commentaries that discuss Romans 9:5

Steven Avery

Administrator
Christ's Divinity in Romans 9:5
by Jeremy Pierce on November 27, 2004
https://web.archive.org/web/2017111...pos.com/archives/2004/11/christs_divinit.html

Scholars concluding that Rom 9:5 does not ascribe deity to Christ (not that Paul doesn't but that this verse doesn't):

Meyer (1872), Abbott (1881), Burkitt (1903-1904), Lietzmann (1933), Gaugler (1952), Luz (1968), Reicke (197?), Kuss (1976), Schweizer (1976?), Robinson (1979), Kaesemann (1980), Wilckens (1980), Zeller (1985), Luebinkg (1986), Dunn (1988), Schmithals (1988), Ziesler (1989), Stuhlmacher (1994), Byrne (1996)

Scholars concluding that Rom 9:5 does intend to call Christ God:

Calvin (1540), Haldane (1958), Stuart (1862), Dwight (1881), Hodge (1886), Liddon (1893), Shedd (1879), Gifford (1886), Moule (1887), Sanday and Headlam (1902), Denney (1904), Zahn (1910), Sickenberger (1923), Dodd? (1932), Lenski (1936), Nygren (1944), Lagrange (1950), Huby (1957), Leenhardt (1957), Schlatter (1959), Schmidt (1963), Fahy (1965), Murray (1965), Michel (1966), Best (1967), Schlier (1977), Althaus (1978), Cranfield (1979), Metzger (1980), De Villiers (1981), Bruce (1985), Morris (1988), Harris (1992), Fitzmyer (1993), Stott (1994), Mounce (1995), Moo (1996), Schreiner (1998)

C.K. Barrett (1957, rev.1991) can't decide which he thinks is more likely.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Jesus as God
Murray Harris
https://books.google.com/books?id=U9VLAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA144

Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/08/jesus-as-god-by-murray-j-harris.html
by Murray J. Harris (pages 143-172) On page 172 Harris states,

"Of the fifty-six principle commentators consulted, thirteen favored a reference to God the Father and thirty-six a reference to Christ, while seven were reluctant to express a clear preference for either interpretation. The dominant view, found in commentators of widely divergent theological persuations, may now claim the support of the textual editors of NA26 and USB3 and the translators of the NRSV in their significant reversals of previous positions."
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Romans (1998)
Thomas R. Schreiner
https://books.google.com/books?id=Vsc9rz5pdY8C&pg=PA487

1640159821731.png

1640159777347.png
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Chapter II – A Comparison of Translation of Problem Passages in Romans
https://speakingwellofgod.org/written-materials/grahams-dissertation-chapters/chapter-ii

Graham's Dissertation
https://speakingwell.wpengine.com/written-materials/grahams-dissertation-chapters

https://speakingwell.wpengine.com/chapter-1-introduction
https://speakingwell.wpengine.com/chapters/chapter-ii
https://speakingwell.wpengine.com/chapter-iii-summary

Romans 9:5 . —
There appear to be at least four main interpretations of this passage: (1) to place a comma after __ and refer the whole passage to Christ as an assertion of his deity (the traditional view); (2) to place a comma after __ and a period after __ the passage then meaning that Christ is over all, but not necessarily __; (3) to place a period after __ and translate, “He who is God over all be blessed for ever” (or, “is blessed”); (4) to use the same punctuation and trans-late, “He who is over all is God blessed for ever.”

The interpretation of this passage has been debated at great length through the centuries, perhaps more than that of any other verse in the New Testament. The discussions reached, a climax after the appearance of the English Revised New Testament in 1881, considerable space being devoted to the problem in the religious journals of the day.

In the Journal of Biblical Literature of 1881 and 1883, Ezra Abbott surveys the history of the interpretation of Rom. 9:5 up to his time, listing many scholars on either side of the question. He expresses himself as strongly opposed to the traditional interpretation but concedes that the verse “grammatically admits of being punctuated and construed in at least seven different ways.”1

Some scholars, however, will not admit that there is any such ambiguity in the passage, but insist that the traditional view is the only one permissible. Robertson regards the verse as “a clear statement of the deity of Christ.” Riddle claims that “on no exegetical point, where there is room for discussion, has the unanimity of commentators, of all ages and confessions, been so entire, as in referring this to Christ.” A few have charged that only theological bias could lead one to decide otherwise. Boylan maintains that “this passage is a clear and definite assertion of the divinity of Christ, and, for that reason, has been variously twisted by modern critics.” Gifford shared a similar opinion fifty years before: “When we review the history of the interpretation, it cannot but be regarded as a remarkable fact that every objection urged against the ancient interpretation rests ultimately on dogmatic presuppositions.”

1Ezra Abbott, (sic) “Recent Discussions of Rom. 9:5 ,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. III (June and Dec, 1883), pp. 90-112. See also, by the same author, “On the Construction of Romans 9:5 ,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. I (June and Dec, 1881), pp. 87-154.


