Romans 9:5: God over all

“Whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.” (Romans 9:5) 

With grammatical considerations alone in mind, it is very like that the Son is styled “God over all" in Rom. 9:5. There are no consistent punctuations in any of our earliest manuscripts, nor is there any reason to think that the originals had any punctuations whatever. So the matter cannot be decided by examining which codices insert pauses to divorce ο ών from the following clause. The fathers invariably read the passage as describing Christ as "God over all." 

Hippolytus of Rome: "Let us look next at the apostle's word: Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, All things are delivered unto me of my Father. He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God forever. For to this effect John also has said, Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. And well has he named Christ the Almighty." (Adv. Noet. 6) 

Novatian of Rome: "And let us therefore believe this, since it is most faithful that Jesus Christ the Son of God is our Lord and God; because in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. The same was in the beginning with God. And, The Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us. And, My Lord and my God. And, Whose are the fathers, and of whom according to the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for evermore. What, then, shall we say?" (De. Trinit. 30) 

Terullian also informs us that Rom. 9:5 was a popular and somewhat effective proof text of Sabellians in his day, which implies that the passage was read this way by just about everybody because if the grammar were so vague how could it become such a popular proof text? (Adv. Prax. 13.) In other words, if the grammar was so hazy, Tertullian and other apologists would have argued that the grammar of the passage does not necessitate that Jesus is called God. Dunn argues that the normal language of Paul is against the traditional reading.  

“In other words, to infer that Paul intended Rom. 9:5 as a benediction to Christ as “God” would imply that he had abandoned the reserve which is such a mark of his talk of the exalted Christ elsewhere. And this would be no insignificant matter. For it would not allow any of the qualification outline above in the terms of God sharing his sovereignty with the exalted Christ. For “he who is over all, God” can hardly be other than the one God, the Creator, elsewhere described by Paul (in his benedictions!) as “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998, p. 256, 257.)

In his normal way of speaking, Paul reserves "God" for the Father and "Lord" for Christ. But there are possible counter examples such as Gal. 2:20; Col. 2:2; 2Thess. 1:12; 1Tim. 3:16 and Titus 2:13. The most likely of which are Col. 2:2 and Titus 2:13, the latter of which must be decided by the Granville Sharp Rule. The term εὐλογητός is used for "blessed" in Romans 9:5 and is typically reserved for God the Father. (Mk. 14:61; Lk. 1:68; Rom. 1:25; 2Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; 1Pet. 1:3) 

Robertson and Clark consider “the difficulty here is a matter of exegesis.”  After making this comment, Robertson does however assert “the natural way to take ὁ ὢν and θεὸς is in apposition to ὁ χριστὸς." (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament. 1914, p. 1108; Gordon H. Clark, The Trinity . Unicoi, Tennessee: The Trinity Foundation, 2010, Originally published 1985, p. 29.) White argues that the grammar of Paul's other doxologies supports the traditional Trinitarian understanding. 

“The form of the doxology (in Rom. 9:5) simply will not allow for it to be separated from the preceding context. Paul’s consistent usage connects the doxology to the discussion of Christ. In his other doxologies he follows this pattern... In the Greek New Testament, and in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint), the word “blessed” always comes before the word “God,” but here in Romans 9:5 it follows, which would indicate that the “blessing” is tied to what came before (i.e., the discussion of Christ). So strong is this last point that Metzger said it is “altogether incredible that Paul, whose ear must have been perfectly familiar with this constantly recurring formula of praise should in this solitary instance have departed from established usage.” (J. White, The Forgotten Trinity, p. 73.)

In every other instance in Paul's doxologies, εὐλογητός does not come after the subject as in 2 Corinthians 11:31. There is one instance in the LXX of Psalm 67:19 where εὐλογητός does indeed come after the subject, but this is neither a work of Paul nor is it vernacular Greek.  

Psa. 67:19 (68:18) (LXX) ἀνέβης εἰς ὕψος ᾐχμαλώτευσας αἰχμαλωσίαν ἔλαβες δόματα ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ γὰρ ἀπειθοῦντες τοῦ κατασκηνῶσαι κύριος ὁ θεὸς εὐλογητός.

The LXX is translation Greek and often unnatural renderings are used to preserve the original syntax in Hebrew. This is a likely account for the unusual grammar and the usage of Paul is not subject to similar explanations. Winer's claims to the contrary are typically dismissed nowadays. (A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament: Prepared as a Solid Basis for the Interpretation of the New Testament, 7th ed., Andover: Warren F. Draper. London: Trubner and Co. Leipsic: F. W. Vogel, Philadelphia: Smith English, & Co. 1883), p. 551.)