Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 9:5

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

5. the fathers ] Cp. Rom 11:28. The reference is probably specially to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But David is also “the patriarch David;” Act 2:29. These sacred Persons are now mentioned, after the previous sacred Things, so as to usher in the mention of the Christ Himself.

of whom ] out of whom; not merely “ whose,” as in previous clauses; perhaps to keep the thought in view that He was not exclusively for Israel, though wholly of Israel.

as concerning the flesh ] In respect of His human Parent’s descent He also was Jewish. His blessed Humanity was indeed, on the Paternal side, “of God;” (Meyer;) but this distinction is not in view here, where the plain meaning is that, by human parentage, He was Jewish.

who is over all, God blessed for ever ] The Gr. may (with more or less facility) be translated, (1) as in E. V.; or (2) who is God over all, &c.;” or (3) blessed for ever [be] the God who is over all. Between (1) and (2) the practical difference is slight, but (1) is the easier and safer grammatically: between (3) and the others the difference is, of course, complete. If we adopt (3) we take the Apostle to be led, by the mention of the Incarnation, to utter a sudden doxology to the God who gave that crowning mercy. In favour of this view it is urged, (not only by Socinian commentators and the like, but by some of the orthodox, as Meyer,) that St Paul nowhere else styles the Lord simply “God;” but always rather “the Son of God,” &c. By this they do not mean to deny or detract from the Lord’s Deity, but they maintain that St Paul always so states that Deity, under Divine guidance, as to mark the “Subordination of the Son” that Subordination which is not a difference of Nature, Power, or Eternity, but of Order; just such as is marked by the simple but profound words Father and Son. But on the other hand there is Tit 2:13, where the Gr. is (at least) perfectly capable of the rendering “our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” And if, as St John is witness, it is divinely true that “the Word is God,” it is surely far from wonderful if here and there, in peculiar connexions, an equally inspired Teacher should so speak of Christ, even though guided to keep another side of the truth habitually in view. Now, beyond all fair question, the Greek here (in view of the usual order of words in ascriptions of praise) is certainly best rendered as in E. V.: had it not been for controversy, probably, no other rendering would have been suggested. And lastly, the context far rather suggests a lament (over the fall of Israel) than an ascription of praise; while it also pointedly suggests some allusion to the super -human Nature of Christ, by the words “ according to the flesh.” But if there is such an allusion, then it must lie in the words “ over all, God.” We thus advocate the rendering of the E. V., as clearly the best grammatically, and the best suited to the context. Observe lastly that while St John (Joh 1:1; Joh 20:28; and perhaps Joh 1:18, where E. V. “Son;”) uses the word God of Christ, and in Joh 12:41 distinctly implies that He is Jehovah, (Isa 6:5,) yet his Gospel is quite as full of the Filial Subordination as of the Filial Deity and Co-equality. So that the words of St Paul here are scarcely more exceptional in him than they would be in St John.

for ever ] Lit. unto the ages; the familiar phrase for endless duration, under all possible developements, where God and the other world are in question.

Amen ] The word is properly a Hebrew adverb (“ surely ”), repeatedly used as here in O. T. See e.g. Deu 27:15; Psa 72:19; Jer 11:5 (marg. E. V.).

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Whose are the fathers – Who have been honored with so illustrious an ancestry. Who are descended from Abraham, Isaac, etc. On this they highly valued themselves, and in a certain sense not unjustly; compare Mat 3:9.

Of whom – Of whose nation. This is placed as the crowning and most exalted privilege, that their nation had given birth to the long-expected Messiah, the hope of the world.

As concerning the flesh – So far as his human nature was concerned. The use of this language supposes that there was a higher nature in respect to which he was not of their nation; see the note at Rom 1:3.

Christ came – He had already come; and it was their high honor that he was one of their nation.

Who is over all – This is an appellation that belongs only to the true God. It implies supreme divinity; and is full proof that the Messiah is divine: Much effort has been made to show that this is not the true rendering, but without success. There are no various readings in the Greek manuscripts of any consequence; and the connection here evidently requires us to understand this of a nature that is not according to the flesh, i. e., as the apostle here shows, of the divine nature.

God blessed forever – This is evidently applied to the Lord Jesus; and it proves that he is divine. If the translation is fairly made, and it has never been proved to be erroneous, it demonstrates that he is God as well as man. The doxology blessed forever was usually added by the Jewish writers after the mention of the name God, as an expression of reverence. (See the various interpretations that have been proposed on this passage examined in Prof. Stuarts Notes on this verse.)

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 5. Whose are the fathers] Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, the twelve patriarchs, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, c., c., without controversy, the greatest and most eminent men that ever flourished under heaven. From these, is an uninterrupted and unpolluted line, the Jewish people had descended and it was no small glory to be able to reckon, in their genealogy, persons of such incomparable merit and excellency.

And of whom, as concerning the flesh Christ came] These ancestors were the more renowned, as being the progenitors of the human nature of the MESSIAH. Christ, the Messiah, , according to the flesh, sprang from them. But this Messiah was more than man, he is God over all the very Being who gave them being, though he appeared to receive a being from them.

Here the apostle most distinctly points out the twofold nature of our Lord-his eternal Godhead and his humanity; and all the transpositions of particles, and alterations of points in the universe, will not explain away this doctrine. As this verse contains such an eminent proof of the deity of Christ, no wonder that the opposers of his divinity should strive with their utmost skill and cunning to destroy its force. And it must be truly painful to a mind that has nothing in view but truth, to see the mean and hypocritical methods used to elude the force of this text. Few have met it in that honest and manly way in which Dr. Taylor, who was a conscientious Arian, has considered the subject. “Christ,” says he, “is God over all, as he is by the Father appointed Lord, King, and Governor of all. The Father hath committed all judgement to the Son, Joh 5:22; has given all things into his hands, Mt 28:18; he is Lord of all, Ac 10:36. God has given him a name above every name, Php 2:9; above every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and has put all things (himself excepted, 1Co 15:27) under his feet and given him to be head over all things, Eph 1:21, Eph 1:22. This is our Lord’s supreme Godhead. And that he is , blessed for ever, or the object of everlasting blessing, is evident from Re 5:12, Re 5:13 : Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power-and blessing and honour be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. Thus it appears the words may be justly applied to our blessed Lord.” Notes, p. 329. Yes, and when we take other scriptures into the account, where his essential Godhead is particularly expressed, such as Col 1:16-17: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created BY him, and FOR him: and he is BEFORE all things, and BY him do all things consist; we shall find that he is not God by investiture or office, but properly and essentially such; for it is impossible to convey in human language, to human apprehension, a more complete and finished display of what is essential to Godhead, indivisible from it, and incommunicable to any created nature, than what is contained in the above verses. And while these words are allowed to make a part of Divine revelation, the essential Godhead of Jesus Christ will continue to be a doctrine of that revelation.

I pass by the groundless and endless conjectures about reversing some of the particles and placing points in different positions, as they have been all invented to get rid of the doctrine of Christ’s divinity, which is so obviously acknowledged by the simple text; it is enough to state that there is no omission of these important words in any MS. or version yet discovered.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Whose are the fathers; who are lineally descended of the holy patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with other holy fathers and prophets, and of the same blood. This was also a great privilege, of which the Jews boasted.

Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came; or out of whom; understand the people of the Jews, not the fathers. The meaning is, Christ took his human nature of their stock. It is the great honour of mankind, that Christ took not the nature of angels, but of man; and it is a great honour to the nation of the Jews, that he took the seed of Abraham their father.

Who is over all, God blessed for ever; this is the fullest place to express the two natures that are in the person of our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ; he was God as well as man: yea, this is the title by which the one and supreme God was known amongst the Jews.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

5. Whose are the fathershere,probably, the three great fathers of the covenantAbraham, Isaac,and Jacobby whom God condescended to name Himself (Exo 8:6;Exo 8:13; Luk 20:37).

andmost exaltedprivilege of all, and as such, reserved to the last.

of whom as concerning theflesh(See on Ro 1:3).

Christ cameor, “isChrist”

who is over all, Godrather,”God over all.”

blessed for ever. AmenToget rid of the bright testimony here borne to the supreme divinity ofChrist, various expedients have been adopted: (1) To place a period,either after the words “concerning the flesh Christ came,”rendering the next clause as a doxology to the Father”God whois over all be blessed for ever”; or after the word “all”thus,”Christ came, who is over all: God be blessed.”, c.[ERASMUS, LOCKE,FRITZSCHE, MEYER,JOWETT, &c.]. But itis fatal to this view, as even Socinus admits, that in otherScripture doxologies the word “Blessed” precedes thename of God on whom the blessing is invoked (thus: “Blessed beGod,” Ps 68:35 “Blessedbe the Lord God, the God of Israel,” Ps72:18). Besides, any such doxology here would be “unmeaningand frigid in the extreme”; the sad subject on which he wasentering suggesting anything but a doxology, even in connection withChrist’s Incarnation [ALFORD].(2) To transpose the words rendered “who is”; in which casethe rendering would be, “whose (that is, the fathers’) is Christaccording to the flesh” [CRELLIUS,WHISTON, TAYLOR,WHITBY]. But this is adesperate expedient, in the face of all manuscript authority; as isalso the conjecture of GROTIUSand others, that the word “God” should be omitted from thetext. It remains then, that we have here no doxology at all, but anaked statement of fact, that while Christ is “of” theIsraelitish nation “as concerning the flesh,” He is,in another respect, “God over all, blessed for ever.”(In 2Co 11:31 the very Greekphrase which is here rendered “who is,” is used in the samesense; and compare Ro 1:25,Greek). In this view of the passage, as a testimony to thesupreme divinity of Christ, besides all the orthodox fathers, some ofthe ablest modern critics concur [BENGEL,THOLUCK, STUART,OLSHAUSEN, PHILIPPI,ALFORD, &c.]

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Whose are the fathers,…. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; for, according to the a Jewish writers,

“they call none in Israel , “fathers”, but three, and they are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and they call none “mothers” but four, and they are, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah:”

their descent from these fathers was a privilege, though they valued themselves too highly upon it; but what was the crown and glory of all, and which they took the least, though the apostle took the most notice of, is,

and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came; that is, either of the fathers, or of the Israelites, from whom Christ, according to his human nature, sprung; being a son of Abraham, of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of David, and the son of Mary; hence the Messiah is called , “the Messiah or Christ of Israel” b:

who is described as

over all, angels and men, being the creator, upholder, and governor of them; and as having another nature, a divine one, being

God, truly and properly God,

blessed for evermore; in himself, and to be blessed and praised by all creatures. The apostle alludes to that well known periphrastic name of God so much used by the Jews, , “the holy, blessed God”; to which, by way of assent and confirmation, the apostle puts his

Amen. Now all these particular privileges are mentioned by him, as what heightened his concern for these people; it filled him with heaviness and sorrow of heart, when he considered, that persons who had been partakers of such favours, and especially the last, that the Messiah should spring from them, be born of them, and among them, and yet that they should be given up to ruin and destruction.

a T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 16. 2. & Gloss. in ib. b Targum in Isa. xvi. 1, 5. Mic. iv. 8.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Of whom ( ). Fourth relative clause and here with and the ablative.

Christ ( ). The Messiah.

As concerning the flesh ( ). Accusative of general reference, “as to the according to the flesh.” Paul limits the descent of Jesus from the Jews to his human side as he did in 1:3f.

Who is over all, God blessed for ever ( ). A clear statement of the deity of Christ following the remark about his humanity. This is the natural and the obvious way of punctuating the sentence. To make a full stop after (or colon) and start a new sentence for the doxology is very abrupt and awkward. See Acts 20:28; Titus 2:13 for Paul’s use of applied to Jesus Christ.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Of whom [ ] . From the midst of whom. But in order to guard the point that the reference is only to Christ ‘s human origin, he adds, as concerning the flesh.

Who is over all, God blessed for ever [ ] . Authorities differ as to the punctuation; some placing a colon, and others a comma after flesh. This difference indicates the difference in the interpretation; some rendering as concerning the flesh Christ came. God who is over all be blessed for ever; thus making the words God, etc., a doxology : others, with the comma, the Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever; i e., Christ is God (For minor variations see margin of Rev.) 51 Amen. See on Rev 1:6.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “Whose are the fathers,” (hon hoi pateres) “of whom the fathers (came),” Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob received and were confirmed in the promises of the Messiah and possession of Israels Land Grant in a time of universal peace, all to come through the seed of Abraham, Gen 12:3; Gen 13:15-17; Gen 15:18; Gen 17:8; 1Ki 4:20-21.

2) “And of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,” (kai eks hon ho christos to kata sarka) “and out from whom Christ (came) according to the fleshline,” of the tribe of Judah, family of David, of the Jews (of Israel), Luk 1:26-35; Luk 2:4-11; Gal 4:4-5; Joh 4:22.

3) “Who is over all,” (ho hon epi paton) “who is (exists), being over all,” Lord He is of all, risen Lord, at the right hand of the Father, intercessor of all believers, to be judge of all, and to reign one day on David’s throne, over all the Earth as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Luk 1:32-33; Rev 15:3-4; Rev 19:11; Rev 19:16.

