6

What does the original Greek text say?

The verse in context is Romans 9:5

Jesus is messiah + supreme + God

ERV ~ They are the descendants of our great fathers, and they are the earthly family of the Messiah, who is God over all things. Praise him forever! Amen.

Jesus is messiah + supreme

KJV ~ Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Jesus is messiah

CEV ~ They have those famous ancestors, who were also the ancestors of Jesus Christ. I pray that God, who rules over all, will be praised forever! Amen.

Are there any other verses by Paul that Indicate that Paul believed Jesus was God?

After reading the responses and also some commentaries, understand that this is the strongest evidence in the greek text to say that Jesus is God.

This is very contradictory to what Tanakh says. Paul himself in the Greek text says that God and Jesus are not the same.

4
  • Young's Literal : ... whose 'are' the fathers, and of whom 'is' the Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed to the ages. Amen. (Up-voted +1.) – Nigel J May 19 at 11:22
  • Many translations even from trinitarian scholars recognized that the latter part is doxology to God not to Jesus See the references here – Kris May 19 at 12:59
  • Thank you for the link. I asked for help with the original Greek text as there are other places with similar construct but in those, if we say it is the same person it does not make sense. I will try to find those verses and post them. Language analysis/study has always been a challenge for me. – Yeddu May 19 at 13:23
  • A related question. – Lucian May 19 at 18:00
2

 ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν*. (Rom. 9:5, NA28)

ὁ ... θεὸς = God

ὁ Χριστὸς ..., ὁ ὢν ... θεὸς εὐλογητὸς these six words are all masculine nominative singular, meaning they reference the same person.

The relative pronoun ὢν makes the connection Christ = God.

Paul limits the descent of Jesus from the Jews to his human side as he did in 1:3f. Who is over all, God blessed for ever (ὁ ὀν ἐπι παντων θεος εὐλογητος [ho on epi pantōn theos eulogētos]). A clear statement of the deity of Christ following the remark about his humanity. This is the natural and the obvious way of punctuating the sentence. To make a full stop after σαρκα [sarka] (or colon) and start a new sentence for the doxology is very abrupt and awkward. See Acts 20:28 and Titus 2:13 for Paul’s use of θεος [theos] applied to Jesus Christ. -- Robertson, A. T. (1933). Word Pictures in the New Testament (Ro 9:5). Nashville, TN: Broadman Press.

This text has the different punctuation. What is strange with this punctuation is it separates θεὸς from an article.

ὧν οἱ πατέρες, καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. -- The New Testament in the original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, with morphology. (2006). (Ro 9:5). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Appendex This is a member of the NA28 committee explaining why they punctuated the way they did.

In deciding which punctuation should be used, the Committee was agreed that evidence from the Church Fathers, who were almost unanimous in understanding the passage as referring to ὁ Χριστός, is of relatively minor significance, as is also the opposing fact that four uncial manuscripts (A B C L) and at least twenty-six minuscule manuscripts have a point after σάρκα, either by the first hand or by subsequent correctors. In both cases the tradition, whether patristic or palaeographical, originated at a time subsequent to Paul’s writing (i. e. dictating; cf. 16:22) the passage, and is therefore of questionable authority.

On the one hand, some members of the Committee preferred punctuation (a) for the following reasons:

(1) The interpretation that refers the passage to Christ suits the structure of the sentence, whereas the interpretation that takes the words as an asyndetic doxology to God the Father is awkward and unnatural. As Westcott observes, “The juxtaposition of ὁ Χριστὸς κατὰ σάρκα and ὁ ὢν κ.τ.λ. seems to make a change of subject improbable.”

(2) If the clause ὁ ὣν κ.τ.λ. is an asyndetic doxology to God the Father, the word ὤν is superfluous, for “he who is God over all” is most simply represented by ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεός. The presence of the participle suggests that the clause functions as a relative clause (not “he who is …” but “who is …”), and thus describes ὁ Χριστός as being “God over all.”

(3) Pauline doxologies, as Zahn points out, are never asyndetic but always attach themselves to that which precedes: with ὅς ἐστιν (Ro 1:25); with ὁ ὤν (2 Cor 11:31); with ᾧ (Ga 1:5; 2 Tm 4:18; cf. He 13:21; 1 Pe 4:11); with αὐτῷ (Ro 11:36; Eph 3:21; cf. 1 Pe 5:11; 2 Pe 3:18); with τῷ δὲ θεῷ (Php 4:20; 1 Tm 1:17).

(4) Asyndetic doxologies, not only in the Bible but also in Semitic inscriptions, are differently constructed; the verb or verbal adjective (εὐλογητός, Heb. ‮בָּרוּךְ‬, Aram. ‮עבּרִיךְ‬) always precedes the name of God, and never follows it, as here.

(5) In the light of the context, in which Paul speaks of his sorrow over Israel’s unbelief, there seems to be no psychological explanation to account for the introduction of a doxology at this point.

