"God Over All" in Romans 9:5: Translation Issues and Theological Import
(July 4, 2000 Edition)
by
Greg Stafford
Copyright © 2000 by Greg Stafford
CONTENTS
I. Introduction
II. Translation Analysis
III. Evidence from Early Translations
IV. Punctuation in Early Greek Manuscripts
V. Romans 9:5 in the Early Church Fathers
VI. Grammatical Analysis
VII. Contextual Considerations
VIII. Theological Import
IX. Conclusion
I. Introduction
In their attempts to answer the question, "Is Jesus called God in the New
Testament"? scholars have had to consider the translation and meaning of several
disputed passages, one of which is Romans 9:5. The conclusions advanced in
relation to this text’s potential application of theos to Jesus Christ, range
from "certain"[1] to "obscure"[2] to claims
that Christ "is not addressed as God in [Romans 9:5]."[3]
The goal of this article is not so much to swing the pendulum to one particular
side of the argument, but to ‘level the playing field,’ so to speak. That is to
say, even though there are a wide range of opinions concerning the translation
of Romans 9:5, too often the arguments put forth by Trinitarian writers give an
incomplete view of the issues, and of the arguments by non-Trinitarian scholars
and writers. While I am by no means suggesting that such omissions are
necessarily deliberate, they exist nonetheless.
Therefore, it is believed by this writer that a reappraisal of several issues
involved in the discussion of how to translate Romans 9:5 will be useful to both
those who accept Romans 9:5 as an affirmation of Christ’s deity and to those who
do not. Perhaps it will even move some who are not so sure about the translation
of this text to commit to one view or the other. Whatever impact the following
discussion might have on the translation of Romans 9:5, it is hoped that in
future discussions about the New Testament application of theos to Jesus,
greater attention will be given to the potentially damaging affect such an
application really has on the Trinitarian concept of God.
When properly understood, the predication of theos to Jesus can easily be shown
to contradict the assertion that there is only one God, and that that one God is
a triune deity. Such a view of God, whether understood/accepted or not, in
effect identifies Jesus (or any one of the three “persons” of the Trinity), as
the triune God Himself, unless the term theos is selectively redefined as a term
referring to a "person" (which term is also given a technical, non-biblical
meaning) 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, Today’s English Version, the New American Bible,
and James Moffatt’s translation of the Bible, are cited as agreeing with NWT’s
reading. We might also list Goodspeed’s 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 of the Greek text itself.
IV. Punctuation in Early Greek Manuscripts
Some ancient Greek manuscripts shed light on how this passage was understood by
some scribes. Some manuscripts, including Codex A, have a middle point after
"flesh," creating a pause or break between the reference to "Christ" and the
reference to "God." Other manuscripts, such as B, L, 0142 and 0151 have a high
point after "flesh," also indicating a pause or break of some kind.[5]
Metzger also notes that the scribe of C left a noticeable space between "flesh"
and what follows.[6]
In view of the use of punctuation in some of these manuscripts in other places
where there is not a clear break in the sentence, it is uncertain just how we
should view the point after "flesh" in Romans 9:5. However, while some of the
punctuation marks to which Metzger makes reference are indeed oddly placed, in
the context of Codex A the punctuation marks do not appear to be used in as many
unusual places, and yet A uses a mid- or highpoint and what appears to be a
small space between sarka and the article ho.[7] Metzger is
probably right in saying that "the most that can be inferred from the presence
of a point in the middle position after savrka [sarka, ‘flesh’] in a majority of
the uncial manuscripts is that scribes felt that some kind of pause was
appropriate at this juncture in the sentence.[8] This same
conclusion was reached by Ezra Abbot nearly a hundred years earlier.[9]
V. Romans 9:5 in the Early Church Fathers
Metzger refers to several early Christian writers who apply the words of Romans
9:5 entirely to the Christ. For example, he refers to Irenaeus of the second
century (CE), Tertullian, Hippolytus, Novatian and a letter from six bishops to
Paul of Samosata of the third century, as well as a host of writers in the
fourth century (including Athanasius, Basil, Jerome and others) to show that
this passage has from early times been understood as calling Christ "God."
