Anomalous relative pronoun in Rom 9:5

cjab

Well-known member
A relative pronoun is used in the Trinitarian version of Rom 9:5 that isn't present in the Greek. The Trinitarian translates Rom 9:5 as:

"and whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all blessed to the ages Amen"

Yes there is no relative pronoun in Rom 9:5. "ὁ" before ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς" is an article, not a pronoun. The only relative pronoun is before ὁ Χριστὸς.

Rom 9:5

καὶ (and) ἐξ (from) ὧν (whom) [is] ὁ (the) Χριστὸς (Christ) τὸ (the) κατὰ (according to) σάρκα (flesh), ὁ (the) ὢν (being) ἐπὶ (over) πάντων (all) Θεὸς (God) εὐλογητὸς (blessed) εἰς (to) τοὺς (the) αἰῶνας (ages), ἀμήν (amen).

If in Rom 9:5 Paul had wanted to say, "and whom is [God] over all blessed to the ages Amen" he surely would have used a Greek construction similar to that in Rom 1:25.

"καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν Κτίσαντα, ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· ἀμήν."

"served the created thing rather than the creator, whom (ὅς relative pronoun) is blessed to the ages Amen."

Rom 1:25

καὶ (and) ἐλάτρευσαν (served) τῇ (the) κτίσει (created thing) παρὰ (rather than) τὸν (the) Κτίσαντα (creator), ὅς (whom) ἐστιν (is) εὐλογητὸς (blessed) εἰς (to) τοὺς (the) αἰῶνας (ages)· ἀμήν (Amen).

I conclude Rom 9:5 is properly translated as ". God over all [is] blessed to the ages Amen." I note that one ancient Alexandrian manuscript even had the full stop before ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς, as do other manuscripts of the medieval era.
 
Further information:

Tischendorf observes of Rom 9:5"Antiquitas Christiana luculenter etiam testatur verba ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ, &c., non cum ὁ Χριστὸς conjungenda esse ;"
 
A relative pronoun is used in the Trinitarian version of Rom 9:5 that isn't present in the Greek. The Trinitarian translates Rom 9:5 as:

"and whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all blessed to the ages Amen"

Yes there is no relative pronoun in Rom 9:5. "ὁ" before ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς" is an article, not a pronoun. The only relative pronoun is before ὁ Χριστὸς.

Rom 9:5

καὶ (and) ἐξ (from) ὧν (whom) [is] ὁ (the) Χριστὸς (Christ) τὸ (the) κατὰ (according to) σάρκα (flesh), ὁ (the) ὢν (being) ἐπὶ (over) πάντων (all) Θεὸς (God) εὐλογητὸς (blessed) εἰς (to) τοὺς (the) αἰῶνας (ages), ἀμήν (amen).

If in Rom 9:5 Paul had wanted to say, "and whom is [God] over all blessed to the ages Amen" he surely would have used a Greek construction similar to that in Rom 1:25.

"καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν Κτίσαντα, ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· ἀμήν."

"served the created thing rather than the creator, whom (ὅς relative pronoun) is blessed to the ages Amen."

Rom 1:25

καὶ (and) ἐλάτρευσαν (served) τῇ (the) κτίσει (created thing) παρὰ (rather than) τὸν (the) Κτίσαντα (creator), ὅς (whom) ἐστιν (is) εὐλογητὸς (blessed) εἰς (to) τοὺς (the) αἰῶνας (ages)· ἀμήν (Amen).

I conclude Rom 9:5 is properly translated as ". God over all [is] blessed to the ages Amen." I note that one ancient Alexandrian manuscript even had the full stop before ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς, as do other manuscripts of the medieval era.
Generally speaking, relative pronouns require the use of a finite verb and the use of the participle depends on another element in the sentence. This readily explains what we see in the text. There is nothing about the grammar in Romans 9:5 that suggests that the expression should refer to God.

Setting this entirely aside, you still have the question of what Paul meant when he said that the Christ was from the Fathers "according to the flesh". Paul is saying that Jesus was more than human, however you understand the last phrase, but I already know you won't let facts get in the way of your religious beliefs.
 
I conclude Rom 9:5 is properly translated as ". God over all [is] blessed to the ages Amen." I note that one ancient Alexandrian manuscript even had the full stop before ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς, as do other manuscripts of the medieval era.
I was trying to find what B.M. Metzger wrote on the verse and ran across this discussion.
 