– 178 –


Referring to the detailed analysis of the verse presented by Gifford in the Speaker’s Commentary, Canon Cook expressed this conclusion in 1882: “I should scarcely have thought it credible, in face of the unanswered and unanswerable arguments there urged, that English divines would venture to have given their sanction to one of the most pernicious and indefensible innovations of rationalistic criticism.”1


On the contrary, however, such scholars as Tischendorf, Meyer, Vincent, Denney, Jülicher, Burkitt,2 Bosworth, Parry, Dodd, Kirk, and Barrett have expressed their preference for interpreting the latter half of the verse as a doxology or benediction to God the Father, rather than as a statement of the divinity of Christ. Lietzmann also interprets as a doxology to the Father, not for linguistic or theological reasons, but in view of the fact that parallel doxologies in the New Testament seem to preclude the reference of this doxology to Christ. J. Knox agrees that Lietzmann’s argument “seems rather conclusive.” Theissen, however, claims that the “main weakness” of this interpretation is its “artificiality which betrays itself in the far-fetched arguments necessary to make it appear plausible.”


Many scholars have spoken of the difficulty of making any decision at all. Sanday and Headlam are somewhat inclined to refer the passage to Christ but admit that “throughout there has been no argument which we have felt to be quite conclusive.” Kirk favors the interpretation as a doxology to the Father, but adds that “it is difficult” to


1F. C. Cook, The Revised Version of the First Three Gospels (London: John Murray, 1882), footnote, p. 167.


2F. C. Burkitt, “On Romans 9:5 and Mark 14:61 ,” The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. V (1904), pp. 451-455.


– 179 –


choose “between the “four main possible renderings.” Garvie advises that the verse is “too ambiguous” to use dogmatically. In the midst of the heated controversy in 1881, Timothy Dwight pointed out in the Journal of Biblical Literature that, although he preferred to take the passage as a statement of the divinity of Christ, “the question ceases to be one of certainties, and becomes one of probabilities.”1 He commends the English Revised Version translators for offering alternatives in the margin.


J. H. Moulton, in his Prolegomena, observes that “it is exegesis rather than grammar which makes the reference to Christ probable.”


The versions have translated as follows:

Wycliffe (1382), “of whom Christ aftir the fleisch, that is God above all thingis, blessid in to worldis” (Vulgate: “ex quibus Christus secundum camera, qui est super omnia Deus benedictur in saecula.” Wordsworth and White have a colon before “qui.”);


Tyndale (1525), “they of whome (as concernynge the flesshe) Christ cam: which is God over all thynges blessed for ever” (Luther, 1524: “aus welchen Christus herkompt nach dem fleische, der da ist gott über alles gebenedeyet in ewigkeit.” The last three words are changed in Luther’s 1534 edition to “gelobt inn ewigkeit.”);


Coverdale (1535), “off whom (after the flesh) commeth Christ, which is God over all, blessed for ever”;


Rogers (1537), same as Tyndale;


Taverner (1539), “of whome (as concernynge the flesshe) Chryste came, whiche is God over all, blessed for ever”;


Great (1539), “they of whom (as concernynge the flesshe) Christ came, whych is God in all thynges to be praysed for ever”;


Geneva (1560), “of whome concerning the flesh Christ came, who is God over all blessed for ever” (margin: “Christ is verie God.”);


Bishops’ (1568), “of whom as concernyng the flesche, Christe (came,) which is God, in all thynges to be praysed for ever”;


1Timothy Dwight, “On Romans 9:5 ,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. I (June and Dec, 1881), pp. 22-55.


– 180 –


Rheims (1582), “of whom Christ is according to the flesh, who is above al things God blessed for ever”;


King James (1611), “of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever”;


English Revised (1881), “of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever” (margin: “Some modern interpreters place a full stop after flesh, and translate, He who is God over all be (is) blessed for ever: or, He who is over all is_ God, blessed for ever. Others punctuate, flesh, who is over all. God be (is) blessed for ever.”);


Twentieth Century (1900), “and so far as his earthly parentage was concerned, from their nation came the Christ–he who is supreme over all things, God for ever blessed”;


American Standard (1901), same as English Revised (margin: “Or flesh; he who is over all, God, be blessed for ever.” );


Weymouth (1903), “from them in respect of His human lineage came the Christ, who is exalted above all, God blessed throughout the ages” (margin: “or ‘the Christ. He who is God over all be blessed for ever.'”);


Moffatt (1913), “theirs too (so far as natural descent goes) is the Christ. (Blessed for evermore be the God who is over all!)”;


Westminster (1920), “from whom was Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever” (the marginal note explaining that this is a reference to God in the flesh, “the sense urgently demanded by the context, and confirmed by considerations of grammar, as by the voice of tradition”);


Goodspeed (1923), “from them physically Christ came–God who is over all be blessed forever!”;


Ballantine (1923), “from whom by physical descent the Christ came. God who is over all be blessed through the ages!”;


Montgomery (1924), “and of them, as concerning the flesh, is Christ, who is over all, God, blessed forever”;


Williams (1937), “and from them by natural descent the Christ has come who is exalted over all, God blessed forever”;


