|
This is a non-WLC article. When using resources from outside authors, we only publish the content that is 100% in harmony with the Bible and WLC current biblical beliefs. So such articles can be treated as if coming directly from WLC. We have been greatly blessed by the ministry of many servants of Yahuwah. But we do not advise our members to explore other works by these authors. Such works, we have excluded from publications because they contain errors. Sadly, we have yet to find a ministry that is error-free. If you are shocked by some non-WLC published content [articles/episodes], keep in mind Proverbs 4:18. Our understanding of His truth is evolving, as more light is shed on our pathway. We cherish truth more than life, and seek it wherever it may be found. |
1. The student of the Bible should be aware that the original text had no punctuation. Thus in some instances, there is more than one way a verse can be translated without violating the grammar of the text (see the notes on Heb. 1:8). Then how do we arrive at the correct translation and meaning, the one that Yahuwah, the Author, meant us to believe? In the majority of cases, the context, both immediate and remote, will reveal to us what He is trying to say. The Bible fits together so that one part can give us clues to interpret another. The serious student of the Bible will glean information from the scope of Scripture to assist in interpreting any verse. Romans 9:5 is one of the verses that can be translated in different ways, and thus, the context and scope of Scripture will help us determine the correct interpretation. Note from the examples below that translators and translating committees vary significantly in their handling of Romans 9:5:
The Bible fits together so that one part can give us clues to interpret another. The serious student of the Bible will glean information from the scope of Scripture to assist in interpreting any verse.
|
- RSV: “to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.”
- Moffatt: “the patriarchs are theirs, and theirs too (so far as natural descent goes) is the Christ. (Blessed for evermore be the God who is over all! Amen.)”
- KJV: “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”
- NAS: “whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.”
- NIV: “Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.”
Although the wording of the above translations differs, they fall into two basic categories: those worded to make Christ into “God” [Yahuwah] and those that make the final phrase into a type of eulogy or doxology referring to God the Father. The RSV and Moffatt are outstanding examples of the latter.
2. In The Doctrine of the Trinity, R. S. Franks, a Trinitarian and the Principal Emeritus of Western College in Bristol, writes,
It should be added that Rom. 9:5 cannot be adduced to prove that Paul ever thought of Christ as God. The state of the case is found in the R.V. margin…He [Paul] never leaves the ground of Jewish monotheism. It has been pointed out that Rom. 9:5 cannot be brought into question this statement. On the contrary, God is spoken of by the Apostle as not only the Father but also the God of our Lord Yahushua Christ” 1
3. There is good evidence from both the immediate remote contexts that the last phrase of this verse is a eulogy or doxology to God the Father. “God over all” and “God blessed forever” are both used of God the Father elsewhere in the New Testament (Rom. 1:25; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3; 4:6; 1 Tim. 6:15). In contrast, neither phrase is ever used of Christ. It would be highly unusual to take eulogies commonly used by Yahuwah and, abruptly and without comment or explanation, apply them to Christ.
4. Asking why the words are even in the text gives us a key to understanding them. Paul is writing about the way that Yahuwah has incredibly blessed the Jews. The verses immediately before Romans 9:5 point out that Yahuwah has given them the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law, the worship, the promises, the patriarchs and even the human ancestry of Yahushua Christ. How blessed they are! No wonder a eulogy to Yahuwah is inserted: “God, who is over all, be blessed forever! Amen.”
5. The entire context of Romans 9:5 is describing Yahuwah’s blessings to the Jews, who have a heritage of being aggressively monotheistic. An insert about Christ being Yahuwah seems most inappropriate. This is especially true when we understand that Paul is writing in a way designed to win the Jews. For example, he calls them “my kindred in the flesh” (v. 3 – NRSV), and says he has sorrow and anguish in his heart for them (v. 2 – NRSV). Would he then put into this section a phrase that he knew would be offensive to the very Jews for whom he is sorrowing and who he is trying to win? Certainly not. On the contrary, after just saying that Christ came from the line of the Patriarchs, something about which the Jews were suspicious, a eulogy to the Father would assure the Jews that there was no idolatry or false elevation of Christ intended but that he was part of the great blessing of Yahuwah.
Endnote:
1 R. S. Franks, The Doctrine of the Trinity, (Gerald Duckworth and Co., London, 1953), pp. 34-36.
This is a non-WLC article. Source: https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/romans-9-5
We have taken out from the original article all pagan names and titles of the Father and Son, and have replaced them with the original given names. Furthermore, we have restored in the Scriptures quoted the names of the Father and Son, as they were originally written by the inspired authors of the Bible. -WLC Team
Dear Jeron,
May I invite you to take a look at this article https://www.worldslastchance.com/articles/biblical-beliefs/the-prologue-to-johns-gospel/? This is one of several articles on John’s prologue that may be more accurate capturing what John intended to convey in his introductory statements in his gospel.
Can you please explain why the following is not obvious to WLC faith?
I will seriously consider another alternative if it’s reasoning is better than below.
The Prologue to the John’s Gospel
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.* 1:2 The Word was with God in the beginning. 1:3 All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created.
* (And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30
“The Father and I are one”), 17:11
(“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.
Translations like the
NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence just as much God as God the Father).
However, in contemporary English
“the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation
“what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This
points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not,
the editors concluded that the fine
distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the father.)
Kind regards
Jeron