A relative pronoun is used in the Trinitarian version of Rom 9:5 that isn't present in the Greek. The Trinitarian translates Rom 9:5 as:

"and whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all blessed to the ages Amen"

Yes there is no relative pronoun in Rom 9:5. "ὁ" before ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς" is an article, not a pronoun. The only relative pronoun is before ὁ Χριστὸς.

Rom 9:5

καὶ (and) ἐξ (from) ὧν (whom) [is] ὁ (the) Χριστὸς (Christ) τὸ (the) κατὰ (according to) σάρκα (flesh), ὁ (the) ὢν (being) ἐπὶ (over) πάντων (all) Θεὸς (God) εὐλογητὸς (blessed) εἰς (to) τοὺς (the) αἰῶνας (ages), ἀμήν (amen).

If in Rom 9:5 Paul had wanted to say, "and whom is [God] over all blessed to the ages Amen" he surely would have used a Greek construction similar to that in Rom 1:25.

"καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν Κτίσαντα, ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· ἀμήν."

"served the created thing rather than the creator, whom (ὅς relative pronoun) is blessed to the ages Amen."

Rom 1:25

καὶ (and) ἐλάτρευσαν (served) τῇ (the) κτίσει (created thing) παρὰ (rather than) τὸν (the) Κτίσαντα (creator), ὅς (whom) ἐστιν (is) εὐλογητὸς (blessed) εἰς (to) τοὺς (the) αἰῶνας (ages)· ἀμήν (Amen).

I conclude Rom 9:5 is properly translated as ". God over all [is] blessed to the ages Amen." I note that one ancient Alexandrian manuscript even had the full stop before ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς, as do other manuscripts of the medieval era.

Yes they are taking artistic license with the Greek again as is their wicked habit but you don't even need to know a speck of Greek to figure that one out. Paul is talking about the origin of the Christ from the nation of Israel. The Eternal Living God did not originate out of the people of Israel. Christ the son of David originated in Israel and the God of Israel, Jesus Christ's God, is blessed to the ages. This does not take great powers of thinking and it only takes a feeble mind to see the Trinitarian claim here is complete nonsense. But they never seem to care about the absurdities of their claims. They somehow figure their posturing routines will take care of those absurdities.
 
Yes they are taking artistic license with the Greek again as is their wicked habit but you don't even need to know a speck of Greek to figure that one out. Paul is talking about the origin of the Christ from the nation of Israel. The Eternal Living God did not originate out of the people of Israel. Christ the son of David originated in Israel and the God of Israel, Jesus Christ's God, is blessed to the ages. This does not take great powers of thinking and it only takes a feeble mind to see the Trinitarian claim here is complete nonsense. But they never seem to care about the absurdities of their claims. They somehow figure their posturing routines will take care of those absurdities.
Paul specifically notes that Christ comes from the Fathers "according to the flesh". The implication is that Jesus existed before he became human. (And Paul makes this clear in some of this other epistles.) If he had omitted the phrase "according to the flesh" the meaning of the passage could be understood in the manner you suggest.
 
Paul specifically notes that Christ comes from the Fathers "according to the flesh". The implication is that Jesus existed before he became human. (And Paul makes this clear in some of this other epistles.) If he had omitted the phrase "according to the flesh" the meaning of the passage could be understood in the manner you suggest.

No that would be your vain imaginations, not fact. The implication is that we no longer know Christ according to the flesh.

In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death
Hebrews 5:7

Therefore from now on we know no one according to the flesh, though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him in this way no longer. 2 Corinthians 5:16

...concerning His son, who was born of a seed of David according to the flesh, fixed son of God in power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of Holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 1:3-4

It seems you have much to learn.
 
No that would be your vain imaginations, not fact. The implication is that we no longer know Christ according to the flesh.

In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death
Hebrews 5:7

Therefore from now on we know no one according to the flesh, though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him in this way no longer. 2 Corinthians 5:16

...concerning His son, who was born of a seed of David according to the flesh, fixed son of God in power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of Holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 1:3-4

It seems you have much to learn.
He seems to have a twisted imagination. Wonder if he would say apostle Paul existed before he “became human” as well—

ηὐχόμην γὰρ ἀνάθεμα εἶναι αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν συγγενῶν μου κατὰ σάρκα,
Romans 9:3
 
It's also fairly standard for participial phrases to stand where we might expect a relative clause in English. There is nothing wrong with the English translations on that score.
But the fact remains that in Rom 9:5 there is nothing to suggest that "we might have expected a relative clause in English." There is just the desire of Trinitarians for there to be one.
 