4) “God blessed forever, Amen,” (theos eulogetos eis tous aionas amen) “God blessed into the ages, unending,” Amen, or so may it be always; by the Father, the Holy Spirit, Holy Angels, and the redeemed, Jesus is blessed and passes all honor and praise and glory to God the Father, Eph 3:21.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

5. Whose are the fathers, etc. It is indeed of some importance to be descended from saints and men beloved of God, since God promised to the godly fathers mercy with regard to their children, even to thousand generations, and especially in the words addressed to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as we find in Gen 17:4, and in other passages. It matters not, that this by itself, when separated from the fear of God and holiness of life, is vain and useless: for we find the same to have been the case as to worship and glory, as it is evident everywhere in the prophets, especially in Isa 1:11; Isa 60:1; and also in Jer 7:4. But, as God dignified these things, when joined with attention to godliness, with some degree of honor, he justly enumerated them among the privileges of the Jews. They are indeed said to be the heirs of the promises for this very reason, — because they descended from the fathers. (Act 3:25.)

From whom, is Christ, etc. They who apply this to the fathers, as though Paul meant only to say that Christ had descended from the fathers, have no reason to allege: for his object was to close his account of the pre-eminence of the Jews by this encomium, — that Christ proceeded from them; for it was not a thing to be lightly esteemed, to have been united by a natural relationship with the Redeemer of the world; for if he had honored the whole human race, in joining himself to us by a community of nature, much more did he honor them, with whom he had a closer bond of union. It must at the same time be always maintained, that when this favor of being allied by kindred is unconnected with godliness, it is so far from being an advantage, that on the contrary it leads to a greater condemnation.

But we have here a remarkable passage, — that in Christ two natures are in such a manner distinguished, that they are at the same time united in the very person of Christ: for by saying that Christ had descended from the Jews, he declared his real humanity. The words according to the flesh, which are added, imply that he had something superior to flesh; and here seems to be an evident distinction made between humanity and divinity. But he at last connects both together, where he says, that the Christ, who had descended from the Jew’s according to the flesh, is God blessed for ever.

We must further observe, that this ascription of praise belongs to none but only to the true and eternal God; for he declares in another place, (1Ti 1:17,) that it is the true God alone to whom honor and glory are due. They who break off this clause from the previous context, that they may take away from Christ so clear a testimony to his divinity, most presumptuously attempt, to introduce darkness in the midst of the clearest light; for the words most evidently mean this, — Christ, who is from the Jews according to the flesh, is God blessed for ever (289) And I doubt not, but that Paul, who had to contend hard with a reproach urged against him, did designedly raise up his own mind to the contemplation of the eternal glory of Christ; nor did he do this so much for his own sake individually, as for the purpose of encouraging others by his example to raise up their thoughts.

(289) [ Stuart ] has in a most convincing manner vindicated the true and obvious meaning of this clause. There is no reading of any authority, nor any early version, that affects the genuineness of the received text: and it is amazing what ingenuity has been exercised by various critics to evade the plain construction of the passage, — a remarkable instance of the debasing power of preconceived notions. It is somewhat singular too, that some who professed at least the doctrine of Christ’s divinity, such as [ Erasmus ] , [ Whitby ] , and [ Locke ] , have attempted to make changes in the text, and those for the most part conjectural, by which the obvious meaning is wholly altered.

It is very clearly shown by [ Stuart ] , that the very position of the words, and their connection with the context, will admit of no other construction than that which our version contains.

It is well known, that in Hebrew the word “blessed” is always placed before “God,” or Jehovah, when it is an ascription of praise; and it appears that the Septuagint has in more than thirty instances followed the same order, and, indeed, in every instance except one, (Psa 68:19,) and that evidently a typographical mistake. The same is the case with all the examples in the New Testament. So that if the phrase here was a doxology, it must have been written εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεός. In the Welsh language, which in many of its idioms is identically the same with the Hebrew, the order of the words is the same: when it is a doxology, the word “blessed” invariably precedes the word “God;” and when otherwise it follows it.

The opinion of [ Chrysostom ] on this sentence, to which [ Erasmus ] attaches some importance, is of no value whatever, as he did not understand Hebrew; and Paul, for the most part, wrote as a Hebraist.

The participle ὢν, being put for ἐστι , is what is common in Hebrew and in the New Testament. See a remarkable instance of two participles and a verb in the middle, in Rev 1:4. It has been said, that “amen” unsuitably follows a declarative sentence; but see an instance in Rom 1:25

It is justly observed by [ Stuart ] , that the context requires the application of this sentence to Christ, as otherwise there would be no antithesis to the words “according to the flesh.” — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(5) The fathers.The patriarchsAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Who is over all, God blessed for ever.These words are a well-known subject for controversy. Trinitarian and English interpreters, as a rule, take them with the punctuation of the Authorised version, as referring to Christ. Socinian interpreters, with some of the most eminent among the Germans, put a full stop after came, and make the remainder of the verse a doxology addressed to God, Blessed for ever be God, who is over all. Both ways are possible. The question is, Which is the most natural and probable? and this is to be considered, putting altogether on one side prepossessions of every kind. We are not to read meaning into Scripture, but to elicit meaning from it. The balance of the argument stands thus:(1) The order of the words is somewhat in favour of the application to Christ. If the clause had really been a formal doxology, the ascription of blessing would more naturally have come at the beginning in Greek as in English, Blessed be God, &c. (2) The context is also somewhat in favour of this application. The break in the form of the sentence becomes rather abrupt on the other hypothesis, and is not to be quite paralleled. Intruded doxologies, caused by a sudden access of pious feeling, are not uncommon in the writings of St. Paul, but they are either worked into the regular order of the sentence, as in Rom. 1:25, Gal. 1:5, or else they are formally introduced as in 2Co. 11:31; 1Ti. 1:17. (3) But on the other hand, to set somewhat decidedly against this application, is the fact that the words used by the Apostle, Who is over all, and the ascription of blessing in all other places where they occur, are referred, not to Christ, but to God. (Comp. Rom. 1:25; 2Co. 1:3; 2Co. 11:31; Eph. 1:3; Eph. 4:6.) There is, indeed, a doxology addressed to Christ in 2Ti. 4:18; it should, however, be remembered that the Pauline origin of that Epistle has been doubted by some, though it is also right to add that these doubts do not appear to have any real validity. The title God does not appear to be elsewhere applied to our Lord by St. Paul, though all the attributes of Godhead are ascribed to Him: e.g., in Php. 2:6 et seq., Col. 1:15 et seq. In 1Ti. 3:16, which would be an apparent exception, the true reading is, * Who was manifested, and not God was manifested. On the other hand, St. John certainly makes use of this title, not only in Joh. 1:1; Joh. 20:28, but also in the reading, adopted by many, of Joh. 1:18, God only begotten for Only begotten Son. Weighing the whole of the arguments against each other, the data do not seem to be sufficient to warrant a positive and dogmatic conclusion either way. The application to our Lord appears perhaps a little the more probable of the two. More than this cannot be said. Nor is a stronger affirmation warranted by any considerations resting on the division of authorities.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

5. The fathers Including not only Abraham and his patriarchal sons, but the whole wonderful pedigree running through Heber up to Adam. This recorded pedigree, the very pith of the human race, Israel alone had preserved. At one end (according to Luke’s list) was Adam and God, at the other Christ; so that Israel was the divine Adamic-Messianic race.

The flesh In antithesis with his being over all, God. So that we have here his double nature as human-divine.

Over all As he is humanly the descendant of all, so he is divinely the Over-all, the Supreme.

God This solemn epithet can here be no otherwise held than in apposition with Over all. It then stands indisputably as a title of Christ, as in Tit 1:3; Tit 2:13; Joh 1:1; 1Ti 3:16.

Antitrinitarian commentators have placed a full stop after all, and rendered the last clause God be blessed forever. But, 1. This destroys the above-named antithesis, and renders the phrase according to the flesh superfluous. 2. In all cases where the doxology of the kind supposed occurs in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, the word for blessed precedes the divine name Blessed be God. In this form the phrase occurs, according to Stuart, more than thirty times in the Old Testament.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Rom 9:5. Whose are the fathers, &c. See Exo 3:6-16. Act 7:32. How ingenious soever the conjecture of Dr. Taylor may be thought, by which he would read , to answer to , whose are the Fathers, and whose is the God over all, it would doubtless be extremely dangerous to follow this, or any other reading of the like kind, unsupported by any critical authority of manuscripts or ancient quotations; nor does there appear any authority whatever for rendering the last clause, God be blessed for ever. We must therefore consider this text as a proof of Christ’s proper divinity, which the opposers of that doctrine have never been able to answer. Proclus (de Fide, p. 53.) esteemed the verse before us so clear a proof of the divinity of Christ, that he says, “It shuts and walls up every avenue of calumny or reproach;” and Theophylact considers it as a passage which must put Arius to shame, as St. Paul expressly declares Christ to be God over all. This will appear still more plainly, if we recollect that it was a Jewish custom, whenever the priest mentioned the name of God in the sanctuary, for the people to say, “Blessed be the name and glory of his kingdom for ever and ever.” The words used chap. Rom 1:25 are an abridgment of this form. Similar to it is the doxology at the end of the Lord’s prayer, and chap. Rom 11:36 of this Epistle. In all these and in other places, the giving glory being an acknowledgment of the eternal God, and in several of them being applied peculiarly to Christ, is a convincing proof of his Godhead. See Hammond, Doddridge, and Locke.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Rom 9:5 . Now, after that first relative sentence with its six theocratic distinctions, two other relative clauses introduce the mutually correlative persons , on whom the sacred-historical calling of Israel was based and was to reach its accomplishment.

] Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who are per excellentiam the patriarchs, Exo 3:13 ; Exo 3:15 ; Exo 4:5 ; Act 3:13 ; Act 7:32 .

. . .] The last and highest distinction of the Israelites: and from whom Christ descends, namely, according to the human phenomenal nature , as a human phenomenon , apart from the spiritually-divine side of His personality, according to which He is not from the Jews, but (as , Rom 1:4 ) is . Regarded in the light of His supernatural generation, He would be also of God. Comp. Clem. Cor . Rom 1:32 : . On the article . ., see Heind. ad Gorg . p. 228; Buttm. neut. Gr . p. 84. The before forbids the reference of the latter to .

