(above - rather): "The Jews would have understood that Christ wasn't referring to himself being above "his" Father when he used ἐπάνω πάντων (of himself)."
Alford concedes that if, per my suggestion for what the text could have said had the Trinitarian sense been intended, the text had read
""ἐξ ὧν ὁ χρ. τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς ...."
the text would have countenanced the Noetian or Sabellian view of confusing the identity of the Father with the Son."
Here is Beet's Discussion, which is interesting if only because he makes the point that τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is of itself quite sufficient to acknowledge Christ's divine origin here .....
__
Two RENDERINGS of
Romans 9:5 b are grammatically admissible and worthy of consideration.
(1) ο ων επι παντων θεος may be in apposition to ο χριστος, asserting that He who sprang from Israel
is over all God blessed forever: cp.
2 Corinthians 11:31;
John 1:18;
John 3:13. So Irenaeus (quoted on p. 6) and Origen, (both preserved in Latin translations only,) Tertullian, Cyprian, very many early Christian writers, and a large majority of the writers of all ages.
(2) ο ων επι παντων θεος may be the subject, and ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας the predicate, of a new sentence. This exposition is not found in any early Christian writer; but is adopted in the Alex., Ephraim, and Clermont MSS., where we find stops marking off the words in question as a doxology to the Father and spaces proving that the stops are from the first hand. In the Vat. MS. is a stop apparently from a later hand.
The general and uncontradicted agreement of early Christian writers has much less weight in reference to exposition than to doctrine; and against it, as supporting exposition (1), must be set the punctuation of some early manuscripts. Certainly this agreement cannot be accepted as decisive. The correct interpretation of the passage before us can be determined only by the methods of modern exegesis.
I shall endeavour to show that (2) is in thorough accord with the structure of the passage, with the context, and with the thought of Paul; and that (1), though grammatically correct and making good sense, is made unlikely by the very ambiguity of the passage.
It is objected that ευλογητος, in the four other doxologies of the N.T. in which it is found, and in many doxologies in the O.T., is always (except
Psalms 68:19) put before the name of God. So
Luke 1:68;
2 Corinthians 1:3;
Ephesians 1:3;
1 Peter 1:3;
Genesis 9:26;
1 Samuel 25:32-33;
1 Samuel 25:39, etc. But no one can say that grammar requires the predicate, even where the copula is suppressed, to stand first. For the contrary, see
Romans 11:16;
Romans 12:9;
Hebrews 13:4;
Luke 10:2. Of all languages, the Greek would be the last to forbid a man to say
God be blessed in deviation from the common order
blessed be God. The objection is simply an appeal to the usage of Paul and of the Bible. What this is, we will consider.
As noticed above, Paul frequently turns suddenly away from the matter in hand to ascribe praise to God. In these cases, whenever the doxology takes the form of an exclamation, it begins with the name of God, and often with a solemn declaration of the divine attribute which prompted it. In this way the writer puts prominently before us the Great Being to whom our attention is suddenly directed. When a doxology occurs at the beginning of a subject, the word of praise comes first, making prominent the idea of praise. So
Luke 1:68, etc. Just so, in
Luke 2:14, when the angels take up their song, they put the word
glory first: but when they turn from God on high to men on earth, they give emphasis to the transition by putting the words
upon earth before the word
peace. They thus deviate, in the latter case from the universal, in the former from the almost universal, usage of the New Testament: cp.
Luke 10:5;
John 20:19;
John 20:21;
John 20:26. But they deviate for a sufficient reason.
The peculiarity of the case before us is, not the position, but the presence, of the word
blessed. Elsewhere it is found in the N.T. only in doxologies which begin a subject. All others, and they are frequent with Paul, take the form “to God be glory.” But surely the use here of the word
blessed need not surprise us. And, if used, it must follow
God over all. Otherwise Paul would deviate from his own unvarying use in doxologies at the end of a subject, which are so frequent with him, a use flowing naturally from the order of thought; and would direct our chief attention to the act of praise instead of the Object of praise.
On the other hand, although ευλογημενος is used of Christ in
Matthew 21:9;
Matthew 23:39, etc., ευλογητος never is. (For the distinction, see
Genesis 14:19-20, LXX.) And elsewhere Paul uses the word
God, never of the Son, but as a distinctive title of the Father, even to distinguish Him from the Son. So
Romans 16:27;
1 Timothy 1:17;
1 Corinthians 8:6;
Ephesians 4:6. But these objections to (1) are not decisive. For, as I hope to show in Diss. i., Paul looked upon Christ as sharing to the full the divine nature of the Father. There is therefore no reason why he should not deviate from his custom and speak of Christ, though it be only once, as ευλογητος and θσος, terms elsewhere reserved for the Father. Cp.
John 20:28;
John 1:1, and probably
John 1:18. Interpret it as we may, this passage differs from the usage of Paul. Consequently, no argument can be based on the unusual order of the words.
According to exposition (1), the word ων is an emphatic assertion that Christ is
over all, God, and
blessed for ever. In (2) it asserts that
over all there exists one who bears the title
God and is
blessed for ever. The words ων επι παντων are, as in
Romans 1:7;
1 Corinthians 3:7, put for emphasis between the article and its substantive, according to constant Greek usage. The words
over all recall
Ephesians 4:6, where they refer to the Father.
The words ο ων ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας in
2 Corinthians 11:31 give no support to (1). For they cannot by themselves form a complete sentence; and must therefore be in apposition to the foregoing nominative. ....
Had Paul wished to teach here that Christ is God, he might have done so, and put his meaning beyond doubt, by writing ος εστιν as in Romans 1:25.
The words
according to flesh suggest another side of Christ’s nature which did not descend from Israel. But this suggestion is so clear that it does not need express assertion....
Romans 9, Beet's Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament, One of over 125 Bible commentaries freely available, this commentary was written by Joseph Beet, a member of the faculty of theology in the University of London
www.studylight.org