But the fact remains that in Rom 9:5 there is nothing to suggest that "we might have expected a relative clause in English." There is just the desire of Trinitarians for there to be one.
Yes. In fact an actual relative clause would have been used had the author wanted to say that Jesus was God here. Like so:

ὧν οἱ πατέρες, καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὅς ἐστίν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

That we don't have this is infact prove for the negative that the author was not calling Jesus God.
 
The reason why it is so diabolical to translate Romans 9:5 as though there is a relative pronoun here is because the reader would then be searching for an antecedent, which would in his mind have to be Jesus. But it was for this very reason that the inspired author deliberately did not use a relative pronoun in the original Greek here, because he wanted to send a doxology to the Father with these words instead. A relative pronoun would have made that impossible.

Notice in Romans 9:4 and 5 when the author wished to refer back to the person/persons just mentioned he used a relative pronoun (οἵτινές εἰσιν Ἰσραηλεῖται, ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ.., ὧν οἱ πατέρες…) but when he wished to introduce a new subject he used a participle phrase (ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς..)
 
So following “translation” is trickery:

Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
NIV

The following is true to the Greek:

To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God, the one being /who is over all, be blessed forever. Amen.
 
But the fact remains that in Rom 9:5 there is nothing to suggest that "we might have expected a relative clause in English." There is just the desire of Trinitarians for there to be one.
Well, it depends on context, doesn't it? Let's have another look at the verse:

ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

Let's do a literal translation without any prejudicial punctuation:

"Of whom the fathers and from whom the Christ according to the flesh the one being over all God blessed forever, amen."

Now, that's rather awkward English, so we have to do something with it to capture the sense of the Greek in good English. One way to do that is to render ὁ ὤν as relative clause. Now, you are right -- that makes it sound as though Christ is the antecedent, and to me, the string of nominatives all have the same referent, which is the first nominative, ὁ Χριστός. The rhythm of the text when read straight through also leads me to this conclusion. But what do I know? I only have three accredited degrees in ancient language and literature and 40+ years experience in the language. That's nothing compared to your self study (and RJM's), I'm sure.

But if you read it as two different referents, then you still have to do something with to make that sense clear, so you are stuck with rewording the English no matter which sense you go with.

I also found Jerome's translation interesting:

quorum patres et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula amen...

He uses a relative clause in Latin to render the participial phrase, and his Greek was, I don't know, maybe pretty good?
 
Last edited:
Well, it depends on context, doesn't it? Let's have another look at the verse:

ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

Let's do a literal translation without any prejudicial punctuation:

"Of whom the fathers and from whom the Christ according to the flesh the one being over all God blessed forever, amen."

Now, that's rather awkward English, so we have to do something with it to capture the sense of the Greek in good English. One way to do that is to render ὁ ὤν as relative clause. Now, you are right -- that makes it sound as though Christ is the antecedent, and to me, the string of nominatives all have the same referent, which is the first nominative, ὁ Χριστός. The rhythm of the text when read straight through also leads me to this conclusion. But what do I know? I only have three accredited degrees in ancient language and literature and 40+ years experience in the language. That's nothing compared to your self study (and RJM's), I'm sure.
I think I alluded to there being ancient and less ancient manuscripts that indicate a separator before ὁ ὢν.

I include more of this evidence.

