"...Christ, who is God over all, forever praised. Amen." New International Version
Now compare:
"God who is over all be forever praised." NIV footnote
"...God, who is over all, [be] blessed forever. Amen." NWT
"May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen" New English Bible
"God, who is over all be blessed for ever." Revised Standard Version
"Blessed for evermore be the God who is over all!" Moffatt
"May God, who rules over all, be praised forever!" Good News Bible/TEV
"God who is over all be blessed forever." Smith&Goodspeed's An American Translation
"May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen" Revised English Bible
"I pray that God, who rules over all, will be praised forever!" Contemporary English Version
"He who is over all, God, blessed unto the ages." Rotherham's Emphasized Bible
"God is over everyone, Praise Him forever." Simple English Bible
"God be blessed who is above all things forever." Unvarnished NT/Andy Gaus
"God who is over all be blessed forever." New American Bible*
"God is over everyone, Praise Him forever." International English Bible
"May God, who reigns over all, be blessed through the ages." Pre-Nicene New Testament
"God be exalted throughout the Eons." Eonian Life Bible New Testament
"May God who is over all, be blessed forever." Wilton Translation New Testament
"Does Paul speak of Jesus as 'God/god'? The debate here revolves round one text in particular - Rom. 9.5...the juxtaposition of 'the Messiah' and 'he who is over all, God' would most obviously suggest different referents, rather than the same person in different status...to infer that Paul intended Rom. 9.5 as a benediction to Christ as 'God' would imply that he had abandoned the reserve which is such a mark of his talk of the exalted Christ elsewhere. And this would be no insignificant matter. For it would not allow any of the qualification outlined above in terms of God sharing his sovereignty with the exalted Christ. For 'he who is over all, God' can hardly be other than the one God, the Creator, elsewhere described by Paul (in his benedictions!) as 'the God and Father of'our Lord Jesus Christ.'" The Theology of Paul the Apostle by James D. G. Dunn
"Paul’s clear statements elsewhere, such as 1 Corinthians 8.6 and Ephesians 4.5-6, on the same subject should indicate his intent in Romans 9.5b. Plus, his constant practices of affirming strict monotheism, distinguishing Christ and God, subordinating Christ to God, and identifying only the Father as God indicate he could not have intended to call Christ “God” in Romans 9.5b." Kermit Zarley
"Rom. 9.5 is disputed. After Paul has expounded the position of Israel in salvation history and has
emphasized as an especial advantage the fact that Christ according to the flesh, stems from this people, he adds a relative clause, which runs lit. “who is over all God blessed for ever. Amen.” Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur anywhere else in Paul. The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God, stemming from Jewish tradition and adopted by Paul. Overwhelmed by God’s dealings with Israel, Paul concludes with an ascription of praise to God. The translation would then read, 'The one who is God over all be blessed for ever. Amen.” or alternatively, “God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.'" J. Schneider, “God” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 2, ed. Colin Brown, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 80.
"In facing the question of the relationship of Christ to Yahweh we must not outrun the evidence and read into Paul's language the Fourth Century definition of Christ as God the Son, co-equal and co-eternal, of one substance with the Father. Paul's language is one of the factors leading to that definition, and also part of the problem it attempted to solve, but it would be anachronistic to interpret his language in such later terms. Perhaps he preferred 'Lord' as a title because of its ambiguity, because it established Christ's relation to humanity, church, and cosmos, without too closely defining his relation to Yahweh. As a Jewish monotheist Paul would wish neither to be accused of believing in two Gods, nor that Yahweh died on the cross. The only place in the undisputed letters where he may equate Christ with God is Rom.9:5 if a full stop is not placed after 'Christ', so that it reads '...of their race...is the Christ who is God over all...' More probably it should read '....of their race...is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed....'" John Ziesler: Pauline Christianity(Revised edition 1990, Oxford University Press 'Oxford Bible Series' Page 44)
"The description, God over all, cannot be understood of our Lord Jesus Christ without violence to the analogy of St Paul's doctrine, and inconsistence with his habitual use of language. ["Had St Paul ever spoken of Christ as God, he would many times have spoken of Him as such, not once only, and that by accident."—Professor Jowett's Commentary.] In Romans iii. 29, 30, he reminds us, the One God is God of both Jews and Gentiles, and so implies His highest dominion over all men; and, in xi. 3G, he asserts the exclusive supremacy of God the Father, by declaring, of (from) Him., and through Him, and to Him, are all things. Elsewhere, he calls God the only God, and the Blessed and Only Potentate. (Romans xvi. 27; 1 Timothy i. 17; vi. 15.) He tells us 'That there is to us (Christians) but One God, the Father, of (from) Whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him' (1 Cor. viii. 4-6); and again, that there is One God and Father of all, Who is over all, &c.; and yet again, that God is the Head of Christ (Eph. iv. 6 ; 1 Cor. xi. 3). A number of other passages might be cited, showing the subordination of Christ, and the consequent improbability that St Paul would term Him God over all; and almost every page of the Apostle's writings might be appealed to for proof that, in his view, God and Christ were distinct individuals, possessing different natures, and not Forms in One and the same Supreme, Self-existent Essence; and, although the term QEOS (God), may, without the article, mean less than absolute Deity, yet it is not, in the diction of St Paul, once given simply, and without qualification, to Christ."
An Examination of Canon Liddon's Bampton Lectures on the Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ By Charles Voysey 1871
Frederick W. Danker in Concordia Theological Monthly Vol. XXXII, No. 6, June 1961, pp. 337, reviewing the New English Bible, under a subheading "Syntax" says;
"Does [ho on] in Romans 9:5 go with [theos], which follows, or with [ho Christos], which precedes? To charge either RSV or NEB with wilful refusal to support the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ because they interpret the latter half of the verse as an independent doxology would be indicative not only of uncharitable judgement but also of profound ignorance of the entire subject of Pauline theology...."
.................................
*"Some editors punctuate this verse differently and prefer the translation, 'Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is god over all.' However, Paul's point is that God who is over all aimed to use Israel, which had been entrusted with every privilege, in outreach to the entire world through the Messiah." Romans 9:5 footnote, New American Bible w/Revised New Testament and Revised Psalms
No comments:
Post a Comment