at 10:37
  • Thanks @Polyhat. I prefer to invest my time in open questions. People saw Jesus which proves he was not God the Father. – Martin Hemsley Oct 09 '21 at 16:45
  • @Polyhat Can we understand the statement, that God cannot be tempted as saying that God cannot sin, where-as Jesus could sin? Since Jesus was tempted in all things (Heb 4:15), I assume that it was possible for Him to sin. Otherwise all that temptation would have been pointless. – Andries Oct 13 '21 at 16:57
  • @AndriesJacobusvanNiekerk Naturally, God cannot sin. Yes, in humanity, Jesus could have sinned, just as in humanity he was seen, was tempted, and died. – Polyhat Oct 13 '21 at 21:21
  • @Polyhat - Okay, so I think I see your point - God cannot sin, but Jesus can or could sin. Therefore, Jesus is not God, unless we add the Chalcedonian idea of two natures. However, I do not like arguing about what God can and cannot do. How would we finite beings know what the infinite God can do and not do? Perhaps that God cannot sin means that He can sin but He will not sin even under the most severe circumstances. Actually, that is my view of the Atonement, namely that Jesus became a human being to show that God will not sin, even when tempted to the fullest. But that is another story. – Andries Oct 15 '21 at 06:47
  • @AndriesJacobusvanNiekerk Technically, God's law is a representation of His character, and the definition of "sin" is a transgression of His law, according to 1 John 3:4. Therefore, since whatever God says or does is law, it would be just as impossible for Him to sin as it would be for the sun to see darkness by entering a cave. But I agree with you that God would never choose to do something that we would consider sinful. Hebrews 2:16 and 2 Peter 1:4 contrast the two natures. – Polyhat Oct 15 '21 at 07:09
  • @Polyhat Is that not circular reasoning: Whatever God says or does is law, therefore it is impossible for Him to sin. – Andries Oct 16 '21 at 07:34
  • @AndriesJacobusvanNiekerk Sort of. Technically, it's not so much the reasoning that is circular in this case as the reality. – Polyhat Oct 16 '21 at 11:46