There is a third way to interpret (and translate) Romans 8:28 than is found in most English translations, but most people don鈥檛 know it.

Some readers of this blog will know that English translations take two different routes when they come to Romans 8:28. The two approaches to translating this famous verse center on whether 鈥渁ll things鈥 (蟺维谓蟿伪) is the subject of the main clause (with no object) or whether 鈥渁ll things鈥 is the object with 鈥淕od鈥 as the subject.

Here is the verse in Greek (with English glosses for those who don鈥檛 know Greek):

螣峒次次蔽嘉滴 未峤 峤呄勎 (and we know that) 蟿慰峥栂 峒纬伪蟺峥断兾 蟿峤肝 胃蔚峤肝 (to those who love God) 蟺维谓蟿伪 (all things) 蟽蠀谓蔚蟻纬蔚峥 (he/it/they work[s]together) 蔚峒跋 峒纬伪胃蠈谓 (for good), 蟿慰峥栂 魏伪蟿峤 蟺蟻蠈胃蔚蟽喂谓 魏位畏蟿慰峥栂 慰峤栂兾刮 (to those who are called according to purpose/plan).

Here are two translations that represent the two views:

Approach #1: We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose. (NRSV, also ESV, CSB)

Approach #2: And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. (NASB, also NIV, NLT)

Some readers of this blog will know that part of the discussion surrounds three early manuscripts (p46, B, and A) which include the word 鈥淕od鈥 (胃蔚蠈蟼) explicitly as the subject, even though most manuscripts do not include it. For some translators, this has encouraged them to fill in the unstated subject of the verb with 鈥淕od,鈥 since that鈥檚 how it appears in those three manuscripts.

What most people don鈥檛 know (including, apparently, some New Testament scholars) is that a number of prominent interpreters during the past century have disagreed with both of these approaches to Romans 8:28. This list includes James P. Wilson, Matthew Black, F. F. Bruce, John A. T. Robinson, Gordon Fee, and Robert Jewett 鈥 a veritable who鈥檚 who of New Testament scholars.

What have these scholars suggested is the proper approach to interpreting (and thus translating) this verse? They agree with the majority of text critics that the verse did not originally include the word 鈥淕od鈥 in the text, and then argue that the Spirit is the subject of the verb 鈥渨orks together.鈥 In other words:

Approach #3: And we know that he [鈥渢he Spirit鈥漖 works all things together for good, to those who love God, to those who are called according to his purpose.

I am not positive which of these three is correct, but I have been preferring option #3 for quite a few years now. The main reason for this preference is that the Spirit has been the main topic of Romans 8 ever since verse 4 and the stated subject of both clauses in verse 26 鈥 emphatically so (鈥渢he Spirit himself鈥). 鈥淕od,鈥 in contrast, has not been the stated subject of any sentence throughout the entire chapter leading up to Romans 8:28 since verse 3.

But, someone may claim, 鈥淕od is the implied subject of verse 27.鈥

No, he鈥檚 not. But since this is just a blog post, and since demonstrating it would require an academic article, I will simply refer you to an article I wrote a few years ago on how to properly interpret verse 27. , I sought to demonstrate that in verse 27 the Spirit is the one who searches hearts, and that what he knows is that we have Spirit-focused mindsets. The only reason I mention it for today鈥檚 post is that the Spirit has continued to be the main subject up until this verse, so it makes better sense to interpret the Spirit as the subject of the 鈥渨ork together鈥 verb in verse 28.

Take away: My main goal in this post was to alert you to a substantial and reasonable alternative interpretation that differs from the best-known interpretations of Romans 8:28. In other words, it may be the case that Romans 8:28 should not be understood (nor, perhaps, rendered) either as 鈥渁ll things work together for good,鈥 or as 鈥淕od works all things together for good,鈥 but rather as 鈥渢he Spirit works all things together for good.鈥 No substantial theological take-aways emerge from this observation, however, since on any reading, all things work together for good because of the God who makes it so. But reading the Spirit as the subject of the verb once again shines a light on the primary thing Paul has been highlighting throughout this wonderful chapter up to this point, that the various ways God works for our good is through the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit.


