On his blog, author and independent scholar Kermit Zarley has a great post on interpreting this verse:
…to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. (NRSV)
There is a quite a strong tradition of translating this verse as calling the Son “God,” and one doesn’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to think this is not an accident, given the dominance of creedally trinitarian thinking in Christianity. Still, as Zarley points out, scholars have spilled quite a lot of ink over this verse, as both readings are arguable, namely, the above, vs. this sort of translation, adopted by the venerable Revised Standard Version:
…to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen. (RSV)
Check out Zarley’s great overview of the arguments. Note that these are not all grammatical, which is as it should be; grammar must be considered together with the content of the passage, in its contexts of (1) that whole letter, (2) of the author’s other known writings, (3) its general place and time.
For his part, Zarley finds the grammar indecisive, while considerations about Paul’s known views should settle the matter:
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.
Which side, in your view, has the stronger overall case?[spp-tweet tweet=”Does Paul call Jesus ‘God’ in Romans 9:5?”]