A BIBLICAL NOTE.
ROMANS ix. 5·
.
.
The fact is that of the four most ancient uncials-Aleph, A, B, C-the latter three ·
have the stop, leaving the following words to be read as a separate
sentence. A is in the British Museum, where it is easily to be seen.
It will be found that the Manuscript has not only a stop, but a small
space to make room for it, both space and stop evidently a prima
manu.
B (Vaticanus) I have twice had the opportunity of inspect-
ing, having obtained access to the Manuscript mainly for the purpose
of looking at this passage. There is a stop, but no space. This has
never been noted, so far as I am aware, in the critical editions, nor
is the point given in the facsimile edition of Vercellone and Cozza.
But the stop is there, nevertheless, exactly the same in appearance as
that found after the word aμfiv at the end of the Verse. Whether it
is from the first hand or not, I do not venture to say. In C (in the
Bibliot/1eque Nationale, at Paris) there is a space w:th the little cross
which frequently stands foe a stop i1t that Manuscript. In the same
library there is another Manuscript, D, of Paul's Epistles (Claro-
montanus), of the sixth century. In this there is a space after σάρκα,
that is to say, the stichometrical line terminates with this word, as
though the writer intended the succeeding words to be separately
taken-in other words, virtually recognizing the stop. Of Aleph
I only know that the facsimile published by Tischendorf has no
stop; but this is scarcely conclusive against its presence, inasmuch
as it may have escaped the editor's notice, as in A and B, of which
Tischendorf expressly, but incorrectly, says that they have no stop.
Assuming, however, that Aleph is without the point, still it remains
true that three, perhaps fom: (D), of the five oldest and most
important uncial Manuscripts contain the stop. I This fact, taken
along with other evidence for the same conclusion, ought, I submit,
to be regarded as settling the question of punctuation. The division
(and rendering) of the Verse given by Professor Jowett in his
"Epistles of St. Paul " is, therefore, correct. And he, I need
searcely add, has here but followed the example of the most eminent
. modern authorities, including Winer, Meyer, Lachmann, Davidson,
Tischendorf, and many more.
.

.
G. VANCE SMITH.

So now you know that there are also a host of famous Greek scholars who see a separator before ὁ ὢν.


But if you read it as two different referents, then you still have to do something with to make that sense clear, so you are stuck with rewording the English no matter which sense you go with.
Winer's grammar 690 (eng trans.)

It is natural that in those sentences particularly which have the character of exclamations,
as in blessings (μακαρισμοί), the predicate should stand at the
head ; in such a case it has become usual to omit the substantive verb.
See Mt. xx i . 9, ευλογημένος ό ερχόμενος εν ονόματι κυρίου· xxiii. 39, L.
i. 4 2 , 68, 2 C. i. 3, 1 C. ii. 11 [?], I P . i. 3 ; Mt. V. 3, μακάριοι ol
πτωχοί τω πνενματι· v. 4-11, xxiv. 46. This remark also applies, as a
rule, to the doxologies of the Ο. Τ. ( Gen. ix. 26, 1 Sam.
xxvi. 25, 2 Sam. xviii. 28, Ps. cvi. (cv.) 48, al. But it is only by
empirical commentators that this arrangement can be regarded as
unalterably fixed; for where the subject expresses the main idea, and
especially where it is antithetical to another subject, the predicate
both may and will stand after it; compare Ps. lxvii. 20 (LXX).
Hence in Rom. ix. 5, if the words ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.
are referred to God, this collocation of the words is perfectly suitable,
and indeed necessary : Harless (see his note on E. i. 3) and many
others are mistaken here,
I also found Jerome's translation interesting:

quorum patres et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula amen...

He uses a relative clause in Latin to render the participial phrase, and his Greek was, I don't know, maybe pretty good?
Jerome, the one who wrote a tract against Helvidius for repudiating the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Helvidius accused Jerome of translating the Vulgate from corrupt Greek manuscripts.

Helvidius was an exponent of a "conception of Christian morality, which set itself at the same time against the worship of Mary and the saints, and other abuses. This last form of opposition, however, existed mostly in isolated cases, was rather negative than positive in its character, lacked the spirit of wisdom and moderation, and hence almost entirely disappeared in the fifth century, only to be revived long after, in more mature and comprehensive form, when monasticism had fulfilled its mission for the world.

To this class of opponents belong Helvidius, Jovinian, Vigilantius, and Aerius. The first three are known to us through the passionate replies of Jerome, the last through the Panarion of Epiphanius. They figure in Catholic church history among the heretics, while they have received from many Protestant historians a place among the “witnesses of the truth” and the forerunners of the Reformation."
(P. Schaff)

Jerome espoused a brand of theology I care nothing for.
 
I think I alluded to there being ancient and less ancient manuscripts that indicate a separator before ὁ ὢν.

I include more of this evidence.


So now you know that there are also a host of famous Greek scholars who see a separator before ὁ ὢν.
As if I didn't know this before. It is, however, proof that being famous is no guarantee of being right. Note that I gave you an argument based on the text itself, but you replied with an ad verecundiam (et populum).
Jerome espoused a brand of theology I care nothing for.
And I care nothing for your brand of theology. I do care a lot about grammar and syntax.
 
Last edited:
Well, it depends on context, doesn't it? Let's have another look at the verse:

ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

Let's do a literal translation without any prejudicial punctuation:

"Of whom the fathers and from whom the Christ according to the flesh the one being over all God blessed forever, amen."