Notes

One unusual feature of Greek is that neuter plural nouns are followed by singular verbs, so the subject of the verb here could be either singular 鈥渉e/it鈥 or could be the plural adjective that is functioning as a noun 鈥渁ll things.鈥 Noun and verb agreement are not required in this case.

James. P. Wilson, 鈥淩omans viii.28: Text and Interpretation,鈥 ExpTim 60 (1948-49), 110-11; M. Black, 鈥淭he Interpretation of Romans viii 28,鈥 in Neotestamentica et Patristica, NovTSup 6 (Leiden: Brill, 1962), 166-172; Gordon D. Fee, God鈥檚 Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 585鈥86; F. F. Bruce, The Letter of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary, rev. ed. (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press and Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 166; John A. T. Robinson, Wrestling with Romans (London: SCM, 1979), 104-105; Gordon D. Fee, God鈥檚 Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 588-90; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007), 526-527.

Subjects of clauses in Romans 8 include: 峤 谓蠈渭慰蟼 蟿慰峥 蟺谓蔚蠉渭伪蟿慰蟼 蟿峥喯 味蠅峥喯 (v. 2), 峤 胃蔚峤赶 (v. 3), 未喂魏伪委蠅渭伪 (v. 4), 慰峒 魏伪蟿峤 蟽维蟻魏伪 峤勎较勎迪 and 慰峒 魏伪蟿峤 蟺谓蔚峥ξ嘉 (v. 5), 蟿峤 蠁蟻蠈谓畏渭伪 蟿峥喯 蟽伪蟻魏峤赶 (2x) and 蟿峤 蠁蟻蠈谓畏渭伪 蟿慰峥 蟺谓蔚蠉渭伪蟿慰蟼 (vv. 6-7), 慰峒 峒愇 蟽伪蟻魏峤 峤勎较勎迪 (v. 8), 峤懳嘉滇繓蟼 (v. 9, 蟺谓蔚峥ξ嘉 胃蔚慰峥 (v. 9), 蟿喂蟼 (v. 9), 慰峤椣勎肯 (v. 9), 围蟻喂蟽蟿峤赶 (v. 10), 蟿峤 蟽峥段嘉 (v. 10), 蟿峤 蟺谓蔚峥ξ嘉 (v. 10), 蟿峤 蟺谓蔚峥ξ嘉 蟿慰峥 峒愇澄滴佄蔽较勎肯 蟿峤肝 峒肝废兾酷喀谓 峒愇 谓蔚魏蟻峥段 (v. 11 峤 峒愇澄滴佄毕 围蟻喂蟽蟿峤肝 峒愇 谓蔚魏蟻峥段 (v. 11), implied 鈥渨e鈥 (v. 12), implied 鈥測ou鈥 [pl.] (v. 13), 峤呄兾课 (v. 14), 慰峤椣勎课 (v. 14), implied 鈥測ou鈥 [pl.] (v. 15), implied 鈥渨e鈥 (v. 15), 伪峤愊勧礁 蟿峤 蟺谓蔚峥ξ嘉 (v. 16), implied 鈥渨e鈥 (v. 16), implied 鈥渨e鈥 (v. 17), implied 鈥淚鈥 (v. 18), 蟿峤 蟺伪胃萎渭伪蟿伪 蟿慰峥 谓峥ξ 魏伪喂蟻慰峥/ (v. 18), 峒 峒蟺慰魏伪蟻伪未慰魏委伪 蟿峥喯 魏蟿委蟽蔚蠅蟼 (v. 19), 峒 魏蟿委蟽喂蟼 (v. 20), 伪峤愊勧酱 峒 魏蟿委蟽喂蟼 (v. 21), implied 鈥渨e鈥 (v. 22), 蟺峋断兾 峒 魏蟿委蟽喂蟼 (v. 22), 峒∥嘉滇繓蟼 伪峤愊勎酷蕉 (v. 23), implied 鈥渨e鈥 (v. 24), 峒愇幌峤断 (v. 24), 蟿委蟼 (v. 24), implied 鈥渨e鈥 (v. 25). And then, of course, the subject of both clauses in v. 26 is the Spirit, and emphatically so.