On the other hand, in the opinion of others of the Committee, none of these considerations seemed to be decisive, particularly since nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate ὁ Χριστός as θεός. In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was considered tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ’s greatness by calling him God blessed for ever. As between the punctuation in (b) and (c), the former was preferred. -- Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (pp. 460–462). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

17
  • The New Oxford Annotated Bible says, “Whether Christ is called God here depends on the punctuations inserted.” – Jesus Saves May 19 at 13:02
  • 1
    The Interpreter’s Bible makes a similar observation: “The issue appears from a comparison of our two English texts. Is God over all, blessed forever (or the one who is over all, God blessed forever)…The question cannot be answered on the basis of the Greek since it is a matter almost entirely of punctuation, and Greek MSS in the early period were not punctuated." – Jesus Saves May 19 at 13:03
  • 1
    And this is why we must read these passages in the context of the chapter in which they are written. In this case the context, and in light of other passages of scripture, it is clear Paul is calling Jesus God. Jesus called Himself God when he said, before Abraham was, I Am. Sounds very familiar doesn't it...God said exactly the same thing to Moses..."tell them I Am sent you" – Adam May 19 at 13:23
  • 1
    ...rather than just mock him when just prior he said that "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” (John 8:58 ESV). But him saying "I AM" was different; it was worthy of death by stoning in their eyes, for he claimed to be God (a claim that was correct--he is God). – bob May 19 at 18:08
  • 2
    Jesus used the term "I AM" for very good reason...it parallels what "He" also said to Moses...that is the point! There are numerous texts in the Bible that make this truth absolutely impossible to read any other way. In any case, the reality is obvious, those who dont believe Jesus is God are being saved by a mere man. I wont be basing my salvation on such a ridiculous proposition. In terms of the comment about the Jews, the reason they picked up stones to throw at him was because he was claiming to be God! – Adam May 19 at 22:03
-3

No, How could Paul teach Jesus is God over all - he just finished teaching that Jesus is the heir.

and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him , that we may be also glorified with him. Rom 8:17

If we might think God is making His 'eternal Son' heir then we have some strange understanding of what it is to be God - son or not. We are 'fellow heirs', 'joint heirs' with Christ.

But in these last days He has spoken to us by His son, whom He appointed heir of all things... Hebrews 1:2

The foolishness of taking one verse and deriving some doctrinal depth in isolation is grand eisegesis and leads to all manner of ill-conceived concepts. That the OP has shown several differing views proves the need to look for context from other verses to understand those which, in isolation, will be misunderstood and poorly interpreted.

I didn't finish quoting Hebrews 1:2 to consider the next part separately.

But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the world Hebrews 1:2

This oft-quoted line is sorely misrepresented by the poor choice of words used in most bibles. αἰῶνας aiōnas is best translated ages. It has nothing to do with 'world' or 'universe'.

And so if we choose to read as it is often provided - 'world or universe', then we add to our woes with God making all things 'through' (or "by" as some put it) His son (which no other verse supports) and yet still Jesus (the son) is made heir of all that he made. Bizarre!

If we might consider for a brief moment that IF Paul is referring to Christ as God, we might notice that he has not done this anywhere else in his extensive writings. Huge red flag!

He (God) who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality 1 Tim 6:15

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Eph 1:3

one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all Eph 4:6

The complete prelude to this Rom 9:5 verse is about God and His provision to this point - the glory, the covenants, the law, the worship, the promises, the patriarchs and even the human ancestry of Jesus Christ - being a descendant of Abraham. Gal 3:16 (so Jesus can hardly be 'before' Abraham)

Ans so the final comment wraps up al that precedes with

God, who is over all, be blessed forever! Amen.

Finally we need wonder no more, as Paul confirms this matter with,

When all things are subjected to Him (Jesus), then the son himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to him, so that God may be all in all. 1 Cor 15:28

8
  • (1). Both the Hebrew olam and the Greek aeon express the same double meaning of both world and age. (2). Jesus can hardly be 'before' Abraham - The Messiah was first promised to Adam and Eve in the Garden, shortly after the Fall. – Lucian May 19 at 17:49
  • 1
    @user48152 It is not correct that only Hebrews 1:2 says that everything was created by Jesus. There are several examples that show that Jesus in fact created everything (and hence is God): Colossians 1:16, John 1:3, John 1:10, Romans 11:36, 1 Corinthians 8:6. And possibly others--those were the ones I could easily find through cross-references on biblehub.com. So the whole of Scripture supports the interpretation of Hebrews 1:2 as Jesus having created everything, and is at odds with the claim that he did not do so. – bob May 19 at 18:17
  • 2
    This is incorrect: "Finally we need wonder no more, as Paul confirms this matter with...". That passage doesn't negate Jesus's divinity; rather it is the doctrine of the submission of the Son to the Father, both being part of the Trinity. It is a great mystery. This answer falls prey to cherry-picking, taking verses out of context to make a point not supported by the whole of Scripture. – bob May 19 at 18:26
  • 1
    Hebrews 5:6-8 speaks of that doctrine of submission, while Hebrews makes it very clear that Jesus is God. The two doctrines are not in conflict. – bob May 19 at 18:30
  • @bob thanks for your comments Bob. It seems reasonable to say that you haven’t been reading much on here for the last year or so. All of your comments are seen through a ‘Jesus is God’ mindset and this renders the truth invisible. No verse you quoted says what you seem to think it says. Jesus is plainly not God, for that we can be thankful. – user48152 May 19 at 20:51

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.