. . ] This passage, which has become of dogmatic importance, has received two different leading interpretations, by the side of which yet a third way, namely, by taking to pieces the relative sentence, came to be suggested. (1) The words are referred (placing a comma after ) to Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever . So, substantially, Irenaeus ( Haer . iii. 16. 3), Tertullian ( adv. Prax . 13, p. 2101, ed. Seml.), Origen, Cyprian, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Augustine, Jerome, Theodoret, and later Fathers; Luther, Erasmus, Paraphr ., Flacius, Calvin, Beza, and most of the older expositors; and of the later, Michaelis, Koppe, Tholuck, Flatt, Klee, Usteri, Benecke, Olshausen, Nielsen, Reithmayr, Maier, Beck, Philippi, Bisping, Gess, Krummacher, Jatho, Hahn, Thomasius, Ebrard, Ritschl, Hofmann, Weiss, bibl. Theol . p. 306, Delitzsch, and others; in a peculiar fashion also, Herm. Schultz (see below); de Wette is undecided. (2) The words are regarded (placing a period after , as do Lachm. and Tisch.) as a doxology to God , isolated from the foregoing: “ Blessed for ever be the God who is over all .” So none of the Fathers (as to those erroneously adduced by Wetstein, see Fritzsche, p. 262 ff.), at least not expressly; but Erasmus in his Annot ., Wetstein, Semler, Stolz, and several others, and recently Reiche, Kllner, Winzer, Fritzsche, Glckler, Schrader, Krehl, Ewald, van Hengel, and, though not fully decided, Rckert. See also Baur, II. p. 231; Zeller, in the Theol. Jahrb . 1842, p. 51; Rbiger, Christol. Paul . p. 26 f.; Beyschlag, Christol . p. 210. Now the decision, which of the two leading interpretations fits the meaning of the apostle , cannot be arrived at from the language used, since, so far as the words go, both may be equally correct; nor yet from the immediate connection, since with equal reason Paul might (by no means: must , against which is the analogy of Rom 9:3 ; and the divine in Christ did not belong here, as in Rom 1:3 , necessarily to the connection) feel himself induced to set over-against the human side of the being of Jesus its divine side (as in Rom 1:3 ), or might be determined by the recital of the distinctions of his nation to devote a doxology to God, the Author of these privileges, who therefore was not responsible for the deeply-lamented unbelief of the Jews; just as he elsewhere, in peculiar excited states of piety, introduces a giving glory to God ( Rom 1:25 ; 2Co 11:31 ; Gal 1:5 ; comp. 1Ti 1:17 ). Observe, rather, with a view to a decision, the following considerations: Although our passage, referred to Christ , would term Him not , but ( who is God over all ) only predicatively ( without the article), and although Paul, by virtue of his essential agreement in substance with the Christology of John, might have affirmed, just as appropriately as the latter (Rom 1:1 ), the predicative ( of divine essence ) of Christ, because Christ is also in Paul’s view the Son of God in a metaphysical sense, the image of God, of like essence with the Father, the agent in creation and preservation, the partaker in the divine government of the world, the judge of all, the object of prayerful invocation, the possessor of divine glory and fulness of grace (Rom 1:4 , Rom 10:12 ; Phi 2:6 ; Col 1:15 ff; Col 2:9 ; Eph 1:20 ff.; 1Co 8:6 ; 2Co 4:4 ; 2Co 8:9 ); yet Paul has never used the express of Christ, since he has not adopted, like John, the Alexandrian form of conceiving and setting forth the divine essence of Christ, but has adhered to the popular concrete, strictly monotheistic terminology, not modified by philosophical speculation even for the designation of Christ; and he always accurately distinguishes God and Christ; see, in opposition to such obscure and erroneous intermingling of ideas, Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol . p. 149 ff. John himself calls the divine nature of Christ only in the introduction of his Gospel, and only in the closest connection with the Logos-speculation. And thus there runs through the whole N. T. a delicate line of separation between the Father and the Son; so that, although the divine essence and glory of the latter is glorified with the loftiest predicates in manifold ways, nevertheless it is only the Father, to whom the Son is throughout subordinated, and never Christ, who is actually called God by the apostles (with the exception of Joh 1:1 , and the exclamation of Thomas, Joh 20:28 ) not even in 1Jn 5:20 . Paul, particularly, even where he accumulates and strains to the utmost expressions concerning the Godlike nature of the exalted Christ (as Phi 2:6 ff.; Col 1:15 ff; Col 2:9 ), does not call Him , but sharply and clearly distinguishes Him as the from , even in Rom 10:9 , 1Co 12:3 (in opposition to Ritschl, Altkath. K . p. 79 f.). The post-apostolical period (and not at all 2Pe 1:1 , see Huther) first obliterated this fine line of separation, and often denominated Christ , , and the like. So, e.g ., already several of the Ignatian epistles in the shorter recension (not those ad Magnes., ad Philadelph., ad Trall ., not even chap. 7) and the so-called second epistle not the first of Clement, nor the epistle of Polycarp. In the closest internal connection herewith stands the fact, that in the properly apostolical writings (2Pe 3:18 does not belong to them, nor does Heb 13:21 ) we never meet with a doxology to Christ in the form which is usual with doxologies to God (not even in 1Pe 4:11 ); therefore, in this respect also, the present passage would stand to the apostolic type in the relation of a complete anomaly . Besides, the insuperable difficulty would be introduced, that here Christ would be called not merely and simply , but even God over all , and consequently would be designated as , which is absolutely incompatible with the entire view of the N. T. as to the dependence of the Son on the Father (see Gess, v. d. Pers. Chr . p. 157 ff.; Kahnis, Dogm . I. p. 457 ff.), and especially with passages like Rom 8:34 ( ), 1Co 3:23 ; 1Co 8:6 ; 1Co 11:3 , Eph 4:5-6 , and notably 1Co 15:28 . Accordingly, the doxology of our passage cannot be referred to Christ, but must be referred to God; although Philippi continues of opinion that the former reference has all in its favour and nothing against it. On the other hand, Tholuck (see also Schmid, bibl. Theol . II. p. 540, Exo 2 ) does more justice to the objections against the old ecclesiastical interpretation, which Messner also, Lehre d. Ap . p. 236 f., prefers, but only with a certain diffidence; whilst Herm. Schultz (comp. Socinus, in Calovius, p. 153) comes ultimately to a lower acceptation of the notion of , which is meant not metaphysically , but only designates the fulness of power committed to Christ for behoof of His work, and excludes neither dependence and coming into being, nor beginning and end . Against the latter suggestion it may be decisively urged, that thus characteristics are attached to the notion , which, compared with the current Pauline mode of expression, directly annul it, and make it interchangeable with , as Paul uses it of Christ (Eph 4:5-6 ; Phi 2:11 ; 1Co 8:6 , and many other passages). See, in opposition to it, also Grimm. If we suppose the quite singular case here to occur, that Paul names Christ God , yea God over all, we need not shrink from recognising, with the orthodox interpreters, an expression of the fact that Christ is not nuncupative , but naturaliter God (Flacius, Clav . II. p. 187). (3) Another way, that of taking to pieces the relative clause, was suggested by Erasmus, who proposed to place the point (as in Cod. 71) after (in which Locke, Clarke, Justi, Ammon, Stolz, Grimm, l.c ., and in de Johann. Christol. indole Paulinae compar . p. 75 f., Baumgarten-Crusius, Ernesti, Urspr. d. Snde , I. p. 200 ff., and Mrcker follow him), so that qui est super omnia (or omnes ) refers to Christ (comp. Act 10:36 ), and then the doxology to God follows. But how intolerably abrupt is this! not merely the brief description given of Christ, but also the doxology itself, which with loses its natural connection with the preceding. Again, with this separation would disappear the motive for Paul’s not having put . in the first place , as usually (comp. 2Co 1:3 ; Eph 1:3 ; also the doxologies in the LXX.). This motive is, namely, the emphasis which obtains by the characteristic description ( the God who is over all ). Still more disjointed and halting the language becomes through the punctuation of Morus (who, however, concurs in referring the whole to Christ ): , , . . . Why Reiche, whom Krehl and van Hengel have followed, although rightly referring the whole to God, has adopted this punctuation ( He who is over all, God, be praised for ever ), we cannot perceive; , taken independently, forms in fact, according to a quite customary manner of expression, one phrase, so that is not without the article. Comp. 1Co 3:7 ; Khner, II. 464, 8, c . Finally, Grotius (not also Schoettgen, as Schultz states) would consider as not genuine, and would refer . . to Christ , to whom “laus et honor debetur supra omnes, i. e. etiam supra Abrah., Isaac. et Jacob.” But that is not wanting in the Peschito , as Grotius maintains, is decisively settled (see Koppe), and the witnesses who actually omit it ( edd . of Cyprian, and Hilary, Leo once, Ephraem) are much too weak and doubtful; see Bengel, Appar. crit. in loc . Quite arbitrary is the conjecture of Sam. Crell (Artemonius): . . .

] neuter . The limitation which takes it as masc. (Syr., Beza, Grotius, Socinus, Justi, Hofmann, and others), in which case it is by some held to apply to men generally, by others to the patriarchs, must have been presented by the context; but it is not at all suggested by anything, not even in the reference of the sense, which Fritzsche introduces: “qui omnibus hominibus prospicit Deus, ut male credas Judaeos ab eo destitutos esse, etc.”

indicates the relation of the rule over all things; see Lobeck, ad Herodian . p. 474, ad Phryn. pp. 164, 174; Bhr, ad Plut. Alc . p. 162. God is the , 2Co 6:18 ; often in the Apocalypse, . . ., 1Ti 6:15-16 .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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

Ver. 5. Of whom is Christ ] This is as great an honour to all mankind (how much more to the Jews!) as if the king should marry into some poor family of his subjects.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

as, &c. Read “is the Christ as to the flesh”.

as concerning. Same as according to, Rom 9:3.

all. Compare Joh 17:2. 1Co 15:27, 1Co 15:28. Col 1:16-19; Col 2:9.

God. App-98.

blessed. See Rom 1:25.

for ever. App-151. a. This is an example of the Figure of speech Anamnesis. App-6. Note the seven privileges of Paul’s people in Rom 9:4. App-10. To account for various readings, the Revised Version sometimes appeals in the margin to ancient authorities, meaning Greek MSS., &c, but here, and here only, modern interpreters are allowed to introduce, by varying punctuation, devices for destroying this emphatic testimony to the Deity of the Lord. See App-94.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Rom 9:5. , …) whose are the fathers, etc. Baumgarten has both written a dissertation on this passage, and has added it to his Exposition of this Epistle. All, that is of importance to me in it, I have explained im Zeugniss, p. 157, etc. (ed. 1748), [c. 11, 28].- , and of whom, i.e. of the Israelites, Act 3:22. To the six privileges of the Israelites lately mentioned are added the seventh and eighth, respecting the fathers, and respecting the Messiah Himself. Israel is a noble and a holy people.- ) i.e. , but the participle has a more narrow meaning. Artemonius with great propriety proves from the grief of Paul, that there is no doxology in this passage: Part I. cap. 42; but at the same time he along with his associates contends, that Paul wrote , , … So that there may be denoted in the passage this privilege of the Israelites, that the Lord is their God; and he interprets the clause, , thus: that this privilege is the greatest of all the honours conferred upon Israel. But such an interpretation of the , with which comp. Eph 4:6 (that we may remove this out of our way in the first place), implies a meaning, which owes its birth merely to the support of an hypothesis, and which requires to be expressed rather by a phrase of this sort; . The conjecture itself, , carries with it an open violation of the text. For I. it dissevers from the antithetic member of the sentence, ,[109] which is usually everywhere mentioned [expressed]. II. It at the same time divides the last member of the enumeration [of the catalogue of privileges], before which , and, is suitably placed, , … into two members, and in the second of these the conjunction is by it harshly suppressed.

[109] i.e., according to His divine nature. The words are equivalent to , and form a plain antithesis to = His human nature.-ED.

Artemonius objects: I. Christ is nowhere in the sacred Scriptures expressly called God. Ans. Nowhere? Doubtless because Artemonius endeavours to get rid of all those passages either by proposing a different reading, or by a different mode of interpretation. He himself admits, that too many proofs of one thing ought not to be demanded, page 225. In regard to the rest, see note on Joh 1:1. He objects, II. If Paul wrote , he omitted the principal privilege of the Israelites, that God, who is the Best and Greatest of all, was their God. Ans. The adoption and the glory had consisted in that very circumstance; therefore he did not omit it; nor is that idea, the Lord is the God of Israel, ever expressed in these words, Thine, O Israel, is God blessed for ever. He urges further; Christ is included even in the covenants, and yet Paul presently after makes mention of Christ; how much more would he be likely to make mention of God the Father Himself? Ans. The reason in the case of Christ for His being mentioned does not equally hold good in the case of God. Paul mentions in the order of time all the privileges of Israel (the fathers being by the way [incidentally] joined with Christ). He therefore mentions Christ, as He was manifested [last in order of time]; but it was not necessary that that should be in like manner mentioned of God. Moreover, Christ was in singularly near relationship to the Israelites; but God was also the God of the Gentiles, ch. Rom 3:29 : and it was not God, but Christ, whom the Jews rejected more openly. What? In the very root of the name Israel, and therefore of the Israelites, to which the apostle refers, Rom 9:4; Rom 9:6, the name El, God, is found. He objects, III. The style of the Fathers disagrees with this opinion: nay, the false Ignatius [pseudoignatius] reckons among the ministers of Satan those, who said, that Jesus Himself is God over all. Ans. By this phrase, he has somewhat incautiously described the Sabellians, and next to them he immediately places the Artemonites in the same class. In other respects the fathers often apply the phraseology of Paul respecting Christ to the Father, and by that very circumstance prove the true force of that phraseology [as expressing Divinity]; and yet the apostle is superior to [should have more weight than] the fathers. Wolfius refutes Artemonius at great length in vol. ii. Curar. ad N. T., p. 802, etc.- , over all) The Father is certainly excepted, 1Co 15:27. Christ is of the fathers, according to the flesh; and at the same time was, is, and shall be over all, inasmuch as He is God blessed for ever. Amen! The same praise is ascribed to the Father and the Son, 2Co 11:31. Over all, which is antithetic to, of whom, shows both the pre-existence () of Christ before the fathers, in opposition to His descent from the fathers according to the flesh, and His infinite majesty and dominion full of grace over Jews and Gentiles; comp. as to the phrase, Eph 4:6; as to the fact itself, Joh 8:58; Mat 22:45. They are quite wrong, who fix the full stop either here [after ], (for the comma may be placed with due respect to religion); for in that case the expression should have been, [not – ], if only there had been here any peculiar occasion for such a doxology; or [who fix a full stop] after ; for in this case would be without its proper antithesis [which is, who in His divine nature is God over all].-, God) We should greatly rejoice, that in this solemn description Christ is so plainly called God. The apostles, who wrote before John, take for granted the deity of Christ, as a thing acknowledged; whence it is that they do not directly treat of it, but yet when it comes in their way, they mark it in a most glorious manner. Paul, ch. Rom 5:15, had called Jesus Christ man; but he now calls Him God; so also 1Ti 2:5; 1Ti 3:16. The one appellation supports the other.-, blessed) . By this epithet we unite in giving all praise to God, 2Co 11:31.- , for ever) [He] Who is above all-for ever, is the first and the last, Rev 1:17.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Rom 9:5

