The objection
Whether Romans 9,5 calls Christ “God over all” depends on where the sentence ends. Can Trinitarians then not simply manufacture their doctrine through a suitably placed comma?
1. The words are established; their connection is interpreted
The main question here does not concern a divine name added later. It concerns the connection between existing words: Does the statement about the Christ continue, or does an independent praise of God begin? Modern punctuation displays the translator's decision.[2]
The absence of our present-day punctuation does not, however, entail linguistic arbitrariness. Even a sentence without a printed comma possesses word order, grammatical connections and a line of thought.
2. The immediate connection supports Christ
Paul names the Christ as the one who comes from Israel according to his human origin. An expression then follows that naturally connects as “who is” to this last-named one. Read thus, the statement gains a recognizable movement: according to human origin from Israel, beyond this God over all.[1]
The qualifying formulation “according to the flesh” suggests a further characterization. It does not compel this alone but fits well with the continuation about Christ's divine majesty.
3. Independent praise must explain the transition
Paul can of course praise God in the middle of an argument. The objection is therefore not that praise would be impossible in principle. Here, however, a new referent would have to be assumed without explicit introduction. The words' position, too, is less natural for an independent blessing than for a continuation about Christ.[1]
Moreover, the context is lament over Israel's condition despite its great privileges. That the Christ comes from this people intensifies these privileges' weight. Designating him as God gives the lament additional depth. The reading thus explains both syntax and the course of argument.
4. The result rests on no typographical trick
The rendering that designates Christ as God over all is well justified. Other sentence divisions have been discussed; their mere possibility does not make them equally probable. The decision should be justified rather than replaced with the claim that the comma fell from heaven.
Equally impermissible would be the prior decision that Paul fundamentally cannot call Jesus God, so a new sentence must necessarily begin here. This would be precisely the dogmatic intervention criticized by the objection. The wording demands a linguistically justified decision; the Christological reading has substantial reasons for it.
Biblical texts in context
Sources and further study
- Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian FaithRomans 9,5, pp. 246–248: connection of the relative expression, context and form of praise.
- NET Bible, Romans 9,5Translation note on possible sentence divisions.