God blessed is adjectival in English, to the implied noun.
There is no
implied noun, and "God" is an appositive of Christ. Is it that you mean, "Christ is . . . blessed by God forever"? Or, "Christ is . . . God-blessed forever"? Because the Greek doesn't allow that construction, which would be ὁ Χριστὸς . . . ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, ευλογημένος από τον Θεόν...
"God" is an appositive to "Christ" in the English construction (a predicate in the Greek). In other words, "Christ . . . who is over all, God" is the one who is "blessed for ever."
At this point, I absolutely have no idea how you read this passage, only that you take exception to Christ being called "God" in it, and that you also reject the Socinian interpretation that makes it a doxology to the Father. I can only presume that you are reading it as I have posited above, which I have never heard before. Not even after defending it in many dialogues against the heterodox for the better part of 27 years. To be sure, I've examined about
36 English works at present from the 1600s to the very beginning of the 1800s, and found no one understanding the passage other than speaking of Christ as God. Even the Socinians make it clear with their emendations that they know the text should be read otherwise.
Ritchie covers the basics, that there are problems with both the identity and the Socinian attempts.
I don't know why you are setting Ritchie against me, who agrees with my position almost completely? Ritchie is very clear that the passage denotes the passage demonstrates the Deity of Christ:
It does not seem possible to imagine language which could denote more unequivocally the proper Deity of our blessed Saviour...
...They [the Socinians] proceed from no difficulty or ambiguity in the words themselves . . . they are under the necessity of attempting to find, or to make some other meaning conformable to their previous opinions on the subject. But it is wholly impracticable to deduce any of their translations from the words, unless we either arbitrarily alter the Apostle's language, without the shadow of authority for so doing; or else offer such violence to it as is utterly at variance with every sound principle of interpretation.
The words, indeed, are perfectly plain and intelligible. "Christ is over all"--he is Lord over all created beings. This, perhaps, he might be without being strictly and properly God. But, to remove all doubt on this most essential point, he is also declared to be "God blessed for ever"...
But what is the true inference to be drawn from the application of this peculiar title of Deity to the Son of God, our Saviour? For that it is so applied in this passage, it is impossible, without perverting the Apostle's language, to deny. The inference is plainly this, That the Son is God equal with the Father, seeing the same special title of the true God is applied, without distinction, to both.
But it has been maintained, that these words are an ascription of blessing to God the Father, and should be interpreted, "God be blessed for ever." This, however, is an opinion which it is impossible to justify for this is not a translation of the words, it is an alteration of them.
...we must admit, that, according to the unquestionable doctrine of Scripture, our blessed Saviour is truly God, as well as truly man. (pp. 170, 172, 173)
He objects to the translation "God over all," as it might give the false impression that the Son is God also over the Father, which is purely exegetical. Conversely, if he is over "all," then no things excepting, is He over the Father as well? But we know that the Son is not greater than the Father, because, as the Hebrew idiom is concerned,
all fathers are greater than their sons. I happen to
agree that "who is over all, God," is the best rendering (and perhaps there is some wisdom in Ritchie's note), grammatically, because Paul has given prominence to "over all" in the Greek order of words. But it is not necessary in English.
If that were true, then that would be the AV text.
As a passing reference, it is fine. Unless you want to argue over semantics that don't really change the meaning of the text.