Regarding Irenaeus’ use of Romans 9:5, Abbot points out that Irenaeus "does not
quote it to prove that Christ is qeov" [theos, G-god]." He further observes,
"His argument rests on the [‘from whom came Christ according to the flesh’], and
not on the last part of the verse, on which he makes no remark."[10]
In support of this interpretation, it should be noted that Irenaeus places his
quotation of Romans 9:5 between a quotation of Romans 1:1-4 and Galatians 4:4-5,
both of which are used to emphasize the fact that God sent forth His Son
"according to the flesh."[11] Indeed, as Abbot also points
out, Irenaeus’ "text is preserved only in the old Latin version, which of course
cannot determine the construction which Irenaeus put upon the Greek."[12]
In terms of how Irenaeus may have interpreted the Greek text of the last part of
Romans 9:5, we may simply note that "throughout his work against Heresies, and
very often, Irenaeus uses the title ‘the God over all’ as the exclusive
designation of the Father."[13]
Hippolytus refers to Romans 9:5 twice in his work Against the Heresy of one
Noetus. The first reference is used in relation to the Noetians argument that
Christ was the Father Himself![14] Hyppolytus then uses Romans
9:5 in support of his own view that Christ is indeed "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]
Metzger’s 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 Christ’s human
nature. But Harris[20] and others attempt to find an
antithesis in this verse between Christ’s human and divine natures, which they
believe are present in but one "person."
Harris’ arguments seem to overlook the simple fact that Paul is here using
"according to the flesh" just as he did in referring to his own relation to his
"relatives according to the flesh" two verses earlier. The Messiah did not
simply appear among Israel as Savior and Lord, he really was of Israel, being
born in the line of David. There is no antithesis in verse 3, and it is not
necessary that the mere presence of kata sarka ("according to the flesh")
involves one with "God who is over all" in verse 5. The fact that Paul could
have omitted "according to the flesh" in verse 5 is no more significant than the
fact that Paul could have omitted "according to the flesh" in verse 3, and ended
his statement with "relatives."
Any antithesis in Romans 9:5 would, according to Trinitarianism, have to be
devoid of attributing individual being to the Messiah by predicating "God who is
over all" of him.[21] But there is nothing to suggest that
"God who is over all" could somehow properly be interpreted according to the NT
context of thought in relation to a person’s "divine nature" apart from denoting
his individual being at the same time.[22] Indeed, a proper
antithesis would involve different entities, as even Harris’ examples of a
sarx-theos ("flesh" and "God") antithesis reveal.[23]
Harris also argues that the subject preceding the doxology is the most likely
referent, which would be "Christ." He states that "in all NT doxologies an
explicit link is found between the doxology itself and some preceding word or
words. Of course, it is quite possible that we should take o& w#n e*piV pavntwn
("who is over all things") in reference to "Christ," and begin the doxology with
"God," not with o& w#n (ho on, "who is"). But Harris himself notes that ho on
can introduce a new subject,[24] as in John 3:31.[25]
Still, John 3:31 is not a doxology. However, in Romans 9:5 the doxology involves
the use of the adjective eu*loghtov" (eulogetos, "blessed"), which is elsewhere
(that is, apart from Ro 9:5) used six times as an adjective in a doxology to God
the Father (Lu 1:68; Ro 1:25; 2Co 1:3; 11:31; Eph 1:3; 1Pe 1:3), and once it is
substantivized (used as a noun) as a name for God the Father (Mr 14:61). It is
nowhere else used as part of a doxology to Christ.
In view of the overwhelming use of theos for the Father in the Pauline writings,[26]
and the unique contextual build-up for Romans 9:5 (see below), there is nothing
unusual about taking the words following "according to the flesh" as a doxology
to the One responsible for the coming of Christ, as a self-contained expression
of thanks and praise to the One who is frequently referred to and distinguished
from Christ in the preceding eight chapters of Romans. Indeed, 1 Peter 1:3
begins with a doxology to "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," but any
link to the preceding has to skip past the implied referents for humin ("to you"
[namely, the "temporary residents" in verse 1]) and "Jesus Christ" to "God the
Father." So there need not be any direct correspondence with the subject of the
doxology and the immediately preceding subject (see also 2Co 1:3).
