Bottom line - there are translational issues that beset this one. I think the best way to deal with this is to unfold it as it evolved in my correspondence.

 

Argument: But Paul says Christ IS God (Ro 9:5)

 

Response: I looked up that verse in every translation I have. I also looked up that verse on a parallel translation website, they ALL said something like this:

 

RSV: ...and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed forever.

 

I think that's pretty clear. Christ and God are clearly differentiated.

 

Some translations have Christ over all: NASB: ...and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever.

 

Christ, who is over all, is blessed by God forever. This also differentiates Christ from God. Seems clear to me, but I can see that if one is predisposed to the idea that Jesus is God one could read this particular translation in a manner that would make it confirm their predisposition. However, NONE of the translations I was able to find said, 'Christ, who is God over all..." But even if I were to find a translation that said something like that, the word "God" is sometimes used in a lesser sense, i.e. Jn 10:35ff

 

Argument: Here is what the Greek text says word for word:

 

o(who) on(is) epi(over) panton(all) theos(God) eulogetos(blessed) eis(in) tous(the) aeonas(eons) amen(amen).

 

The word "blessed" is not a verb; it is an adjective (masc nom sg). Draw your own conclusions. As for translations that show Christ as God, here are the following:
 

• Common: Of them are the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, forever blessed. Amen.

• EMT: of whom are the fathers and from whom Christ came, according to the flesh, He who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

• ISV: To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, Christ descended, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen

• Murdock: and from among whom, Messiah appeared in the flesh, who is God over all; to whom be praises and benediction, forever and ever; Amen.

 

Response: Questions: I have an understanding, an inferior understanding I'm sure, of noun declensions in the Greek language, and that they function as indicators, or hints, to translators of where to put punctuation and word order. So I understand that where a translator puts punctuation isn't a totally arbitrary thing. Admittedly, the following is probably simplistic but bear with me, please. As you've informed me previously, what we have in the original language is lines of text with no spaces between words, all lower case (or all upper case in the case of monuments), and no punctuation or phrase markings. Declensions give some indication of where, in English, we could put punctuation. However, it's apparent that there is some vagueness or latitude here because of the different punctuation, as well as the differing word order, that I'm seeing in the various translations I'm looking at as well as the ones you've given me. And as you know, in English, the placement of a single comma or period can totally change the meaning of the text. So also the word order in English is VERY important to the meaning.

 

What we have is: christwhoisoverallgodblessedforeveramen

 

You say "blessed" is an adjective and not a verb - ok, I'll take your word for it.

 

Now let's take the RSV as an example because it places a period in a position that CLEARLY distinguishes Jesus from God, AND rearranges the words somewhat.

 

"...Christ. God who is over all be blessed forever."

 

Now, it is clear from reading the forward to the RSV that the translators were Trinitarians, the same is true for the other versions I consult: KJV, NEB, Phillips, Jerusalem, NASB, Berkeley. I don't know what versions I looked at on the parallel translation site I went to, but it was a bunch. I find it odd that I didn't see ANY translation, not even one, which translates the passage in the way of the four that you have given me. I believe you, I just find it odd, that's all. I must be slipping. But, I digress.

 

Why would a Trinitarian translator, if there was room to do otherwise, punctuate this passage like that in a manner that leaves room to question the deity of Christ? Just wondering.

 

It seems that the NASB is the closest to the original word order. I'm assuming that there are reasons (noun declensions?) to change the word order when translating into English. MANY of the translations have changed the word order. If there are grammatical reasons to change the word order, what are they? If there are reasons to change the word order, why didn't the NASB do that? Are the reasons to change the word order not absolutely conclusive?

 

At this point, in awaiting your help here to assist me in working through the issues any further - it appears to me that there are too many translational issues to be able to say that this passage DEFINITELY calls Jesus God. Taking the word order you gave me:

 

christ who is over all god blessed forever amen

 

This can be taken several different ways and so is a weak support for a Trinitarian position. It's a weak support for ANY position. So, one will choose the translation that supports one's prior belief. The only independent argument that I can see in favor of a translation that supports the anti-Trinitarian camp lies in the fact that some Trinitarian translators have translated this passage in a way that leaves room for the anti-Trinitarians, as in the RSV.

 

Back to Arguments Index