Professional Documents
Culture Documents
"God Over All" in Romans 9:5: Translation Issues and Theological Import
"God Over All" in Romans 9:5: Translation Issues and Theological Import
"God Over All" in Romans 9:5: Translation Issues and Theological Import
of God, who shares this nature fully and equally with the other two
"persons."
In this light, the question, "Does the New Testament call Jesus
God?" takes on a new significance. When properly appreciated, the
answer to this question should move Trinitarians to reevaluate the
basis for their views, and to take note of significant facts relative to
the translation of texts such as Romans 9:5, which have previously
been brushed aside or commented upon lightly, especially when it
comes to the meaning of theos. There is no questioning the fact that
the logos, the prehuman Jesus Christ, is called theos (Joh 1:1, 18).
But is he also called the God who is over all, or some similar
variation of the description given in Romans 9:5? To this question we
now turn, after which we will revisit the theological implications of
such a translation.
II. Translation Analysis
According to the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
(hereafter, NWT), the final part of this verse (referring to "God, who
is over all") is separated from the preceding reference to "the Christ."
In Appendix 6D of the 1984 NWT Reference Bible, several other
translations, including the Revised Standard Version, the New English
Bible, Todays English Version, the New American Bible, and James
Moffatts translation of the Bible, are cited as agreeing with NWTs
reading. We might also list Goodspeeds translation, and others, in
this category.
There are, however, other translations that identify Christ as the "God
who is over all" in this verse, including the New International Version,
the New American Standard Bible, the New Revised Standard
Version, the Modern Language Bible, and C. B. Williams translation of
the New Testament. But given the difference of opinion expressed by
these respected translations, it is, quite frankly, astounding to find
certain advocates of the Trinity doctrine making dogmatic claims
about this verse, some of which will be considered below. What is
fascinating about such claims, other than their unfounded
dogmatism, is that those who make them are apparently unaware
that their claims regarding the translation of Romans 9:5 directly
contradict the Trinitarian concept of God. This, too, will be explained
below. But first we will explore issues that have a direct relationship
to the translation of our subject text.
III. Evidence from Early Translations
According to Bruce Metzger,[4] the Old Latin, containing no
punctuation other than two suspended points surrounding "amen," is
indeterminate. The same is true of the Amiatinus codex, though
Metzger believes the rhythm of the text as it stands in the edition by
Wordsworth and White makes the second stichos easier, in his mind,
to take in reference to the Christus ("Christ") of the first stichos,
rather than as an independent sentence. Metzger also presents
translations from the Peshitta, Harclean Syriac, the Sahidic and
Bohairic Coptic versions, the Gothic, the Armenian and the Ethiopic
versions that apply the term "God" to "Christ" in Romans 9:5.
The above 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 the transmission
"God over all," for the Father has delivered all things to him (compare
Mt 11:27).[15] He also refers to 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 and John
20:17 to show that while Christ is indeed "Lord of all," the Father "is
Lord of him." Thus, the grammar of the passage is such that the
Noetians felt justified in seeing a reference to Christ as the Father in
Romans 9:5. Hippolytus viewed the entire text as a reference to
Christ as "God over all," in a somewhat Trinitarian sense, but he still
qualified the use of "over all" in such a way that allowed the Father to
be Lord over Christ.
Hippolytus applies the term "God" to Christ in Romans 9:5 in such a
way that it is redefined to be consistent with Hippolytus analogy of
"light from light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the
sun."[16] The Bible does not use the term God in this way, nor does
it make use of such analogies when it comes to the issue of the Logos
as theos, in relation to God the Father.
As noted above, Metzger also refers to Tertullian and other early
writers and documents as evidence that theos in Romans 9:5 was
understood as a reference to Christ. Metzger does, however, refer to
at least two Greek Fathers who applied the last part of Romans 9:5 to
the Father, namely, Tarsus and Photius.[17] Abbot has much to say
about the use of Romans 9:5 among early writers, and we will here
defer to his discussion for further consideration of this issue.[18]
Metzgers concluding remarks concerning the evidence from early
writers are worth repeating here:
"In assessing the weight of the patristic evidence one must put it
within its proper perspective. On the one hand, certainly the Greek
Fathers must be supposed to have possessed a unique sensitivity to
understand the nuances of a passage written in their own language.