Rom 9:5

whose are the fathers,-The reference is probably especially to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whom God delighted to honor and whose names have been preserved for all ages. [To have sprung from such forefathers was one of the most cherished thoughts of an Israelite. (2Co 11:22). These sacred persons are now mentioned, after the previous sacred things, so as to usher in the mention of the Christ himself.]

and of whom is Christ-[This is placed as the crowning and most exalted privilege: that their nation had given birth to the long-expected Messiah, the hope of the world.]

as concerning the flesh,-[This implies, of course, that he had another nature besides his human, or that while he was a man, he was also something else; that there was a nature in him which was not descended from “the fathers. That this is the meaning will still further appear by noticing the important distinctions so carefully expressed by Pauls words and even by their exact order-“of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh. Christ is not in the same sense as the patriarchs the peculiar property of the Israelites, “whose are the fathers. He springs, indeed, from their race, but he “is over all; and not only is his Israelitish origin thus contrasted with his universal supremacy, but it is expressly limited by his human nature. The closing emphasis of the clause falls upon the words, “as concerning the flesh, which points onward to their natural contrast in the aspect of his person, who is “God blessed forever.]

who is over all,-In this view of the passage, as a testimony to the supreme divinity of Christ, the whole revelation of God attests, as the following clearly shows: God, the Father, is the basis of all life (1Co 8:6); and “as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself: and he gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man. (Joh 5:26-27). The “image of the invisible God. (Col 1:15; 2Co 4:4). Still, even as the image of God, the Son is perfectly expressive of the divine being. In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Col 2:9). He is “in the form of God and “on an equality with God. (Php 2:6). He is expressly called “God our Saviour (Tit 1:3) and “the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ (Tit 2:13). Accordingly, the Son is also the object of adoration to angels and men. (Php 2:10). These Scriptures, with many others, declare that Jesus Christ was with the Father, in the bosom of the Godhead, before the worlds were created; that he was the counselor of the Godhead; that he was God, as divine and necessarily of the same nature and being as God, the Father. All power and might that pertain to the Godhead were delivered to the Son. He was clothed with all authority in heaven and on earth. (Mat 28:18). All the power of the Father is concentrated in him.

God blessed for ever. Amen.-[An ascription of praise to Christ is here especially suitable, in view of his being set at naught by the Israelites, and is exactly in line with Pauls method, as indicated in chapter 1:25, where, in contrast with the dishonor heaped upon God by the Gentiles, the affirmation is made that he is blessed for ever. A doxology to God would not fit in with the anguish at Israels rejection, to which Paul gives utterance in this paragraph; on the other hand, the words, referred to Christ, whom the Israelites rejected in spite of his dignity, give a reason for his anguish.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

are the fathers: Rom 11:28, Deu 10:15

of whom: Rom 1:3, Gen 12:3, Gen 49:10, Isa 7:14, Isa 11:1, Mat 1:1-17, Luk 3:23-38, 2Ti 2:8, Rev 22:16

who is: Rom 10:12, Psa 45:6, Psa 103:19, Isa 9:6, Isa 9:7, Jer 23:5, Jer 23:6, Mic 5:2, Joh 1:1-3, Joh 10:30, Act 20:28, Phi 2:6-11, Col 1:16, 1Ti 3:16, Heb 1:8-13, 1Jo 5:20

blessed: Rom 1:25, Psa 72:19, 2Co 11:31, 1Ti 6:15

Amen: Deu 27:15-26, 1Ki 1:36, 1Ch 16:36, Psa 41:13, Psa 89:52, Psa 106:48, Jer 28:6, Mat 6:13, Mat 28:20, 1Co 14:16, Rev 1:18, Rev 5:14, Rev 22:20

Reciprocal: Gen 9:26 – Blessed Gen 17:21 – my Deu 4:37 – because Ezr 4:3 – Ye have nothing Son 5:10 – the chiefest Isa 1:2 – I have Isa 6:13 – so the holy Isa 22:1 – of vision Zec 12:8 – the house Mat 1:23 – God Mat 9:27 – Thou Mat 22:45 – how Mar 12:1 – and set Mar 12:37 – and whence Luk 1:42 – blessed is Luk 7:9 – not in Luk 20:44 – how Joh 1:11 – came Joh 1:14 – the Word Joh 3:31 – is above Joh 4:22 – we worship Joh 6:42 – Is not Joh 8:53 – thou greater Joh 10:36 – I am Act 3:22 – of your Act 3:25 – the covenant Act 13:46 – It was Rom 15:8 – Jesus Gal 4:4 – made Eph 2:12 – the covenants Heb 12:9 – fathers Rev 5:13 – blessing

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

9:5

Romans 9:5. Whose are the fathers means the Israelites descended from the fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Christ came from them as regards his fleshly ancestry.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

The Apologists Bible Commentary

Romans 9

5whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

C O M M E N T A R YIn verses 1-5 of this chapter of Romans, Paul focuses on the tension between God’s promises to Israel and Israel’s plight. The people to whom God has promised so much have, apparently, rejected God’s most profound revelation – His Son. In this verse, Paul presents the last of several privileges enjoyed by the Jews: Descent from the ‘fathers’ – the patriarchs – to whom God made promises which were still valid for those descended from them; and the Messiah who is ‘from’ them. As Paul defined his own relationship to the Jews as “according to the flesh,” so he defines the Messiah’s relationship to them as well. Paul is not the spiritual kin of the Jews, but rather is their kin in terms of “this world.” So, to, the Messiah is ‘from’ the Jews in the strictly human sense. There is an implicit contrast between shared physical kinship and spiritual disunity. Does Paul complete this thought by explicitly denoting a further aspect of the Messiah – that He is Deity? Or does he leave the contrast as implied, and offer a doxology to God the Father, praising Him for the fulfilled Messianic promise in Jesus? These questions have been much debated, with scholars, grammarians, and translators failing to reach complete consensus. The questions turn on punctuation. Does the phrase “who is over all, God blessed forever” go with the previous clause – in which case Paul calls Jesus “God;” or does it stand alone as its own sentence – a doxology to the Father? Since early manuscripts of the NT lack all but rudimentary punctuation marks, these questions can only be decided by secondary evidence and interpretation. Despite the varied opinions of scholars, there is substantial evidence that Paul is attributing “God” to the Messiah in this verse. This evidence is cumulative in nature. That is, I do not regard any one piece as being decisive, but when put together, the pieces strengthen one another and provide a strong inductive case for our conclusion. We may summarize this evidence as follows: 1. The phrase “the one who is over all” is most naturally taken as a relative clause modifying “the Messiah.” The Greek phrase ho n (“the one who is”) almost always modifies the preceding head noun, not one that follows. 2. As Douglas Moo points out, Paul’s doxologies are never independent, but always are closely linked with the preceding context (Moo , Romans, p. 567). This context stresses the tragedy of the Jews rejecting their Messiah by enumerating the blessings God has promised the Jews, and which they could claim, if they would but believe. Paul laments that the Jews have not received the fulfillment of God’s promises, the most profound of which is the coming of the Messiah. The true irony of the Jews’ rejection of Jesus is that not only is He “from” them according to the flesh, He is – in fact – God over all. Their rejection is thus the greatest of all tragedies – a rejection of God Himself. If Paul is here breaking off his lament to praise God for sending the Messiah, this would tend to undercut the person of Christ: “I grieve that you have rejected Christ, who is from you according to natural descent, but praise be God who is over all for sending Jesus anyway!” Indeed, Paul’s continued grief is presupposed at the start of the next verse: But it is not as though (ouch hoion de hoti). Supply estin after ouch: But it is not such as that, an old idiom, here alone in N.T. (RWP ). The transition between verses 5 and 6 is smoother if the doxology refers to Christ – as a statement of just how profound is the Jews’ rejection of Jesus. It is not impossible that Paul praises God in this moment – as the One who keeps His promises, even when His people reject Him. But if so, his doxology breaks not only Paul’s thought but his mood as well. 3. Doxologies to God in the Bible which contain the word “blessed” (Greek: eulogtos; Hebrew: brak) always place this word in the first position. As Bruce Metzger notes, it is “altogether incredible that Paul, whose ear must have been perfectly familiar with this constantly recurring formula of praise, should in the solitary instance have departed from established usage” (Metzger , Punctuation, p. 107). 4. The qualifying phase “according to the flesh” implies a contrast, and Paul usually supplies this contrast in the immediate context. It is true that this is not always the case; Paul implies but does not delineate the contrast in verse 3. Nevertheless, in most cases he does (e.g., Romans 1:3-4), and when we find a phrase that provides this contrast as we do here, it would seem probable that this is Paul’s intention. As Metzger notes: “If Christ did not have some other relation, or stand in some other position besides the one connected with the Jews, and different from it, there would seem to be no occasion for mentioning any such limitation. In other words, Paul’s language here, having called attention to the human ancestry of Christ as a Jew (‘according to the flesh’), naturally implies that he was more than a Jew” (Metzger, Punctuation , pp. 103-104). 5. While a slight majority of later Greek manuscripts favor a doxology to the Father, these are not conclusive. No Greek manuscript prior to the 5th Century has been found with a full stop after “flesh.” Other ancient translations, however, almost all take “God” as attributed to Christ, even those prior to the 5th Century.. 6. The majority of early Church Fathers understood Paul to be calling Christ “God” in this verse. Only two Greek fathers held the opposite view. Some have suggested that the later fathers of the church argued in favor of Christ being called “God” in response to Arius and his followers. While this is certainly true, as Moo rightly points out, the evidence is too early and too widespread to ignore (Moo , Romans, p. 566 n. 64). Further, at least one of the dissenting fathers apparently taught that the incarnation was nothing more than a supreme instance of inspiration and grace; if some of the fathers allowed their theology to guide their interpretation contra Arius, we must allow that this one may have done so for his own theological ends. The other wrote in the 9th century, far too late to be of much use in this discussion. The primary objection to seeing Paul as calling Christ “God” in this verse is based on Paul’s usage of “God” elsewhere. It is argued by some that because Paul does not use “God” of Jesus elsewhere, that he cannot be doing so here – particularly in what appears to be such a casual way. However, Paul almost certainly calls Jesus “God” in one other verse (Titus 2:13), attributes to Christ all the fullness Deity (Col 2:9 ), quotes OT passages referring to YHWH and directs them at Jesus (e.g., Isaiah 45:23; Philippians 2:10), and speaks of Christ in the highest possible terms (Col 2:3). For one as devoted to Christ as Paul was, it is not surprising that he attributes full divine status to the Messiah. And the casual manner in which he does so merely demonstrates that for Paul, such an attribution was not such a rare occurrence – either in his writing or his preaching. Thus, it seems on balance, the evidence favors the view that Paul is here attributing to Christ a title he normally reserves for the Father alone. The One rejected by the Jews is supreme over all as God blessed forever! To get rid of the bright testimony here borne to the supreme divinity of Christ, various expedients have been adopted: (1) To place a period, either after the words “concerning the flesh Christ came,” rendering the next clause as a doxology to the Father–“God who is over all be blessed for ever”; or after the word “all”–thus, “Christ came, who is over all: God be blessed.”, &c. [ERASMUS, LOCKE, FRITZSCHE, MEYER, JOWETT, &c.]. But it is fatal to this view, as even Socinus admits, that in other Scripture doxologies the word “Blessed” precedes the name of God on whom the blessing is invoked (thus: “Blessed be God,” Psa 78:35; “Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel,” Psa 72:18). Besides, any such doxology here would be “unmeaning and frigid in the extreme”; the sad subject on which he was entering suggesting anything but a doxology, even in connection with Christ’s Incarnation [ALFORD]. (2) To transpose the words rendered “who is”; in which case the rendering would be, “whose (that is, the fathers’) is Christ according to the flesh” [CRELLIUS, WHISTON, TAYLOR, WHITBY]. But this is a desperate expedient, in the face of all manuscript authority; as is also the conjecture of GROTIUS and others, that the word “God” should be omitted from the text. It remains then, that we have here no doxology at all, but a naked statement of fact, that while Christ is “of” the Israelitish nation “as concerning the flesh,” He is, in another respect, “God over all, blessed for ever.” (In 2 Cor 11:31 the very Greek phrase which is here rendered “who is,” is used in the same sense; and compare Rom 1:25 Greek). In this view of the passage, as a testimony to the supreme divinity of Christ, besides all the orthodox fathers, some of the ablest modern critics concur [BENGEL, THOLUCK, STUART, OLSHAUSEN, PHILIPPI, ALFORD, &c.] (JFB ).

G R A M M A T I C A L A N A L Y S I S hOI PATERES KAI EX hO CHRISTOS TO KATA SARKA hO EPI PANT THEOS EULOGOS EIS TOUS AIAS AM Whose [are] the fathers and from whom [is] the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all God blessed to the ages. Amen. KATA SARKA Insofar as the physical is concerned (BDF ). As far as physical descent is concerned (Moule , Idiom; c.f., BAGD 744a). Used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship, born of natural generation (Thayer ). As concerning the flesh (to kata sarka). Accusative of general reference, as to the according to the flesh. Paul limits the descent of Jesus from the Jews to his human side as he did in Rom 1:3. (RWP ).