If, however, we take the clause beginning with ho on or with theos as a doxology
to the Father, why does eulogetos ("blessed") not mark the starting point of the
doxology, which is true everywhere else eulogetos occurs as part of a separate
doxology? While we would not take Psalm 67:19-20 as the "regulative key for the
interpretation of a contested NT passage,"[27] the fact
remains that in this text the LXX places eulogetos after kyrios ho theos ("the
Lord God"), and then in the following clause it is placed before kyrios. This
indicates that either placement is acceptable.[28] It is
interesting to note that while both Harris and Metzger refer to Paul’s ordinary
placement of eulogetos before the subject as evidence for their position, they
are more than willing to overlook the more established and common use of theos
in Paul’s writings. Indeed, Metzger argues that "a writer may turn aside from
his ordinary usage, or even start a new one, in some particular instance."[29]
He should therefore have little difficulty accepting the placement of eulogetos
in Romans 9:5.
Further, I do not believe Harris has fully appreciated Abbot’s point on the
position of eulogetos in Romans 9:5. He merely cites Abbot as positing that the
placing of eulogetos after theos is because "Paul wishes to stress . . . the
overruling providence of God as ‘the Ruler over All.’"[30] But
Abbot’s point is built on a critical analysis of the context leading up to
Romans 9:5, which shows that Paul is focused on the conception of God as the one
who rules over all things, "who cares for all men and who controls all events"[31]
(such as those leading to the coming of the Messiah according to the flesh).
Abbot concludes:
"In simply exclamatory doxologies, the eu*loghtov" [eulogetos] or eu*loghmevno" [eulogemenos]
comes first, because the feeling that prompts its use is predominant, and can be
expressed in a single word. But here, where the thought of the overruling
providence of God is prominent, the o& w#n e*piV pavntwn [ho on epi panton] must
stand first in the sentence, to express that prominence; and the position of eu*loghtov"
after it is required by the very same law of the Greek language which governs
all the examples that have been alleged against the doxological construction of
the passage."[32]
VII. Contextual Considerations
Metzger argues that "in view of the apostle’s lamentation over the lapse of the
Jews from appropriating to the full their divinely granted prerogatives, there
appears to be no psychological explanation that would account for the
introduction of a joyful doxology addressed to the Father." He further states,
"Both logically and emotionally such a doxology would interrupt the train of
thought as well as be inconsistent with the mood of sadness that pervades the
preceding verses."[33] What he fails to realize, however, is
that the ‘preceding sadness’ becomes joy in Romans 9:5 and is expressed in
praise to God for sending the Christ "according to the flesh."
Harris, too, fails to appreciate the significance of the context leading up to
Romans 9:5, in relation to how it does indeed support a doxology to God the
Father.[34] Both Metzger and Harris, though they make frequent
reference to Abbot’s discussion of Romans 9:5, have avoided a detailed
interaction with his interpretation of the context leading up to Romans 9:5.[35]
Even Timothy Dwight, who argues in favor of translating Romans 9:5 as a
reference to Christ as God, and who believes the context leading up to and after
Romans 9:5 fits with this conclusion, nevertheless acknowledges:
"We cannot regard an ascription of praise to God as especially out of place at
this point. St. Paul had been enumerating the peculiar blessings and honors of
his own people, which had given them, as he rejoiced to feel, an exalted
position in the world. He was declaring his affection for them, and the absence
of all enmity even when compelled to say what might seem harsh and offensive. He
was testifying his sorrow for evil which befell them, and his joy and pride in
all their history as evidencing God’s favor. These are the thoughts of the first
five verses of this chapter. Why could he not, and why should he not, at the
close of these verses, and after the enumeration of these blessings, break forth
into the exclamation, ‘May he who is over all, God, be blessed for ever!’"[36]
VIII. Theological Import
If Romans 9:5 is accepted as an exclamation of praise and thanks to God the
Father for sending Jesus Christ through those to whom God's "covenants and the
giving of the Law and the sacred service and the promises" were given (Ro 9:4),
then we should likewise be moved with appreciation for God's undeserved
kindness. Indeed, he "sent forth his Son as Savior of the world" (1Jo 4:14).
However, if we accept the translation preferred by Trinitarians, then Christ is
identified as "God over all" and this in effect eliminates any possibility that
Jesus is a person of God. Trinitarians have a difficult time accepting the fact
that any reference to Jesus as "G-god," in the Bible, contradicts their view of
God, for they have for so long convinced themselves, and even many of their
opponents, that if they can just prove that Jesus (and the Father and the holy
spirit) are called or identified as "God" in the Bible, then they have proved
their case for the Trinity, as there is "only one God" according to the Bible.
