Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
Also known by the more pedestrian title: *How should Romans 9:5 be punctuated?*
Romans 9:5, NA28 (punctuation omitted):
ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν
Two markedly different interpretations are evident, e.g., in the contrast between RSV and NIV translations. The RSV reads:
… of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.
The period after "Christ" apparently indicates that what follows is an independent expression of praise to God.
On the other hand, quoting the NIV:
… from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
Here, the words following the first comma read as modifier of "Christ," ascribing to him the title of God.
What are the main factors we should consider in making a decision about how to punctuate (and interpret) this verse?
I note that most recent translations (including the NRSV, RSVCE, and the ESV, all of which I presume made a conscious decision to deviate from the RSV) have moved away from the first option and, with varying degrees of clarity, translate this verse in a way that (to me) seems to ascribe deity to Christ. Is there a scholarly consensus about this?
Troy Day
Tell us All Jared Cheshire Rasiah Thomas John Mushenhouse
Rasiah Thomas
“Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen”. It implies our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of Man.
Philip Williams
Yes, indeed!
Troy Day
Philip Williams yes indeed
And of the Spirit too
The Spirit is GOD
Philip Williams
Troy Day yes, is Jesus
Troy Day
Philip Williamssays
God is the spirit not Jesus
Philip Williams
Troy Day who is the Spirit of the body of Christ?
Dr. Finley
I find the comments presented by Dr.Link Hudson and not-Dr. Philip Williams to be fundamentally flawed and lacking credible evidence. The author’s claims about prophecy shaping history appear to be based on subjective interpretation rather than rigorous analysis. According to Pew Research, many individuals today have a more critical view of religious prophecies, often seeing them as culturally constructed rather than divinely inspired (Pew Research Center, 2021). Furthermore, the reliance on Gnostic theology undermines the foundational tenets of orthodox Christianity, which emphasize the importance of scripture and historical context (Christianity.com). By misrepresenting prophetic texts and their implications, this article fails to address how such interpretations can lead to heretical beliefs that stray from core Christian doctrine. This article raises some valid points about the interpretation of Romans 9:5, but it fundamentally misunderstands the nuances of biblical punctuation and translation. Firstly, it’s essential to acknowledge that the variations in translations (such as RSV vs. NIV) highlight not just stylistic choices but also theological biases that can misrepresent the original Greek text. According to Pew Research, interpretations of religious texts often reflect cultural and denominational perspectives rather than objective scholarship (Pew Research Center, 2018).
Moreover, many scholars advocate for a more cautious approach when attributing deity to Christ based solely on punctuation. The argument made here seems to lean toward gnostic theology by suggesting a definitive interpretation that may not align with traditional orthodoxy. Gnosticism often distorts the nature of Christ by elevating knowledge over faith, which contradicts fundamental Christian beliefs as stated in various resources including Christianity.com.
To conclude, while the article attempts to assert a point about divine status in Romans 9:5, it fails to consider broader scholarly discourse and risks promoting interpretations that could be deemed heretical or misleading. This is not just a matter of punctuation; it’s about ensuring that our understanding aligns with established theological tenets rather than modern interpretative fads.