O T H E R V I E W S C O N S I D E R E DJehovah’s Witnesses The New Word Translation renders the latter half of this verse: “from whom Christ sprang according to the flesh: God who is over all be blest forever. Amen.” (NWT, 1950). The Watchtower provides a brief defense of this translation in the Appendix of several editions of their Bible (e.g., 1950, 1984). Greg Stafford has written a more extensive defense (Stafford , pp. 143 – 152). Both will be examined, below. objection: The Watchtower cites several scholars who state that grammar alone cannot decide the most accurate rendering of this verse, It quotes AT Robertson at length: As is well known, the difficulty here is a matter of exegesis and the punctuation of the editor will be made according to his theology. But it may be said in brief that the natural way to take wn and qeos is in apposition to CristoV. – Grammar, page 1108. (NWT, 1950, Appendix – Romans 9:5). The Watchtower immediately follows this quote by saying: “We take this passage as a reference to God.” It states that the grammar “admits” this rendering, and cites several translations that agree with theirs, including Moffatt, the RSV, and the Riverside New Testament. Response: It must be frankly said that this is not so much a defense as it is an admission that the NWTTC rendered this verse on the basis of theology. While Robertson supports doing so to some degree, he also points out that the “natural” way to understand this verse is to link “who is God” with “the Christ.” Of the four other translations listed as agreeing with the NWT translation, one – the RSV – was revised in 1989 so that, in the main text, the doxology is now attributed to Christ (a footnote reflects the older rendering). Similar revisions occur in UBS3 (1975) and NA26 (1979). While exegesis must decide the proper punctuation of this verse, the Watchtower offers no exegetical reasons for its translation whatsoever. objection: Greg Stafford’s detailed defense of the NWT punctuation of Romans 9:5 is divided into five sections: “Evidence from early translations;” “Punctuation in early Greek manuscripts;” “The view of early church fathers;” “Grammatical analysis;” and “Contextual considerations.” These generally parallel corresponding sections in Bruce Metzger’s “The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5.” Mr. Stafford concludes the first section, “Evidence from early translations,” as follows: The above [summary of Metzger’s review of early translations] constitutes evidence in favor of the rendering found in the NIV and other, similar translations. But this early evidence is countered by other early evidence relating directly to the transmission of the Greek text itself” (Stafford , p. 144). Response: Mr. Stafford concedes that the evidence from early translations of the Greek text favor a rendering which ascribes the doxology to Christ. However, he says that this evidence is “countered” by other evidence from early Greek manuscripts. Thus, if the manuscript evidence can be shown to be questionable, then – according to Mr. Stafford’s own argument – it would no longer “counter” the evidence from early translations. Even if this is not the case, most of the early translations Metzger reviews are dependent upon Greek exemplars, and hence provide indirect evidence of early Greek manuscripts that support a doxology to Christ. Also in this regard, we should consider the patristic evidence from Greek-reading fathers; if they support Christ being called “God,” this would strengthen Metzger’s contention and weaken Mr. Stafford’s. objection: In the second section of his defense, “Punctuation in early Greek manuscripts,” Mr. Stafford offers evidence ‘countering’ that provided by early translations. Mr. Stafford notes the specific Greek punctuation marks that concern us: “A middle point is usually taken to indicate a pause such as we might indicate by use of a colon or comma, while a high point is generally used to indicate a full stop” (Stafford , p. 144 n39). He summarizes Metzger, indicating that some manuscripts – notably Codex A – have a middle point after “flesh,” while others “such as B, L, 0142, and 0151 have a high point after ‘flesh,’ also indicating a pause or break of some kind” (Ibid.). Mr. Stafford notes that Metzger identifies Codex B as a middle point, but argues that “it is quite possible” that B is actually a high point (Ibid, n39). Mr. Stafford agrees with Metzger that the use of punctuation in these manuscripts is “oddly placed,” but argues that Codex A is an exception, “and yet uses a mid- or highpoint and what appears to be a small space between sarka and the article ho” (Ibid, p. 145). Mr. Stafford concludes this section with another agreement with Metzger: Metzger is probably right in saying that “the most that can be inferred from the presence of a point in the middle position after sarka [sarka, ‘flesh’] in the majority of the uncial manuscripts is that scribes felt some kind of pause was appropriate at this juncture of the sentence” (Metzger, p. 99 in Stafford , p. 145). Response: Mr. Stafford’s burden, as he has set it forth, is to provide sufficient evidence from the punctuation of early Greek manuscripts to “counter” the significant evidence from early translations. We may first note that none of the Greek manuscripts is earlier than 4th Century; in fact some of the translations Metzger discusses are actually earlier than the Greek manuscripts Mr. Stafford cites: MS Date (AD) Punctuation Codex Vaticanus (B) 4th Century Mid-point (Stafford: High-point) Gothic 4th Century Comma Codex Alexandrinus (A) 5th Century Mid-point Peshitta (Syriac) 5th – 6th Comma Harklean (Syriac) 5th Comma Coptic (Beatty MS) 6th Comma Codex Regius (L) 8th Century High-point 0151 9th Century High-point 0142 10th Century High-point Armenian 12th Century Comma Ethiopic 14th Century Comma Figure 1 (Greek MSS in brown) Any information we may glean about the punctuation of Romans 9:5 from these manuscripts is secondary evidence, at best. With that caveat in mind, the evidence itself does not appear to be particularly decisive in Mr. Stafford’s favor. While Mr. Stafford notes that the high-point indicates a “full-stop,” he defines the mid-point as being equivalent to “a colon or a comma.” I take Mr. Stafford to mean that either a mid-point or a high-point supports the kind of “pause” indicated by the NWT’s colon after “flesh.” However, I don’t believe the mid-point can be so construed. It is true that Metzger refers to a “mid-point colon,” but the sources I’ve found that discuss the mid-point indicate that it is equivalent to our comma: Two kinds of stop may be seen in texts of the late ii. B.C. and of i. B.C.: one is placed high in the line [Greek Ano Stigme], the other in a middle position [Greek Mese Stigme]… Normally the high stop marks period end. The stop in the middle position serves as a subdivision inside the period, with the effect of a modern comma (Turner & Parsons , p. 9). The point at the top of the line () (stigmh teleia, ‘high point’) was a full stop; that on the line (.) (upostigmh) was equal to our semicolon, while a middle point (stigmh mesh) was equivalent to our comma. But gradually changes came over these stops till the top point was equal to our colon, the bottom point became a full stop, and the middle point vanished, and about the ninth century A.D. the comma (,) took its place (Robertson , Grammar, p. 242). Thus, the manuscripts that contain a mid-point cannot be considered evidence in favor of the NWT punctuation. It will be observed (see figure 1) that the manuscripts with the high-point date from the 8th Century or later, which can hardly be decisive in determining how Paul or his amanuensis would have punctuated this verse. With regard to Codex B and Mr. Stafford’s disagreement with Metzger, it is not at all clear to me that the placement of the point after sarka differs markedly from other mid-points in this manuscript, and if it were a highpoint as Mr. Stafford asserts, one would expect the spacing of the letters to reflect this, as it does following amn at the end of this verse (and in numerous other examples), which it does not. Though I have studied textual criticism at the graduate level, I am not an expert in Biblical texts. My opinion, therefore, is not to be valued above Mr. Stafford’s. But the same is not true of Dr. Metzger’s opinion. He is one of the most well-known and widely-respected scholars in the field of NT textual criticism. He has worked with primary texts throughout his long career, taught NT textual criticism at Princeton, served on the Editorial Committee of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (UBS GNT), and on the Translation Committee for the NRSV. On balance, it would seem Dr. Metzger is in a better position to correctly identify the point in question than is Mr. Stafford. Mr. Stafford’s agreement with Metzger’s conclusion that the presence of the mid-point indicates “some kind of pause” is not an argument in favor of taking “God” in reference to the Father. Metzger says the evidence is inconclusive. Therefore, it does not appear that Mr. Stafford has met his burden and demonstrated evidence that counters that of the early translations which attribute “God” to Christ. objection: The next ‘leg’ of Mr. Stafford’s argument is “The view of the early church Fathers.” Mr. Stafford first seeks to cast doubt on the earliest father who quotes Romans 9:5. Metzger cites Irenaeus’s 2nd Century Against Heresies (3.16.3) as very early evidence that “God” was taken as a reference to Christ. In response, Mr. Stafford quotes Abbot, who notes that Irenaeus “does not quote it to prove Christ is qeoV [theos, G-god]” (Abbot, quoted in Stafford , p. 145). Stafford also cites Abbot’s observation that Irenaeus’ text is preserved only in Old Latin, “which, of course, cannot determine the construction which Irenaeus put upon the Greek” (Ibid.). Finally, Mr. Stafford repeats Abbot’s argument that the title “the God over all” is elsewhere always used by Irenaeus of the Father, and if Irenaeus intended to call Christ by that title, “the question naturally arises, how the Father can be ‘the God over all,’ unless the term ‘God’ as applied to Christ is used in a lower sense” (Ibid., p. 146, n47). Mr. Stafford goes on to attempt to undermine the evidence of Hippolytus by pointing out that for Hippolytus, while “God over all” refers to Christ in this verse, elsewhere, Hippolytus makes it clear that the Father is the “Lord” of Christ, and thus the title “God over all” must be seen in a qualified sense. Mr. Stafford argues that even though Hippolytus refers to Christ in this verse “in a somewhat Trinitarian sense,” he does so because he interprets the relationship of God to Christ as “light from light, or water from fountain, or as a ray from the sun” (Against Noetus, 11). Such analogies, says Mr. Stafford, are not used in the Bible. Mr. Stafford notes that while almost all of the fathers cited by Metzger attribute “God” to Christ, there are two Greek fathers who do not: “Tarsus [sic] and Photius” (Stafford , p. 146). Mr. Stafford concludes this section with a long quote from Metzger, which culminates as follows: The prevailing patristic interpretation of the passage [which supports the attribution of “God” to Christ] is altogether counterbalanced by what we have seen came to be the prevailing scribal tradition of punctuation in the later manuscripts … each tradition neutralizing, so to speak, the force of the other (Metzger in Stafford , p. 147). Response: In his examination of Irenaeus, Mr. Stafford stands upon the broad shoulders of Ezra Abbot, the noted 19th Century Unitarian scholar. In most cases, this would be a sound strategy, but I do not believe that it is, this time. Abbot attempts to demonstrate that it is “doubtful” that Irenaeus attributed “God” to Christ in Romans 9:5 (Abbot, Romans 9:5 , p. 136), but his arguments are uncharacteristically strained and unconvincing. He points out that Irenaeus’ text is preserved only in Old Latin, and thus cannot prove how Irenaeus understood the Greek. But this is an ad hoc argument. Abbot has not demonstrated that the Old Latin is inaccurate at this point in the text, and Abbot himself accepts its accuracy in his subsequent arguments. Abbot says that Irenaeus is not using this verse to prove Jesus is God, but to demonstrate the unity of the Christ with the man, Jesus. This is beside the point. Irenaeus quotes the entire verse and attributes the latter half to Christ. Finally, Abbot argues that the title, “the God over all” is used throughout Against Heresies and very often elsewhere, as an exclusive designation of the Father. But Abbot is being arbitrary with the evidence. Abbot says that the “absolutely decisive” evidence that Paul did not call Jesus “God” is that he does not do so elsewhere (he rejects Titus 2:13). Thus, by Abbot’s own methodology, if a writer frequently calls Jesus “God,” there would be no “absolutely decisive” evidence against him doing so in Romans 9:5. Irenaeus, of course, regularly calls Jesus “God,” and even speaks of Him in terms equivalent to being such “over all” (e.g., Against Heresies, 2.13.8; 3.6.1, 3.8.3). There is every reason to accept the testimony of Irenaeus. This father of the early church, long before the Arian controversy, understood Romans 9:5 to call Christ “God over all.” Mr. Stafford’s comments about the third Century father, Hippolytus, are also largely derived from Ezra Abbot. Mr. Stafford and Abbot both note that Hippolytus’ first reference to Romans 9:5 in his work Against Noetus is in the context of answering the Noetians’ modalistic interpretation of this verse – that is, that “God over all” was attributed to Christ and hence made Him the Father. Both Abbot and Mr. Stafford, however, miss two important points: 1. The Noetians not only understood the latter half of Romans 9:5 as referring to Christ, they apparently were publicly promoting this interpretation in support of their theology. It would seem far easier for such a misinterpretation to grow if it were planted in the soil of widespread understanding that Romans 9:5 called Christ “God.” If the early church understood that this verse actually concluded with a doxology to the Father, Noetian eisegesis would certainly have been countered with arguments making this very point. But this is not what the record shows. 