On the other hand, however, in the present case the probability must
be allowed that dogmatic interests may have swayed (and in many
instances undoubtedly did sway) their interpretation. It is therefore
prudent to refrain from assigning much weight to the overwhelming
consensus of patristic interpretation of the meaning of the passage in
question. In fact, the prevailing patristic interpretation of the passage
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."[19]
VI. Grammatical Analysis
Since the meaning of this verse in our modern translations hinges on
how we punctuate the text, are there any grammatical clues that
might help us decide which choice of punctuation is best? The two
key options revolve around the question of whether we have in
Romans 9:5 a concluding doxology (ascription of praise and glory) to
Jesus' God and Father (compare Ro 15:5-6) for sending His Son, the
Messiah, "according to the flesh," or if theos ("G-god") is a
description of Christ.
The first of the two options mentioned above does not see "God who
is over all" in apposition (referring back to and further defining)
"Christ." Rather, it takes "God who is over all" as the subject of a
doxology that concludes with "be praised/blessed forever." The
second option would take "God who is over all" as an appositive for
"Christ according to the flesh," which would then create a conflict
with Trinitarian thinking in terms of a deification of Christs human
and to explain how they are using the term, namely, for a "person" of
God (meaning a "person" of the triune God) or as a reference to the
Trinity, then right away it should be clear that post-biblical thoughts
and expressions are being introduced into the discussion. This is
precisely what is done each time Romans 9:5 is cited in support of
the Trinity doctrine.
IX. Conclusion
The New World Translation is not alone in translating Romans 9:5 as
an expression of praise and thanks to God the Father. Evidence from
early translations comes out on the side of those modern translations
which have Christ identified as "God over all" in Romans 9:5. This
evidence includes the Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian and Ethiopic
versions; the Old Latin and Amiatinus codex are ambiguous.
Some early Greek manuscripts, including A, B, C, L, and others,
contain punctuation or spacing that supports the translation which
does not call Christ "God over all" in Romans 9:5. The evidence from
the early Church Fathers is mixed, with the application of Romans 9:5
to Christ becoming more and more evident from the fourth century
onward. Considering that the grammar of the text itself admits of
either reading, it is not surprising to find one translation preferred by
those in one doctrinal camp, and another adopted by those in the
opposing camp.
The grammar of Romans 9:5 will admit of either a rendering that
predicates theos of Christ, or one that recognizes a doxology to the
God and Father of Jesus Christ. In view of Pauls use of theos
throughout this letter to the Romans and in the rest of his writings,
as well as his consistent use of eulogetos for occasions of praise to
God in distinction to Christ, it is best to accept the translation which
renders this passage as a doxology to God the Father. The
grammatical arguments given in support of the translation which
makes theos predicate for Christ are relevant, but they are certainly
not incontrovertible.
The Trinitarian argument that "there is only one God, and that the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each identified as God,"
involves an equivocation on the word "God." In the first instance it
means "the Trinity," and in the second it means "person of God."
These meanings are usually hidden behind the one term itself, as this
one term ("God") has the advantage of sounding biblical. But the
concepts tied to its use, by Trinitarians, have nothing to do with the
biblical use of "God," and are the product of post-biblical traditions,
developed hundreds of years after the Bible canon closed.
When texts like Romans 9:5 are used by Trinitarians in an attempt to
prove their view of God, the question of translation is appropriate,
but more significant is the question of how the terms involved in the
argument are used. In the case of Romans 9:5, the non-Trinitarian is
better off starting with the meaning of the terms used, for in so doing
it is likely to prevent any lengthy discussion about the translation of
the text itself, at least when it comes to the question of whether or
not Romans 9:5 supports the doctrine of the Trinity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------