But those days are now finished. Such attempts to establish the doctrine of the
Trinity by means of equivocation and erroneous presuppositions have been[37]
exposed for what they are.
Trinitarians often say, "Jesus is God." In view of this, it may seem strange for
me to claim that Trinitarians do not really believe that the Son is God, anymore
than they believe the Father is God (or the holy spirit, for that matter), but
this in fact the case. Again, it is true that Trinitarians often say they
believe that the Father is God and that Jesus is God, but what they mean by this
is that each of them are divine persons; the Father is the first "person" in the
consubstantial (essence-sharing) triad, and the Son is the second "person." They
believe that each of them is a "person" within God, and that they share the same
substance of being; there is no division of the substance which they share fully
and equally.
So, why do Trinitarians tell us they believe Jesus is God, when they really
believe he is a "person" of God? The reason is simple: It is much easier for a
Trinitarian to make a mental substitution for the term "God" in texts like
Romans 9:5 and elsewhere with "person" of God" than it is to explain just what
they mean by "God." Since "God" is a biblical term, it "sounds" acceptable
enough, and most of the time others will accept the fact that if it can be shown
that Jesus is called "God," then this is somehow a point in support of
Trinitarianism, which explains why non-Trinitarians have traditionally tried to
argue against the translation advanced by the Trinitarians, as opposed to
exposing their misuse of the terms involved in the translation. But if a
Trinitarian is pressed to define each use of "God" 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 Paul’s 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] A. W. Wainwright, "The Confession ‘Jesus is God’ in the New
Testament," Scottish Journal of Theology 10 (1957), 278-282.
[2] Raymond E. Brown, "Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?" Theological
Studies 26.4 (1965), 554, 559-560. Brown lists Romans 9:5 under the category of
texts “where obscurity arises from [the] syntax” (p. 554), noting that
“distinguished scholars are aligned on both sides” (p. 560). Ultimately, Brown
concludes, “at most one may claim a certain probability that this passage refers
to Jesus as God” (p. 560).
[3] Vincent Taylor, "Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?" The Expository
Times 63.4 (1962), 116-117.
[4] Bruce M. Metzger, "The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5," in Christ and the Spirit in
the New Testament, In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule, eds. B. Lindars and
S. Smalley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 100-101. Metzger’s
discussion of the early versions is confined to pages 100-101 of his article.
[5] Metzger, ibid., 97, believes that B has a middle point, but
in reviewing the microfilm of Codex B it is quite possible that B has a high
point, not a middle point. There is definitely a middle point after "Abraham" in
verse 7, which is noticeably lower than the point after "flesh" in verse 5. 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, which is why B uses a high point after "Amen" in verse 5. Codex B uses
middle points throughout Romans 8, and the point after machaira ("sword") in
8:35 is quite similar in its height to the point after "flesh" in 9:5. Compare
the high point after "sword" to the middle points in 8:35, which are clearly
intended as minor pauses, not full stops.
[6] Ibid., 97.
[7] The copy of Codex A that I am using is the reduced facsimile produced by the
British Museum (London, 1909).
[8] Ibid., 99.
[9] Ezra Abbot, "On the Construction of Romans ix. 5," Journal of Biblical
Literature 1 (1881), 152.
[10] Ibid., 136.
[11] ANF 1, 441.
[12] Abbot, "On the Construction of Romans ix. 5," 136.
[13] Ibid., 136. Although Romans 9:5 does not use the article before epi panton
theos, whereas the patristic citations in reference to the Father generally do
preface the expression with the article, Metzger’s dismissal of the patristic
citations because of this difference (Metzger, "The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5,"
103, note 14) overlooks several important implications, which are highlighted by
Abbot’s observation: "If the Father is ‘God over all,’ and Christ is also ‘God
over all,’ 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"
(Abbot, "On the Construction of Romans ix. 5," 129).
[14] ANF 5, 224.
[15] Ibid., 225.
[16] Ibid., 227.
[17] Metzger, "The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5," 103.
[18] Abbot, "On the Construction of Romans ix. 5," 133-141.
[19] Metzger, "The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5," 103.
[20] Harris, Jesus as God, 155-156.