2. Hippolytus answers the Noetians by agreeing that this verse attributes “God over all” to Christ, but explains that this fact does not mean that Jesus is the Father. Again, if the general understanding of the church was that Romans 9:5 contained a doxology to the Father, this argument would have suited Hippolytus’ apologetic much better than the one he actually offers – and, indeed, such a view would have been more in accord with the theology of Christ’s subordination that Mr. Stafford claims Hippolytus believed and taught. On this last point, Mr. Stafford says that Hippolytus understood Paul to be calling Christ “God over all” in a “somewhat Trinitarian sense,” but Hippolytus understood “over all” to be qualified “in such a way that allowed the Father to be Lord over Christ” (Stafford , p. 146). One wonders which Trinitarian creed Mr. Stafford has in mind that denies the Father’s headship over Christ (1 Corinthians 11:3)? Hippolytus teaches that Christ is “God over all,” but is not the Father, and in fact is actually subordinate to the Father. This teaching is not Trinitarian “in a sense,” but Trinitarian in every sense. Mr. Stafford also says that the Bible does not use the same language Hippolytus does to describe the relationship of the Father to Christ. This is a red herring. Hippolytus’ explanation of how Christ can be “God over all” does not obviate the fact that he understands Romans 9:5 to attribute this phrase to Christ, not the Father. Hippolytus, writing in the third Century – well before the Arian controversy – answers a modalistic interpretation of Romans 9:5 in part by agreeing that this phrase describes the Son. This is very strong evidence that in the earliest records available to us, Romans 9:5 was consistently viewed as calling the Christ “God over all,” regardless of how individual writers may have understood that title. Mr. Stafford mentions that Metzger lists Tertullian and “several other early writers” who support the view that “God” in this verse refers to Christ. Abbot is more forceful in admitting that the Latin fathers almost to a man attribute “God” to Christ: “I know of no trace of the reference of the last part of the verse to God among the Latin writers, except what may be implied in the language of the Pseudo-Ambrosius” (Abbot, Romans 9:5 , p. 139). But Mr. Stafford notes that Metzger also lists two Greek fathers who refer to “God over all” as a doxology to the Father: “”Tarsus [sic] and Photius” (Stafford , p. 146). The first, Diodore of Tarsus (d. 390 AD), “emphasized the humanity of Christ tending to make the incarnation nothing more than a supreme instance of inspiration and grace” (The Ecole Glossary ). Abbot argues that we should disregard the testimony of the great majority of the fathers (who, of course, support the opposite view), because all it proves is that they interpreted an ambiguous grammatical construction to suit their theology (Abbot, Romans 9:5 , p. 133). But sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; the same may also be said of Diodore. In any event, Diodore’s view was certainly not pervasive in the fourth Century, as the evidence presented above demonstrates. Indeed, not even his own star students, John Chrysostom and Theodoret, followed their teacher in his view of Romans 9:5. The second Greek father mentioned by Metzger, Photius (d. 897 AD), really is far too late a witness to have much, if any, bearing on the correct punctuation of this verse. Mr. Stafford, by way of his concluding quotation of Metzger, suggests that the patristic evidence is completely balanced by the textual evidence of later Greek manuscripts. However, while I have great respect for Dr. Metzger, I think he is giving ground far too easily, here. First, as Metzger notes, there is no evidence of any punctuation (mid- or high-point) after sarka in Greek manuscripts prior to the fourth Century. The fourth Century Vaticanus and fifth Century Alexandrinus contain mid-points, which are not conclusive evidence of a full stop. They may, in fact, indicate that a comma was intended – as reflected in early translations of the same period. The testimonies of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Novatian all date from the same period, and cannot be ignored simply on the basis of anti-Arian bias (given that all predate Arius and the controversy that bears his name). While some scholars have overstated the importance of the patristic evidence, others such as Moo (quoted above), Sanday and Headlam (Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of the Romans, p. 234), Cranfield (Romans, 469-70), and Faccio (De divinitate Christi justa S. Paulum, Rom 9, 5) present a balanced view in which the patristic evidence is placed in its proper perspective. Dwight presents the case cogently: The value of patristic interpretation may be questioned, indeed, and in the case of some of the fathers it is possible that reasons may be suggested which influenced their minds, apart from the mere language which is used by the Apostle. But whatever may be said in this way, and however we may estimate these writers, their substantial or complete unanimity is a circumstance which should not be disregarded (Dwight , p. 42). On balance, it is fair to say that as early as the 2nd Century, Christians were quoting Romans 9:5 in such a way that Christ was called “God,” and placing those quotes in settings rich with other acclamations of Christ’s Deity. This fact is hardly matched by ambiguous evidence of haphazard punctuation marks from later Greek manuscripts. objection: In his “Grammatical Analysis” section, Mr. Stafford argues that taking “God who is over all” in reference to Christ must be understood as “an appositive for ‘Christ according to the flesh,’ which would then create a conflict with Trinitarian thinking in terms of a deification of Christ’s human nature” (Stafford , p. 147). He notes that Murray J. Harris and others “attempt to find an antithesis in this verse between Christ’s human and divine natures” (Ibid., p. 148). Stafford argues that there is no antithesis to “according to the flesh,” but that Paul uses it in the same way he does in verse 3. Mr. Stafford accuses Harris of redefining theos as “a category of being” which is not articulated in the Bible, and thus importing a post-Biblical theology into the text. Mr. Stafford repeats a common objection to “blessed forever” being attributed to Christ on the basis that eulogtos is never used of Christ in the Greek New Testament. He points to the overwhelming number of times Paul uses theos of the Father. Mr. Stafford interacts with the arguments raised by Harris and others regarding the placement of eulogtos, and notes what he sees as a double-standard in their methodologies, when they argue on the basis of regular usage of eulogtos but disregard Paul’s regular usage of theos. Mr. Stafford accuses Harris of not “fully appreciating” Abbot’s point about the position of eulogtos in Romans 9:5: “Paul wishes to stress … the overruling providence of God as ‘the Ruler over All'” (Abbot in Stafford , p. 150). Mr. Stafford concludes this section of his defense of the NWT rendering as follows: “The grammatical arguments given in support of the translation which makes theos predicate for Christ are relevant, but they are certainly not incontrovertible” (Ibid., p. 151). Response: Mr. Stafford’s asserts that if “God who is over all” refers to Christ, it is appositional to “Christ according to the flesh,” which results in deifying Christ’s humanity. This assertion does not rest on any solid grammatical ground. Apposition merely requires that two substantives in close proximity refer to the same person or thing (Wallace , p. 48). An appositive need not modify intervening relative clauses (e.g., 2 Corinthians 11:31). As for Mr. Stafford’s contention that “according to the flesh” need not imply an antithesis, most scholars – even those advocating Romans 9:5b as a doxology to the Father – disagree. Abbot, for example, says, “the phrase kata sarka undoubtedly implies an antithesis” (Abbot, Romans 9:5 , p. 101). The question turns not on whether an antithesis is implied, but whether it must be explicitly stated. Most scholars agree that it need not be explicitly stated, as verse 3 indicates. Nevertheless, in many cases, the antithesis expressly follows (e.g., Romans 1:3-4) and since “God who is over all, etc.” provides such an antithesis, the burden of proof lies with Mr. Stafford and those who agree with him that such is not the case here. In response to Mr. Stafford’s assertion that Harris redefines theos as an unbiblical “category of being,” I would point out that the Bible does, on several occasions, use theos in this very sense and uses other words that mean the same thing. First, many experts in Greek grammar have noted that anarthrous nouns in general often signify the qualities, essence, or nature of the noun. If this principle is true of other nouns, we may wonder why it cannot be true of theos? Second, in Galatians 4:8, Paul speaks in negative terms of those who are “not gods by nature” (m phusis ousin theois). Paul’s statement presupposes that there is at least One who is “God by nature,” and thus the concept of Deity (“that which makes God, God”) is a Biblical concept. This concept is echoed in Acts 17:29 (where theios means “divine nature”), Col 2:9 (where theotes signifies “Deity”), and 2 Peter 1:4 (theios, again, signifying “the divine nature”). We may debate what each specific reference to “divine nature / Deity” may mean in its context, but it cannot be denied that the idea that God has a unique nature which sets Him apart from all creation is a Biblical teaching. The question is, then, is theos ever used to signify the essence, nature, or qualities of “God?” The Watchtower itself argues that theos in John 1:1c is used in this manner: “Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous construction point to a quality about someone” (NWT 1950, p. 774). Mr. Stafford agrees that this semantic sense is present in theos in this same verse: The inspired apostle shows that the Word has the same kind of nature and qualities that “the God” (not simply the “person”) he existed with has (Stafford , p. 349). The Watchtower and Mr. Stafford, of course, do not regard the qualitative aspect as the only semantic force present in theos in John 1:1c,10 but they acknowledge its existence, and therefore concede that theos is used in the Bible to signify the nature of God. Mr. Stafford’s objection that eulogtos (“blessed”) is nowhere used of Christ in the NT is certainly true, but we must place it in perspective. Apart from this verse, there are only seven other instances of its use (four others by Paul). This would seem an insufficient sample from which to draw firm conclusions. It is used both of men and God in the LXX, as is it’s close cousin, euloge, which is used of Christ six times in the NT. There is thus scarce evidence that Paul would have refrained from using eulogtos of Christ on this occasion. The argument Mr. Stafford raises about Paul’s “regular” use of theos is, I believe, the most reasonable objection to “God” being attributed to Christ in this verse. It is an argument raised by virtually every proponent of the ‘doxology to the Father’ view, though some treat it as proving their view, which it cannot do.11 In response, most scholars who advocate the view argued here have answered in two general ways: 1. Paul calls Jesus theos in Titus 2:13. 2. Paul refers to Jesus in the highest possible terms elsewhere, effectively calling Him “God” by using other terms. Therefore, it is not surprising to find Him called “God” here. While I agree with both points, and have utilized them in the Commentary (above), I believe there is another pertinent point to raise. Paul uses theos about 490 times in his writings. If he has called Jesus “God” here and in Titus 2:13, that represents about .4%. The NT as a whole contains “God” about 1315 times, and most Trinitarians would – at most – accept seven verses as calling Jesus “God.” This is a ratio of .5%. If Paul is here referring “God” to Jesus, he is not doing so outside the ‘norm’ of the NT. John, who attributes theos to Jesus more than any other writer, only does so three times out of just over 200 uses – about 1%. We are dealing with a sample of data in which there is very rare use of theos in reference to Jesus (though, of course, the data also show that Jesus is exalted to the highest degree using other terms). It therefore cannot be special pleading to say that Paul is doing so, here. If it is not special pleading to claim that Paul could have called Jesus “God” in this verse, the question then turns on whether one believes that Paul knew and approved of Thomas’ confession, as recorded in John 20:28 (that is, that other Apostles were comfortable with this affirmation, albeit on rare occasions); On whether Paul ascribes Deity to Jesus in Col 2:9 ; On whether he exalts Jesus with the name of YHWH and says of Him that every knee will bow in worship (the clear sense of in the OT setting) in Phillipians 2:10 (c.f., Isaiah 45:23). If Paul can say of Christ that He is the Lord of Glory; the Lord from Heaven; the Lord of the living and dead; that in Him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; and that He is raised above all principalities and powers and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world and the next; If Paul can say all this, he can surely call Christ “God above all” and not exceed the bounds of reason or usage. Mr. Stafford’s objection that Metzger and Harris are applying a double-standard with regard to the placement of eulogtos (in comparison to Paul’s usage of theos) is ultimately a tu quoque (“you too”) argument. Even if Paul is using theos counter to his normal usage, this does not relieve Mr. Stafford (and other scholars who argue as he does) from accounting for the unprecedented placement of eulogtos in this verse. Mr. Stafford undertakes this burden by, once again, relying heavily on Ezra Abbot. Mr. Stafford cites Psalm 67:19 as an example of eulogtos occurring after theos, but most scholars – including Abbot – recognize that because of its chiastic structure, this verse is not a valid counterexample (see Note , below). Abbot’s argument about the placement of eulogtos, which Mr. Stafford says that Harris is not fully appreciating, is essentially that Greek syntax is flexible enough to allow Paul to place eulogtos after theos, in order to emphasize God’s role in sending the Messiah. It is difficult to understand how Harris could fail to appreciate Abbot’s argument when he spends almost a page dealing with it (Harris , pp. 162-163). Harris’ response – which I believe