# A Short Analysis of Romans 8:28(a)



## Brian Bosse (Nov 13, 2006)

I am new to the board, and am looking forward to both learning and participating. The following is a short analysis of Romans 8:28(a). The passage is one of my favorite passages in Scripture. Ultimately, I see it as a beautiful promise whose foundation is God's absolute sovereignty. 

*Greek Text*



> οιδαμεν δε οτι τοις αγαπωσιν τον θεον παντα συνεργει εις αγαθον…- _USB 4th Edition_



At this point, there is a textual variant that needs to be mentioned because it will play a part in the discussion. Following συνεργει in papyri P46, uncials A and B, minuscule 81, coptic cop(sa), the Ethiopic eth, and Origin one finds ο θεος. The USB gives the cited text a B rating. Here are Metzger’s comments regarding this rating:



> Although the reading συνεργει ο θεος…is both ancient and noteworthy, a majority of the committee deemed it too narrowly supported to be admitted into the text, particularly in view of the diversified support for the shorter reading…Since συνεργει may be taken to imply a personal subject, ο θεος seems to have been a natural explanatory addition made by an Alexandrian editor. - _A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament_



The same argument is made by Daniel Wallace when he says:



> Further, the longer reading could easily be motivated by the scribal tendency toward explicitness. - _Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics_



Douglas Moo provides a little more light noting that there is an ambiguity in the text. He says:



> If these words [ο θεος] are part of the text, then one difficulty in this verse would be cleared up: Paul is saying that “_God_ works all things together for good”…Probably, however, we should follow the majority of MMS and reject this reading, for it looks suspiciously like an attempt to clarify a difficult text… - _The Epistel to the Romans_



I am persuaded by this argument, and as such hold to the reading above. However, I will interact with the variant reading in my analysis. 

*Analysis of Romans 8:28*

To begin, I will work through each Greek word in the sentence, and from this try to draw some conclusions as to what Romans 8:28 is teaching. We begin with the post positive δε. This can be taken either as an adversative (but) or a continuative (and). I see a very strong tie between verse 28 and vv. 18-27. During the present time of suffering and the great expectation of the hope of the redemption of our bodies, the Holy Spirit helps us. Verse 28 seems to be a natural continuation of these thoughts. Therefore, I think a continuative ‘and’ is intended. 

οιδαμεν δε οτι – *And we know that*
τοις αγαπωσιν τον θεον – *to the ones loving the God*

αγαπωσιν is a present active dative masculine plural participle. This is an adjectival participle that happens to be acting substantivally. My translation tries to stay as close to the original text as possible. However, the Greek participle is quite idiomatic. As such, one needs to look at what the Greek means, and then try to say it in English. Word for word translation is usually awkward or not possible. Suffice it to say, my translation does capture what the Greek means even if my translation is a little awkward. Another way to say it would be: for those who love God. 

I would like to point out something else. The word order is changed by some of the translations. For example, the NASB translates τοις αγαπωσιν τον θεον after παντα συνεργει εις αγαθον. The reasons these translations change this word order is to show that the οτι introduces παντα συνεργει εις αγαθον. τοις αγαπωσιν τον θεον has been inserted so to speak. I have chosen to keep the original word order, although I prefer the NASB because it is a little sharper.

So far, what I have translated should not raise much contoversy. However, when we get to the phrase παντα συνεργει εις αγαθον the wheels fall off. We have a textual variant, and we have ambiguities regarding the case of παντα and ambiguities regarding the verb συνεργει. I will try and lay out the issues one at a time. (These ideas come from Douglas Moo’s commentary.) 

If we allow for the textual variant reading, then God would be the subject of the verb συνεργει. However, even if we do not allow for this reading it is still possible that God is the subject. συνεργει is a indicative active third person singular verb, and as such can imply the subject ‘He’ referring back to God in the preceding clause. This leads to a couple of other possibilities:

*(1)* παντα is the direct object of the verb.
*(2)* παντα would be an accusative of respect in which it becomes a reference to the sphere in which the assertion is true.

In regards to the verb συνεργει, A.T. Robertson has this to say:



> If ο θεος be accepted in Romans 8:28 (παντα συνεργει ο θεος), which is more than doubtful, then συνεργει would be transitive… - _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament_



Firstly, I would point out that Robertson agrees with the others above that the variant reading is unlikely. Secondly, συνεργει can be transitive or intransitive. As we have noted, if we allow for the textual variant, then the verb is transitive, and παντα is the direct object. However, according to Moo, συνεργεω “does not usually take a direct object.” This means that *(1)* is probably not the case. This leaves us with the following:

*(A)* The subject is “He” and is implied by the verb, and παντα is an accusative of respect. 
*(B)* παντα is the subject of an intransitive verb. 

