 |  |
possible from the Greek and (2) does it fit the context? If this second rendering is
admitted then the verse does not directly affirm the deity of Christ.
Charles Hodge states here:
(1) The relative `who' must agree with the nearest antecedent. There is no other
subject in the context sufficiently prominent to make a departure from this ordinary rule,
in this case, even plausible. "Of Whom Christ came Who is", etc. Who is? Certainly
Christ, for He alone is spoken of.
(2) The context requires this interpretation because, as Paul was speaking of Christ, it
would be very unnatural thus suddenly to change the subject, and break out into a
doxology to God . . . . . it was the very object of the Apostle to set forth the great honour
to the Jews of having Christ born among them and this of course would lead to his
presenting the dignity of the Redeemer in the strongest light . . . . . The uniform
expression (for a doxology) is "blessed be God" and never "God be blessed". The word
"blessed" always stands first and the word "God" after it with the article. Often as such
cases occur in the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, there is, it is believed, no case of
contrary arrangement. (Romans, pp. 300, 301).
Professor F. F. Bruce writes:
"The former construction (i.e. of the A.V. and N.I.V.) is more in keeping with the
general structure of the sentence (cp. 1:25) where the words `Who is blessed for ever,
Amen" are not an independent ascription of praise, but form the integral peroration of the
sentence. It is further supported by the consideration that something is required to
balance the phrase `as concerning the flesh'. The Messiah, `as concerning the flesh', that
is with regard to His human descent--came of a long line of Israel ancestors but as
regards His eternal being, `He is God over all, blessed for ever'. A formal parallel to this
antithesis appears in 1:3 where Christ is said to have been born a descendant of David
`according to the flesh', but installed as the Son of God with power by the dispensation of
the Spirit."
Professor Bruce goes on to say that while Paul is not in the habit of calling Christ God
in this direct way, yet for him Christ is the One in Whom, through Whom and unto
Whom all things were created (Col. 1: 16); in Whom dwells all the fullness of the
Godhead bodily (Col. 2: 9). The title Lord is given to Christ by Paul as the equivalent of
the Hebrew Yahweh (Jehovah); the way in which he applies Isa. 45: 23 in Phil. 2: 10
indicates that, to him, the confession "Jesus Christ is Lord" means "Jesus Christ is
Jehovah".
Moreover Paul does not hesitate to describe Christ as "our great God and our Saviour"
in Titus 2: 13 and he was well aware that the writer of Hebrews in quoting Psa. 45:
applies the words "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever" to Christ (Heb. 1: 8).*
[* - Readers are referred to the author's booklet The Lord Jesus Christ, God or only Man?]
Coming back to Rom. 9: 5 there can be no doubt that these lines are not a doxology
to God for that does not fit the train of thought. Rather they show how exalted Christ is,
which fits the train of thought perfectly. Those who wish to take this further should
consult The Epistle to the Romans by Sanday and Headlam, pp. 232-238.