Spencer (1937), “from whom, as regards the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed for all eternity”;


Confraternity (1941), “from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is, over all things, God blessed forever”;


– 181 –


Basic English (1941), “and of whom came Christ in the flesh, who is over all, God, to whom be blessing for ever”;


Knox (1944), “theirs is the human stock from which Christ came; Christ who rules as God over all things, blessed for ever”;


Verkuyl (1945), “and from them in human lineage sprang Christ, He who is God over all, blessed forever”;


Revised Standard (1946), “of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed forever” (margin: “Or Christ, who is God over all blessed forever.”);


Phillips (1947), “so too, as far as human descent goes, is Christ Himself, Christ, blessed be God for ever”;


Lilly (1956), “and from them has been derived the human nature of Christ, who exalted above all beings, is God blessed forever.”


The translations seem to come under the four classifications as follows:

1. Literal, obscure, and ambiguous: None.

2. Literal, but equivalent to an interpretation: None. A literal translation of the Greek or Latin with the traditional punctuation would result in an interpretation, but in view of the antiquity of the controversy over this verse it is more likely that even the older English translators were not unaware of the choice they were making. According to Sanday and Headlam, Erasmus had already expressed his doubts in the matter and suggested three alternative interpretations.

3. Interpretative, with at least one alternative: English Revised, American Standard, Weymouth, and Revised Standard.

4. Interpretative, with no alternative: Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Rogers, Taverner, Great, Geneva, Bishops’, Rheims, King James, Twentieth Century, Moffatt, Westminster, Goodspeed, Ballantine, Montgomery, Williams, Spencer, Confraternity, Basic English, Knox, Verkuyl, Phillips, Schonfield, and Lilly.


– 182 –


The passage is interpreted as a doxology to the Father by the English Revised (margin), American Standard (margin), Weymouth (margin), Moffatt, Goodspeed, Ballantine, Revised Standard, and Schonfield. All the remaining versions interpret as a statement of the deity of Christ.

========================================


CHAPTER III

it does not seem necessary that the translator’s personal theological convictions should influence the decision. For example, in the translation of so controversial an ambiguous passage as Rom. 9:5 , it should be possible for a translator who personally believes in the deity of Christ nevertheless to interpret the verse as a doxology to the Father, on the basis of his considered opinion that it was not Paul’s custom specifically to designate Christ as “God.” Similarly, in the interpretation of Rom. 8 :l6 and 26, it should be possible for a translator who himself may not believe in the personality of the Holy Spirit nevertheless to interpret __ as “the Spirit Himself,” on the basis of his understanding that Paul taught the personality of the Holy Spirit.

For example, Rom. 9:5 is interpreted as a declaration of the deity of Christ by all but five of the versions included in this study. Only Moffatt, Goodspeed, Ballantine, the Revised Standard, and Schonfield interpret as a doxology to the Father. It has been charged that such departure

It should be noted in the first place that in translating Rom. 9:5 as a doxology to the Father, the five versions have the support of such scholars as Tischendorf, Meyer, Vincent, Denney, Julicher, Burkitt, Bosworth, Parry, Lietzmann, Dodd, Kirk, Knox, and Barrett. These scholars attempt to justify their preference on other grounds than mere dogmatic prejudice. For example, Lietzmann explains that his decision to interpret the passage as a doxology to the Father is not for theological nor even for linguistic reasons but in view of the fact that parallel doxologies in the New Testament seem to preclude the reference of this doxology to Christ. Knox agrees that Lietzmann’s argument “seems rather conclusive.”


It should also be noted that some scholars regard the passage as linguistically of such ambiguity as to allow for no definite decision at all. Sanday and Headlam express preference for the traditional interpretation but admit that “throughout there has been no argument which we have felt to be quite conclusive.” Likewise Kirk, who favors the interpretation as a doxology to the Father, admits that it is difficult to choose between the “four main possible renderings.” Garvie advises that the verse is “too ambiguous” to use dogmatically.


During the heated controversy around 1881 concerning the translation of Rom. 9:5 in the English Revised Version, Ezra Abbott declared himself strongly opposed to the traditional interpretation but conceded that the passage “grammatically admits of being punctuated and construed


1See the discussion of Rom. 9:5 in chap, ii, pp. 176-179.


in at least 7 different ways.”1Timothy Dwight supported the traditional interpretation hut likewise admitted that “the question ceases to be one of certainties, and becomes one of probabilities.”2


Moulton, in his Prolegomena, observes that the interpretation of this verse is a matter of exegesis rather than grammar.


It is evident, therefore, that in the interpretation of Rom. 9:5 a particular translator’s decision–if he is able to arrive at any conclusion at all—might be based primarily upon linguistic considerations. Or his choice might be made more upon exegetical grounds, comparing this with other related passages in Paul and the New Testament. It Is even conceivable that in some cases personal dogmatic bias may have its influence, though it seems scarcely possible that a responsible scholar would consciously permit himself this indulgence–at the risk of his scholarly reputation.

(and a bit more)
 
Last edited:
Top