Regarding (B), we note that neuter plural subjects regularly take singular verbs. Regarding (A), Wallace notes that παντα in Romans 8:28 could possibly be an accusative of respect. However, there are arguments against this. Moo notes:



> First, though not impossible, construing παντα in the sense of “in all things” or “with respect to all things” would not be the first choice of translation (see Cranfield). Second, more seriously, the sequence “for those who love God, God works” is awkward; we would not expect to object of the participle to become the subject of the main verb (Black). - _The Epistel to the Romans_



Considering all of this, it seems that (B) is most likely the correct interpretation of the Greek text. Yet, there is another possibility that might fit (A). Gordon Fee argues that the Holy Spirit is in view in this passage. Fee agrees that the textual variant reading is secondary. His argument is essentially as follows:



> …Paul never uses παντα as the subject of an active verb…in frequent instances where παντα appears as the object of a personal verb, it almost always precedes the verb… - _God’s Empowering Presence_



He sees these arguments as enough to dismiss (B) outright. However, he notes that 1 Cor. 6:12 and 10:23 are exceptions to παντα being used as the subject of an active verb. I find this amazing. He notes these very exceptions, but dismisses them. He has not convinced me that (B) should be dismissed. However, let’s continue to look at his arguments regarding the Spirit being the subject. 



> 3. a. Context itself favors this reading. (The Holy Spirit is the conceptual subject of the whole argument from 8:1.)
> b. …beginning in v. 16, there is a sudden increase in συν-compounds in the argument…
> c. Language such as this exists in the Testament of Gad 4.7…Whether Paul knew this text or not, it indicates that the use of Spirit with συνεργεω already existed in Paul’s Jewish heritage.
> d. Such an understanding also makes the best sense of the way this clause begins…these opening words respond directly to the beginning of v. 26… -_God’s Empowering Presence_



Here are my arguments against Fee. Regarding (a), yes the Spirit has been the focal point right up through verse 27. Yet, at the end of verse 27 the Spirit is said to intercede according to (the will) of God. If verses 28-ff are an explanation of what God’s ultimate will is in this intercession, then clearly the context has changed. The Focus is no longer the Spirit, but the Father. Regarding (b), I am not sure what to make of this. This increase goes right on through the rest of the chapter, and even Fee is not going to argue that the Spirit is what is in focus 29-ff. Needless to say, this point is not convincing. (c) seems even weaker than (b). He essentially is saying that the Spirit and the verb συνεργεω have been used together before, therefore we should assume the Spirit is intended here. I find this very weak. I feel no further comment is necessary. (d) I find that if verse 28-ff are an explanation or expansion on what God’s will is, and as such the opening clause of verse 28 fits perfectly. All in all, I am not convinced of Fee’s arguments. However, let me put forth an argument why it should be rejected. Fee, himself, notes:



> In favor of “God” is the fact that God is the most recently mentioned personal noun…and would function as the natural antecedent in much the same way “the Spirit” does in the preceding sentence. Since God is clearly the subject of the verbs in the clauses that follow, it is reasonable to assume that God has already become the subject with the present clause. - _God’s Empowering Presence_



I find this argument more compelling than the other arguments put forth by Fee. However, this is just possibility (A), which has been dismissed earlier leaving us with possibility: (B) - παντα is the subject of an intransitive verb. This would make the prepositional phrase, εις αγαθον, a phrase denoting “the goal toward which the activity is directed.” It should be noted that συνεργεω might normally take a personal subject, which would argue against this reading. However, in light of the difficulties found in the other possibilities, this reading seems to be the best alternative. Here is my translation:

οιδαμεν δε οτι τοις αγαπωσιν τον θεον παντα συνεργει εις αγαθον 

*And we know that to the ones loving God all things work together for good…*

Any comments would be welcome.

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 14, 2006)

Welcome to the PB, Brian. You have put a lot of work into your post; I do not have the knowledge of Greek so as to follow your arguments.

I am content that the rendering of the verse in the AV is an adequate translation: “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose” – and that the Greek text is sure. I realize it can be construed and translated otherwise, with regard to word order, with the same meaning being retained.

I would like to ask you what is your view on Romans 7:6ab. 

The AV translates it, “But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead (apothanontOS) wherein we were held” while the NASB has, “But now we have been released from the Law, having died (apothanontES) to that by which we were bound”, the NKJV reading (following the MT), “But now we have been delivered from the law, having died (apothanontES) to what we were held by” the difference arising from the use of the plural ajpoqanovnteß in the UBS 4 text (following Hort’s edition) and the singular ajpoqanovntoß following the TR 1894. _One letter_ in the Greek, an _Omicron_, being changed to an _Epsilon_, gives rise to this difference in readings, and one of the three which E.F. Hills said is – in the KJV – an error. 

If the epsilon is the correct reading, then the plural would refer to the "we", but if the omicron, then the singular to the "law".

Any thoughts on this, anyone?

Steve


----------



## Brian Bosse (Nov 16, 2006)

Hello Steve,



> I am content that the rendering of the verse in the AV is an adequate translation: “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose” – and that the Greek text is sure.



This is a great rendering of Romans 8:28.



> If the epsilon is the correct reading, then the plural would refer to the "we", but if the omicron, then the singular to the "law". Any thoughts on this, anyone?



My first though is that the omicron reading is almost certainly not correct. Cranfield says the reading “has no manuscript authority apart from that of minuscule 242.” Moo remarks that “Beza introduced into the _Textus Receptus_ without MS support, based only on what he though Chrysostom was reading.” The evidence against the omicron is so overwhelming that I cannot for the life of me understand why any translation assumes it. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------