Mr. Stafford ‘fails to appreciate’ (or at least interact with) – is two-pronged: 1. A doxology is a fixed formulaic phrase, not merely single word like theos. When a phrase has been fixed, particularly one of such devotional meaning, it is proper to take the established norm into account when determining the meaning of an isolated variation.12 2. “It is hard to imagine that nowhere else in the Greek Bible does the subject in a doxology bear an emphasis comparable to that in Romans 9:5 so that the customary word order is reversed” (Harris , p. 163).13 This final point seems to me to be decisive. If Abbot and Mr. Stafford contend that the word order of a fixed doxology can be varied to place emphasis in certain contexts, they must do so in the absence of any evidence supporting them. Mr. Stafford concludes that while the grammatical arguments in favor of “God” being ascribed to Christ are “relevant,” they are not “incontrovertible.” The same can certainly be said of the arguments attributing the doxology to the Father. I would suggest, based on the evidence presented here, the probabilities strongly favor the former view. objection: In his concluding section, “Contextual considerations,” Mr. Stafford notes that Metzger and Harris have both argued that the preceding context of Romans 9:5 supports the view that “God over all” is attributed to Christ, while there appears to be no real support for a doxology to the Father. Mr. Stafford replies that both Metzger and Harris have “failed to appreciate” how Paul’s preceding sadness turns to joy in Romans 9:5 and “is expressed in praise to God for sending Christ ‘according to the flesh'” (Stafford, p. 152). Mr. Stafford complains that both Metzger and Harris fail to interact with Abbot’s detailed argument in support of this view. Finally, Mr. Stafford concludes with a quote from Dwight who, while arguing in favor of “God over all” being ascribed to Christ, nevertheless acknowledges that a doxology to the Father would not be wholly out of place in this context. Response: In arguing for Paul’s sorrow turning to joy, Mr. Stafford says that Paul breaks out in praise to the Father for sending Christ “according to the flesh.” But we have noted earlier that Mr. Stafford has “failed to appreciate” the implied contrast in this phrase that every scholar Mr. Stafford mentions (and many that he has not) – including his exemplar, Ezra Abbot – recognize as being there. Paul is not here speaking about Christ “coming as a man,” but rather of his descent from the Patriarchs. In the catalog of blessings the Father has bestowed upon His people, the Messiah is the greatest, and last. Paul feels such kinship for his ‘brother’ Jews, and so longs for their salvation, that he wishes himself “accursed” and “separated from Christ” if by such a profound sacrifice the Jews could be saved. This is no garden-variety sorrow; indeed, such a willingness to consign oneself to eternal separation from Christ is found nowhere else in Scripture. It speaks both of Paul’s great love for his people, and his even greater love for Christ, that he would so example Christ’s sacrificial love towards those who – in many cases – beat and stoned him, and wished him dead. While I don’t regard it impossible that Paul breaks out of his grief to praise God (not for sending Messiah “in the flesh,” but for being a faithful God who keeps His promises, despite the unfaithfulness of a stubborn people), nevertheless such a mood-swing seems most unlikely. The next verse begins with “But it is not as though the word of God has failed.” The presupposition here is that the reader may be thinking that the word of God had failed, because of the Jews rejection of Jesus. But this does not fit if Paul has just broken his mood and praised God for sending the Messiah. Had Paul just concluded a doxology to the Father, one would expect Paul to begin the next verse with “Because” or “For” (Greek gar). We would expect him to continue with the thought that God keeps his promises (by sending Messiah) and because of this, His word has not failed, for others have come to saving faith outside of Israel. On the other hand, if Paul has just proven how very grave the Jews rejection of Jesus was, because not only have they rejected the promised Messiah, but also God Himself, then it makes perfect sense that Paul would begin his next sentence as he does: “But not that…” (Greek: ouch hoion de…). Whether Metzger or Harris should have interacted more with Abbot’s arguments depends largely on how compelling one finds Abbot’s arguments. Metzger apparently gave them little weight as Mr. Stafford is correct – he does not specifically interact with his arguments. But the same cannot be said of Harris. Metzger and Harris actually spend a great deal of time developing their contextual arguments (Metzger, Punctuation , pp. 103 – 112; Harris , pp. 154 – 165). Both offer detailed exegesis, substantial support for their views from relevant literature, and respond to the major objections. In the case of Harris, these include Abbot’s (e.g., Harris , p. 158, 162, 163, 165). Mr. Stafford’s concluding quote from Dwight establishes the point that he did not regard a doxology to the Father being impossible in this context. Such is my view as well. However, immediately after Mr. Stafford’s quote, Dwight goes on to say: But, while we admit this, we must observe that the progress of the author’s thought is towards the sixth verse and what follows it, and that the balance of probability cannot be determined without considering the five verses in connection with the sixth and the rest of the chapter. As we look at the matter from this point of view, we find that the thought moves on in an easy and natural way, if we make the reference of these words, which are under discussion, to be Christ (Dwight , p. 41). And this, too, echoes my thoughts. We have here a verse with an ambiguous construction in the Greek. Neither view is impossible from the standpoint of grammar alone – but one is more likely when all other considerations are taken into account. I believe that view is clearly the one I have advocated. However, ultimately, it is God who reveals the truth of who His Son is, not carefully crafted arguments and endless scholarly quotations. If you are inclined to Mr. Stafford’s view, but find the arguments here presented troubling, perhaps God is working in your heart, even now, as you read these words. I invite you to pray that God will show you who His Son truly is, and to seek Him in the pages of God’s Holy Word. In conclusion, I will follow Mr. Stafford and quote the words of Timothy Dwight: It is not vital to the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ to find the declaration that he is God in this verse. The Apostle Paul may have believed that his Lord and Savior was Divine, and may teach this in his Epistles; and yet may have chosen to limit himself in the use of the name God, so far as to apply it to the Father only…. If, however, this verse does contain the apostolic testimony that Christ is God, it is a direct affirmation of what the opposite doctrine would deny, and excludes that doctrine altogether (Dwight , pp. 53-54). Soli Deo Gloria Robert Hommel Woodland Hills, 2003 Notes ___________________________________ 1. Of the 13 examples of ho n in the GNT and LXX, only two (John 3:31; 8:47) begin a new phrase. In each case, John has constructed his sentences in such a way that it is impossible to construe ho n as modifying a preceding head noun. It has been argued that when ho n is used to introduce a relative clause, the noun it modifies immediately precedes. In Romans 9:5, of course, the phrase to kata sarka is between the head noun Christos and ho n. However, in two cases (John 6:46; 2 Corinthians 11:31), this ‘rule’ does not pertain. While this is an admittedly small sample of data, and it is impossible to draw absolute conclusions, we may nevertheless say that the Biblical authors were aware that ho n could be construed as a qualifying phrase, or introducing a phrase in apposition to a preceding head noun, and so appear to have taken care when using it to start a new sentence that it could not be so understood. 2. The lone exception is Psalm 67:19. But as Dwight argues at length, this verse is really not a proper parallel to Romans 9:5 in that it differs from ordinary doxologies by doubling eulogtos (Dwight , pp 32-33). Ezra Abbot, one of the most articulate proponents of “God over all” being a doxology to the Father, agrees: “I do not urge it as a parallel to Rom. ix. 5” (Abbot, Romans 9:5 , p. 107). 3. Ambrosias actually seems quite clear that he understands “God” to be attributed to Christ: “As there is no mention of the Father’s name in this verse and Paul is talking about Christ, it cannot be disputed that he is called God here…If someone does not think that it is said about Christ that he is God, then let him name the person about whom he thinks it is said, for there is no mention of God the Father in this verse (Commentary on Paul’s Epistles, in ACC: Romans , p. 247). 4. Abbot says Chrysostom and Theodoret are to be distinguished from the other fathers, “for sobriety and good sense in interpretation” (Abbot, Romans 9:5 , p. 140). Nevertheless, he notes that they both, “adopted that excessively unnatural if not impossible construction of 2 Cor iv. 4” (Ibid.). But Abbot has made a hasty generalization. Simply because they may have adopted an allegedly “impossible” construction of one verse does not prove that they have done so in Romans 9:5. 5. Metzger himself characterizes the punctuation in early Greek manuscripts as “quite erratic” and provides a number of examples from the very manuscripts under consideration (Metzger, Punctuation , p. 99). Abbot puts it succinctly: “The truth is, that this whole matter of punctuation in the ancient MSS. is of exceedingly small importance” (Abbot, Romans 9:5 , p. 152). 6. Mr. Stafford’s assertion that kata sarka does not imply an antithesis in Romans 9:3 overlooks the fact that out of almost 130 uses of “brother” (adelphos) in Paul’s writings, in every case except Romans 9:3, it means either a spiritual brother (i.e., a fellow Christian) or a literal brother (“James, the brother of the Lord”). But Paul does not consider the Jews his spiritual brothers; rather he qualifies the term to mean: “kinsmen according to the flesh.” Thus, the implied antithesis is between Paul’s “brothers” in the Lord and Paul’s “brothers” as Jews. This contrast is so apparent that it is a virtual commonplace among commentators and other scholars writing about this verse (e.g., Gill (Commentary), Robertson (Word Pictures ), Barnes (Notes), Moo (Romans ), Godet (Romans), Moule (Romans), Hodge (Romans), Stauffer (TDNT 3:105), Phillipi (Romans), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary , and Harris (Jesus , p. 156). In verse 5, Paul is not speaking about physical versus spiritual brotherhood, but physical versus spiritual descent (ex n). 7. E.g., Dana-Mantey (p. 149); BDF (252); Moulton, (vol. III, p. 184); Porter (p. 105); Robertson (p. 794 [j]); Wallace (p. 244); Young (pp. 68 – 69); Zerwick , (171, 176) 8. One answer to this question often offered by Jehovah’s Witness apologists, including Mr. Stafford himself (Stafford , p. 339), is that theos is a count noun and count nouns (because “countable”) can only be definite or indefinite – not qualitative. The definition of a “count noun” preferred by these apologists is a contextual one – that is, if a noun is “countable” in a given context, it is a count noun. If it is not countable, it is a mass noun. Based on this definition, it is begging the question to suggest that theos in Romans 9:5 cannot be a qualitative noun because it is a count noun. The Witnesses must first establish that theos is a count noun in this context. If theos is here an appositional predication of Deity to Christ, it is not countable. Thus, any arguments based on a contextual definition of mass/count terms are of little value in determining the semantic force of theos in a specific context. 9. See also Deuteronmy 32: 17 – 21, in which YHWH calls the “demons” (LXX: daimoniois) “not-God” (JPS). The meaning here is not merely that the demons were not YHWH (the person), but that they were not theos – not God by nature. 10. It is not my intention to here engage Mr. Stafford’s argument on this point in detail, but I will say that the idea that a word may contain more than one semantic force (i.e., “meaning”) in a given context (unless the author intends ambiguity) is a lexical principle that requires proof beyond assertion. It seems counter to the way lexical semantics actually works (that is, that we use words to mean only one of their possible denotations in any given context), and is actually an example of what D.A. Carson has called the exegetical fallacy of “unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic field” (Fallacies , p. 60-61). After noting that a word outside of a context actually “does not have a meaning” but rather various potential meanings, Louw says: “When used in a context, the situation and the syntactic environment contribute to the choice between the several possibilities of meaning. The word has a specific meaning in that context” (Louw, Semantics , p. 40). Cotterell and Turner concur: “The context of the utterance usually singles out (and perhaps modulates) the one sense, which is intended, from amongst the various senses which the word is potentially capable” (Cotterell , p. 175, emphasis in original). Silva quotes Vendryes: “Among the divers meanings a word possesses, the only one that will emerge into consciousness is the one determined by context (Vendryes, in Silva , p. 139) and says this principle is “one of the few universally accepted hermeneutical guidelines” (Ibid., p. 138). 11. Arguments based on statistics can only prove probabilities, not actualities. They do not allow for exceptional cases. For example, the fact that no other human beings have raised themselves from the dead does not disprove that Jesus did so. 12. Harris quotes Phillipi as follows: “In the interpretation of a formula that has become fixed, empiricism is altogether in its right place, and still more where, for the established usage, a sufficient ratio can be alleged” (Phillipi in Harris , p. 162). 13. Harris’ footnote to this point is as follows: “Dwight (Romans , p. 36-37) cites several LXX passages where an inversion might be expected on this principle, but is not found (e.g., eulogtos in 1 Sam. 25:33 and 2 Macc. 15:34)” (Ibid., p. 163 n61).

