Ezra Abbot was a renowned 19^th Century Scholar who contributed hundreds of articles to various publications.  The scholarly nature of these articles would rarely be disputed, and if it were to it would certainly be as an ad hominem from one who disagreed with the non-Trinitarian position held by Abbot.  One online reference tells us about Abbot:  “Abbot's publications, though always of the most thorough and scholarly character, were to a large extent dispersed in the pages of reviews, dictionaries, concordances, texts edited by others, Unitarian controversial treatises, etc.”[1]

The following article has been produced by Abbot on the subject of Romans 9:5.  The question presented by this text is whether or not Jesus Christ is identified as God.   Originally published in The Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, this essay discusses the background of the text and the translation, addressing the questions that Trinitarians continue to make even today.  The article is long and detailed, but the information is extremely valuable in addressing the questions that one might have on the text.  It is available here in PDF format, requiring the free download of Adobe Acrobat.   

Click Here for the Article

For those who do not desire to consider the extensive review of the issue provided by Abbot, we offer the following as a general summary of information.

The reading of this text is purely a matter of punctuation, and as Ezra Abbot has noted there are “at least seven different ways”[2] in which this text could be rendered.  Indeed, we must whole heartedly confess that we have no way of being absolutely certain as to how the Apostle intended this verse to be understood.  Nevertheless, when we consider the objections to it being attributed to God the Father, and then consider the reasons why one should attribute it to him, the picture becomes much clearer. 

A fundamental aspect of this discussion is centered on whether ό ων should refer to back to Christ, or if it might begin a new sentence as a doxology to God. (c.f. Joh. 3:31)  Many have argued that ό ων “naturally refers to what precedes,”[3] but as Abbot points out: “there is nothing, then, either in the proper meaning of ό ων or in its usage which makes it more easy and natural to refer it to ό χριστος than to take it as introducing an independent sentence.”  In evidence of this, he cites numerous examples where ό ων begins a new sentence. (Matt. 12:30; Luk. 11:23; Joh. 3:31; 6:46; 8:47)   

The basis for Paul here using ό ων to begin the sentence is found in that it “emphasizes επι παντων [over all].”[4]  So it is not superfluous as some have maintained, but Abbot notes: “It not only gives an impressive fullness to the expression, but converts what would otherwise be a mere epithet of God into a substantive designation of him, equivalent to ‘the Ruler over All,’ on which the mind rests for a moment by itself, before it reaches the θέος qualified by it…”[5] 

Some have noted that if this were to be taken as a doxology ύιογητος (blessed) finds itself with an unusual position in the sentence.  While the word here comes after the subject when it typically precedes it, this does not violate any rule of Greek grammar.  Such can be seen in the LXX at Psalm 67:19, 20, which, while not directly paralleling the syntax of Romans, does demonstrate this position to be allowable. 

There is simply no basis in demanding that the text speak of Christ as the God who is over all.  In fact, we must conclude that the most reasonable way to understand this text is as a doxology to God.  Every other text within the epistle finds θέος to be  a reference to the Father.  This, as the most powerful of points, includes the verse that immediately follows the one in question. (Rom. 9:6)  It is noted that the references to God as the Father are not simply a few isolated incidents, but they occur some eighty-seven times![6] The weight of this point cannot easily be set aside in support of this text being a doxology to God the Father.  Context is king and as the context clearly displays who Paul considered to be "God" in this epistle.