Now, that's rather awkward English, so we have to do something with it to capture the sense of the Greek in good English. One way to do that is to render ὁ ὤν as relative clause. Now, you are right -- that makes it sound as though Christ is the antecedent, and to me, the string of nominatives all have the same referent, which is the first nominative, ὁ Χριστός. The rhythm of the text when read straight through also leads me to this conclusion. But what do I know? I only have three accredited degrees in ancient language and literature and 40+ years experience in the language. That's nothing compared to your self study (and RJM's), I'm sure.

But if you read it as two different referents, then you still have to do something with to make that sense clear, so you are stuck with rewording the English no matter which sense you go with.

I also found Jerome's translation interesting:

quorum patres et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula amen...

He uses a relative clause in Latin to render the participial phrase, and his Greek was, I don't know, maybe pretty good?
I don't think your biblical Koine is good enough to grasp the grammar of this pericope. Let me show you. Remember, to fully appreciate the sentence structure, you have to begin at least with verse 3:

ηὐχόμην γὰρ ἀνάθεμα εἶναι αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν συγγενῶν μου κατὰ σάρκα, οἵτινές εἰσιν Ἰσραηλεῖται, ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ αἱ διαθῆκαι καὶ ἡ νομοθεσία καὶ ἡ λατρεία καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι, ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, Θεὸς, εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

Your reading demands, for starters, that this is all one sentence. Then it demands that all the colored clauses are appositives of οἵτινές εἰσιν Ἰσραηλεῖται. But anyone with a decent knowledge of biblical koine grammar will immediately see that purple is structurally different from the other colored clauses. ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων is a participle phrase (and comes with it's own two appositives , namely Θεὸς and εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας) and not a relative clause with any coordinating conjunctions. Notice further that the only true appositives of οἵτινές εἰσιν Ἰσραηλεῖται are structurally identical, starting with the plural relative pronoun and followed by the nominative articular substantives separated by the coordinating conjunctions. Your reading is simply not possible.
 
As if I didn't know this before. It is, however, proof that being famous is no guarantee of being right. Note that I gave you an argument based on the text itself, but you replied with an ad verecundiam (et populum).

And I care nothing for your brand of theology. I do care a lot about grammar and syntax.
"ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων" is such a simple clause that it beggars belief why is can't be translated consistently, as "he being (who is) above all..... God blessed for ever".

In Pauline theology there is only one who is "above all" and that is the Father, i.e. God Eph 4:6 "ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων" which being a second attribute list, refers direcly back to "εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων" (nominative).

If ἐπὶ πάντων refered to "ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα", there wouldn't need to be the participle ὢν following the subsequent article ὁ, which would be redundant.

So the structure would be this:

ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων (ὅς ἐστιν (cf Rom 1:25) εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· ἀμήν).

As for ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα being ὁ θεὸς: this is a separate matter and poses a serious theological problem as not being directly vouched for anywhere else.

Everyone knows who God is: God is himself ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ θεὸς.

It really didn't need stating, did it? (9x in LXX).

Do you really suppose that Paul's hearers wanted to be told that Christ was God, when they were all consistently taught that the Father was God? It would at least have taken an explicit relative pronoun to make this connection. Luke 2:11 ὅτι ἐτέχθη ὑμῖν σήμερον σωτὴρ ὅς ἐστιν Χριστὸς κύριος ἐν πόλει Δαυίδ

As for coincidental reptition of nominative cases, that seems to be fairly irrelevant cf. Jn 3:31, ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς γῆς "he being (who is) of the earth," (no reference back to preceeding nominative ὁ ἐρχόμενος)

I feel there are many reasons for why I am right here.
 
Last edited:
"ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων" is such a simple clause that it beggars belief why is can't be translated consistently, as "he being (who is) above all..... God blessed for ever".
The clause is translated as “God, the one who is above all, be blessed forever, Amen.”
 
Another powerful proof against the idea that Jesus is being called “God” at Romans 9:5 is the fact that the expression ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων never occurs with reference to Jesus but only with reference to God in all other places — Rom. 1:25, 2 Cor. 1:3, 2 Cor. 11:31, Eph. 1:3, Eph. 4:6.

So the “Deity of Christ” idea here, as everywhere else in scripture, is just another Satanic mind trick ( what magicians call an “illusion”) with which the adversary has deceived a multitude over the centuries.
 
Back
Top