[21] Thus, Harris (ibid., 166, 167) is forced to redefine theos to mean that
Christ "shares the divine nature" and that "he is God by nature." He even goes
so far as to suggest that "Paul shows that his Christian experience and
reflection have forced him to redefine his hereditary monotheism so as to
include Christ within the category of Deity." Contrary to Harris and other
Trinitarians, there is no "category of Deity" to which one or more "persons"
(who are not individual beings) belong articulated in the Bible. This concept is
imported into the Bible and used to interpret passages according to a
post-biblical view. Paul shows in Ro 15:5,6 and elsewhere that Christ is not the
same God as the Father. The Father is the God of Christ, and is the only one who
is God in the fullest and most complete sense of the term. See Greg Stafford,
Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics, 2d. ed.
(Huntington Beach, CA: Elihu Books, 2000), pp. 119-122.
[22] See Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, pp. 59-63.
[23] Harris, Jesus as God, 156, c. He refers to Ro 3:20 (compare verse 21), 9:8,
Mt 16:17 (uses "Father," not "God"), Lu 3:6 and 1Co 1:29. But Lu 3:6 and 1Co
1:29 do not involve a contrast at all, and the other three passages (only two of
which actually use "God") involve an antithesis between different entities, not
an antithesis that involves only one entity. What is more, the contrast that is
present in Ro 9:8 and Mt 16:17 is brought out by a*llav (alla, "but") following
a negative, which is commonly used in introducing a contrast (see W. Bauer, W.F.
Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker, Greek English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2d. ed. (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1979), p. 38, under a*llav). In Ro 3:21 the contrast is set up by
nuniV deV (nuni de, "but now"). None of these devices are used in Ro 9:5.
[24] Harris, Jesus as God, 157.
[25] Harris (ibid., 159), following Timothy Dwight’s lead ("On
Romans ix. 5," Journal of Biblical Literature 1 [1881], 24), presents a false
analogy when he attempts to compare a rewording of 2Co 11:31 with Ro 9:5. Dwight
remarks that "if the construction of the verse [2Co 11:31] were so changed as to
read [‘the Father or our Lord Jesus Christ knows that I am not lying(;) the one
who exists as God over all be blessed into the ages’]" that no one would
hesitate in referring "God" back to "the Father." But why would one hesitate to
apply "God" to "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" when this is the most
common way of referring to the Father? The same is hardly true for Christ, who
is frequently distinguished from "God" in the Pauline writings. Additionally,
the rewording of 2Co 11:31 by Dwight (approved by Harris) seems quite naturally
to involve a pause after pseudomai. The only difference, again, is there is no
reason to view the subject of the second clause as different from the preceding
one. The same cannot be said of Ro 9:5.
[26] See figure E.1 on pages 390-392 of Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended. It is also
worth noting that only the Father is elsewhere described as "the one over all"
(Eph 4:6). Harris (Jesus as God, 159-160) goes to great lengths to minimize this
point, but in his attempts to do so he mistakenly asserts that Christ is "the
one who created" the universe according to Col 1:16, 17. See Jehovah’s Witnesses
Defended, pp. 221-224 for a discussion of these texts.
[27] Harris, Jesus as God, 162.
[28] Harris, (ibid., 162) quotes Dwight ("On Romans ix. 5," 38) who believes the
position of eulogetos after "the Lord God" and then preceding "Lord" actually
involves a chiastic device designed to give "prominence to the doxological
words." This may be true, but if it is true then this is the only occasion among
the 15 instances where eulogetos is used in reference to God or his name where
the LXX translator(s) of the Psalms felt the need to employ such a device.
[29] Metzger, "The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5," 110.
[30] Harris, Jesus as God, 162.
[31] Abbot, "On the Construction of Romans ix. 5," 105.
[32] Ibid., 105-106.
[33] Metzger, "The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5," 108.
[34] Harris, Jesus as God, 164.
[35] See Abbot, "On the Construction of Romans ix. 5," 87-89, 90-93; Abbot,
"Recent Discussions of Romans ix. 5," Journal of Biblical Literature 3 (1883),
95-99.
[36] Dwight, "On Romans ix. 5," 41.
[37] See Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, 2d ed., Chapter 2. Also, see my
forthcoming book, Trinitarianism: Language and History (details available at
http://www.elihubooks.com).