Fuente: The Apologists Bible Commentary

Rom 9:5. Whose are the fathers. Persons are now introduced: the whole line of patriarchs and prophets were types of Christ, who is next named, as the crowning glory and privilege of Pauls nation.

Of whom is Christ according to the flesh. The original is peculiar, suggesting a limitation, or, antithesis: as far as concerns the flesh, i.e., His human nature, as in chap. Rom 1:3.

Who is over all, etc. The natural connection of this clause is with what precedes, especially since the last expression used suggests an antithesis. Accordingly, this has usually been referred to Christ, as defining what He is, other than according to the flesh. As, however, our earliest manuscripts are without punctuation, some editors and commentators, prominent among whom are Tischendorf (8th ed.) and Meyer, separate this from what precedes, taking it as a doxology. This would require one of the following translations: He who is over all, God, be (or, is) blessed for ever, adopted by Reiche, Van Hengel, and others, or He who is God over all (be) blessed forever, adopted by Meyer and others. (Another view sets a period after over all, including in the doxology only the words, God be blessed for ever.) Any one of these explanations is possible, and would be preferable to the usual one, if it were proven that the word God, standing without the article, as here, is never applied to Christ in the New Testament. But Meyer not only admits that john thus applies it, but that Paul also might have done so, by virtue of his essential agreement in substance with the Christology of John (Meyer, Romans, ii. 118). The objection he raises is that Paul has never done so. After renewed investigation of the subject we feel constrained to say that this is the only objection that is even plausible, and that it is clearly outweighed by the many considerations to be presented in favor of the usual punctuation. (1) We say usual punctuation, for in all the authorities which can give evidence on a matter of punctuation (manuscripts, versions, and fathers), the unanimity is very remarkable. All the early writers accepted this view of the meaning, with the single exception of Theodore of Mopsuestia. (2.) Moreover, the doxology would be unmeaning and frigid in the extreme. It is not the habit of the Apostle to break out into irrelevant ascriptions or praise; and certainly there is here nothing in the immediate context requiring one (Alford). (3.) Furthermore, in all such doxologies, as the other view would make of this, the word Blessed stands first. (4.) The words who is would be unnecessary if this were a doxology. (5.) As regards the objection drawn from Pauls usage, we may not only cite such passages as Col 1:15, etc., but argue that for this Apostle not to have added something in regard to the Divine nature of Christ would be far more unlike him than for him to have once expressed himself in terms which agree, not only with the expressions of John, but also with his own statements. It should be added, that even if the clause be taken as a doxology, the Divinity of Christ is not thereby proven unscriptural; while on the other hand, if the usual view be correct, there is no room for a denial of that doctrine. Paul could not have been ignorant of the great question of the Master, which soon became the question of the Church, What think ye of Christ? whose Son is he? (Mat 22:42.) Is it likely that he could so express himself as to mislead the vast majority of Christians on that point? It therefore does not seem to us at all doubtful, that Paul here indicates, as the crown of all the prerogatives accorded to Israel, that of having produced for the world the Christ, who now, exalted above all things, is God blessed for ever (Godet).

As regards details: over all seems to refer to all things, not to the exclusion of persons (comp. Eph 1:21-23, and similar passages). Who is points to the present exalted condition of the Incarnate Lord.

God. The words over all should not be joined with this, as is done by many of those who could find here a doxology to God the Father Almighty. Such an idea would have been expressed in another form from that here used.

Blessed for ever. 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, chap. Rom 1:25, and 2Co 11:31 : whereas he uses the phrase Blessed be God as an ascription of praise without joining for ever (Alford).

Amen. This conclusion is appropriate in either view of the passage. For if this is indeed the only place where Paul directly calls Christ God, the mention of this coming privilege of Israel might well be regarded as an act of worship, to which he devoutly adds: Amen.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Rom 9:5. Whose, &c. To the preceding the apostle now adds two more prerogatives: theirs are the fathers They are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the ancient patriarchs, and other holy men, who were great in the sight of God, and to whom he made many great and precious promises, in which their children also and childrens children were interested. And of whom Of which Israelites; as concerning the flesh That is, in respect of his human nature; Christ The expected Messiah; came. This plainly supposes another nature in Christ, according to which he came not from the Israelites. And this can be none other but the divine nature; which, in the sequel of the verse, is expressly attributed to him. The apostle reserves the mention of Christs descent from the Jews for the last of their prerogatives, as being the greatest of them all: who is over all, God, &c. The apostle gives this, so highly honourable a testimony to Christ, because he was so vilified by the Jews; thus making up that great breach, so to speak, which they had made on his name and honour by their unbelief, and wicked rejection of him. He is said to be over all, 1st, Because, as he was God-Man and Mediator, all power was given unto him in heaven and on earth, Mat 28:18; all things delivered into his hands, and put under his feet, Joh 3:35; 1Co 15:27; the Father giving him a name above every name, Php 2:9; and constituting him his great plenipotentiary, to transact all things relating to the whole creation, especially angels and men; to settle the affairs of heaven and earth for eternity. And more especially, 2d, Because as God, possessed of true, essential deity, he was in union with his Father and the Holy Spirit, supreme over all, and consequently blessed for ever Which words he adds to show, that a far different measure from that which the Jews had hitherto measured out unto Christ, was due to him from them, as from all other men. No words can more clearly express his divine, supreme majesty, and his gracious sovereignty over both Jews and Gentiles. The apostle closes all with the word, amen An expression commonly used for a serious confirmation of what is said immediately before, together with an approbation of it; sometimes also importing a desire for the performance thereof. Some would persuade us that the true reading of this clause is, , whose is the God over all; because by this reading, they say, the climax is completed; and the privilege in which the Jews gloried above all others, (namely, that of having the true God for their God,) is not omitted. But as this reading, says Macknight, is found in no copy whatever, it ought not to be admitted on conjecture. Thus also Doddridge: How ingenious soever that conjecture may be thought, by which some would read this, whose is the God over all, to answer to, whose are the fathers, I think it would be extremely dangerous to follow this reading, unsupported as it is by any critical authority of manuscripts or ancient quotations. Nor can I find any authority for rendering , God be blessed for ever. I must, therefore, consider this memorable text as a proof of Christs proper deity, which, I think, the opposers of that doctrine have never been able, nor will ever be able to answer. Though common sense must teach, what Christians have always believed, that it is not with respect to the Father, but to the created world that this august title is given to him: that is, that he is said to be God over all.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

whose are the fathers [At Hebrews 11 we have the list of the chief of these fathers. They were Israel’s pride and inspiration. “The heroes of a people,” says Godet, “are regarded as its most precious treasure.” The three pre-eminent “fathers” were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob– Exo 3:6; Exo 3:13; Exo 3:15; Exo 4:5; Mat 22:32; Act 3:13; Act 7:32], and of whom [i. e., of or descended from the fathers] is Christ as concerning the flesh [Paul’s enumeration of Israel’s endowments ends in this as the climax of all their glories when coupled with the statement as to the divine nature of this Christ. But to this climax Israel failed to attain. They accepted neither the humanity nor divinity of Christ, hence Paul’s grief], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. [These words have quite a history. None of the so-called Ante-Nicene Fathers (theologians who wrote prior to A. D. 325) ever thought of contorting them from their plain reference to Christ. Even among later writers, but two–Diodorus of Tarsus (bishop in A. D. 378; died in 394) and Theodore of Mopseustia (A. D. 350-429)–ever questioned their reference to Christ. Then came Erasmus (A. D. 1465-1536). This fertile genius seems to have exerted all his ingenuity on this passage, for, by changing the punctuation, he made it read four different ways, two of which have attracted some notice. The first of these reads thus: “Of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all. Blessed be God for ever. Amen.” This effort to cut off the last clause and make a benediction of it is open to several objections; we note two. 1. It is too abrupt. 2. It is not grammatical if taken as a benediction, for to be in correct form eulogetos (“blessed”) should precede Theos (“God”), but, instead, it follows it, as in narrative form (Rom 1:25; 2Co 11:31), which it is. The second reading makes the whole passage a benediction, thus: “Of whom is Christ concerning the flesh. Blessed for ever be God, who is over all. Amen.” To this reading it may be properly objected: 1. That a benediction is contrary to the apostle’s mood and thought. He is mourning over the rejection of Israel. Though he does recount the endowments of Israel, why should he burst forth in ecstatic benediction when all these endowments only brought the heavier condemnation because of Israel’s unbelief? 2. Why should he leave his analysis of Christ unfinished (compare the finished, similar analysis at Rom 1:3-4) to wind up in a benediction, when he might have finished his analysis and thereby laid, in a finished climax, a better basis for a benediction? 3. Again, the eulogetos still follows the Theos, when it should precede it to form a benediction, as it does above twenty times in Scripture (Luk 1:68; 2Co 1:3; Eph 1:3; 1Pe 1:3; etc.). 4. The ho oon, “who is,” stands naturally as in apposition to the preceding subject, ho Christos, “the Christ,” and if by any unusual construction it has been meant to be taken in apposition to Theos, “God,” it is hardly conceivable that we should have had the participle oon, “is” (literally “being”), which under such a construction is superfluous and awkward. This untenable reading would soon have been forgotten, but, unfortunately, Meyer has given respectability to it by a long argument in its favor; in which he insists that the reading, “Christ. . . who is over all, God blessed for ever,” is contrary to the invariable teaching of Paul, who always recognizes the subordination of the Son to the Father and who does this by never calling the Son “God”; always reserving that title for the Father. It is true that Paul recognizes this subordination, and generally does it in the way indicated, but he does it as to Christ the unit; i. e., Christ the united compound of God and man. But Paul is here resolving that compound into its two elements; viz., Christ, man-descended after the flesh; and Christ, God after the Spirit. Now, when thus resolved into his elements, the divine in Christ is not described as subordinate to the Father, nor is the full measure of deity withheld from him. On the contrary, John and Paul (whom Meyer conceives of as disagreeing as to the Christ’s subordination) agree perfectly in this, only Paul is even clearer and more explicit in his statement. John begins with our Lord before his divinity became compounded with humanity, and calls him the Word. “In the beginning,” says he, “was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Joh 1:1). Surely there is no subordination indicated by John in treating of the separate divine nature of our Lord. Then he tells of the compounding of that divine nature with the human nature. “And the Word,” says he, “became flesh, and dwelt among us” (Joh 1:14). Here, then, is that compounding of divinity and humanity which we call Jesus, and this Jesus is, according to John, subordinate to the Father. On this important point John lets the God-man speak for himself. “The Father,” says Jesus, “is greater than I” (Joh 14:28). Now let us compare this teaching with the doctrine of Paul. “Have this mind in you,” says he, “which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God” (that is, when he was what John calls the Word; when he was not as yet compounded with humanity), “counted not the being on an equality with God” (here Paul is more explicit than John in asserting our Lord’s unsubordinate condition before he became incarnate) “a thing to be grasped, but he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men” (equivalent to John’s “the Word became flesh,” after which follows the statement of subordination; viz.); “and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross,” etc. (Phi 2:5-11). To one, therefore, who carefully compares these passages, it is apparent that according to apostolic doctrine Jesus, the unit, is subordinate to the Father, but when Jesus is separated by analysis into his component parts, his divine nature is God, and equal with God (Col 2:9). At Rom 1:3-4 this divine nature is called “Son of God”; here it is called “God over all, blessed for ever.” So Meyer’s contention against the reading of the text is not well taken. The natural reading refers the words to Christ, and there is good Scriptural reason why this should be done, for all things here said of Christ rest on Scriptural authority; for (1) he is called God (Isa 9:6; Joh 1:1; Phi 2:5-11; Joh 20:28; Tit 1:3; Tit 2:13; Tit 3:4; Tit 3:6; Col 2:9 . Comp. 1Ti 2:5 with Act 20:28; and the “my church” of Mat 16:18). (2) The term eulogetos may be fittingly applied to him, for it is even applied to mere men by the LXX. (Deu 7:14; Rth 2:20; 1Sa 15:13), and is no stronger than the term “glory” (2Pe 3:18; Heb 13:21; 2Ti 4:18). (3) Christ himself claims to be “over all” (Joh 3:31; Mat 28:18), and it is abundantly asserted that such is the case (Phi 2:6-11; Eph 1:20-23; Rom 10:12; Act 10:36). So complete is his dominion that Paul deems it needful to expressly state that the Father is not made subordinate (1Co 15:25-28). The whole passage, as Gifford well says, constitutes “a noble protest against the indignity cast upon him (Christ) by the unbelief of the Jews.”]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Verse 5

The fathers; the patriarchs.–As concerning the flesh; in respect to human parentage.–God blessed forever. It is unusual for the sacred writers to identify the Redeemer in so direct and unqualified a manner with the supreme Divinity; because they generally speak of him in his mediatorial capacity, in which he occupies a position subordinate to the Father. (See particularly 1 Corinthians 15:24-28.) This case is, however, not solitary, as will appear by referring to Philippians 2:6; Titus 1:3,2:13. Various attempts have been made to detach the last part of the verse from what precedes, so as to give the doxology an independent interpretation. But the construction of the passage in the original resists these attempts; and they are admitted by those who make them not to be satisfactory.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

9:5 Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], {2} who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

(2) Or, “who is God over all, blessed for ever.” A most manifest testimony of the Godhead and divinity of Christ.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The patriarchs were the fathers to whom God gave the promises before Israel was a nation. In this respect they correspond to the apostles in the church.

"The meaning and extent of these promises are the linchpin in Paul’s interpretation of salvation history; see Rom 9:6-13; Rom 11:15; and especially Rom 11:28, which forms with this verse an ’inclusio’ surrounding Paul’s discussion in these chapters." [Note: Moo, pp. 564-65.]

The Messiah came from Israel, though He was not exclusively theirs since He is the sovereign eternally blessed God (Joh 1:1). Here Paul called Jesus "God" (cf. Php 2:10-11; Tit 2:13; 2Pe 1:2). [Note: See Bruce, p. 176; and Robertson, 4:381.]

Paul did not explicitly compare Israel’s blessings and ours, which comparisons I have pointed out above. His point was simply that God had blessed Israel greatly. Obviously even though God had blessed the Israelites greatly their blessings did not exceed those of Christians today. The writer of the Book of Hebrews argued that God’s blessings of Christians under the New Covenant surpass His blessings of Israelites under the Old (Mosaic) Covenant.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)