Do all things work together for good?

[Paidion]

Frequently I've heard people quote Rom 8:28 as indicative that all events work together for good for those who love God.
But do they? The zealous early Christians were burnt at stake and drowned. There were similar fates for the early Anabaptists of the middle ages.
In our day, many Christians in some countries are tortured and killed. In Canada and United States Christians' babies and young children often die early. Children die from cancer and other debilitating diseases. There are tortures, rapes, and murders, etc. of those who love God. I knew of one pastor who was killed in a plane crash on his way to minister in a church. Did all of these events work together for good for those Christians who suffered these things? I don't think so. I think that Rom 8:28 has been lifted out of context and misinterpreted. Let's examine the passage:

Romans 8:27-30
27 He who searches the hearts, know what is the mind of the spirit, because it entreats God on behalf of the saints.
28 Now we know that in all things, for those who love God, God works for good, for those being called in keeping with purpose.
29 Because those whom He foreknew, he also pre-appointed to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order to be the firstborn of many brothers.
30 For those whom he pre-appointed, He also called, and whom He called, He also made righteous, and whom He made righteous, He also glorified.

God searches human hearts to know their minds, those whose spirits entreat God for their fellow believers. God does not manipulate all events to work good for those who love God. Rather God works WITHIN the hearts and minds of His people for their good, their benefit. He works for good BECAUSE of a process which He begins in His people. First He foreknew them. Then He pre-appointed them to be conformed to the image of His Son. Next He called them. Then He made them righteous. Finally He glorified them. The glorification is still to come. But since God intends to bring it about, it's as good as done.

This is the sequence:
1. Foreknew
2. Pre-appointed
3. Called
4. Made righteous
5. Glorified.

During this process, God is working for good within the hearts and minds of those who love Him, for those who are being called in keeping with purpose.

[TheEditor]

I agree Paidion. I have heard this misapplication many times. The "all things" are the "works" of God--not just "all things" working for good. Depending on the translation it can shade the meaning.

Regards, Brenden.

[TK]

How about this line from a popular worship song:

"Your love never fails, it never gives up, it never runs out on me?"

TK

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[willowtree]

Frequently I've heard people quote Rom 8:28 as indicative that all events work together for good for those who love God.
But do they? ...
I don't think so. I think that Rom 8:28 has been lifted out of context and misinterpreted....

During this process, God is working for good within the hearts and minds of those who love Him, for those who are being called in keeping with purpose.

Thank you for raising this question and subject. I have thought about the subject of evil, and I know we are all faced with trying to determine some meaning out of tragic events that happen. I am looking for help in trying to understand this more, so if it looks like I am hijacking this thread, I am not intending to.

It is all very well to say that we are misunderstanding this verse, and I do not disagree, but when tragedy strikes, there are the usual processes of grief that we face - denial, guilt, blame, then rationalization and acceptance, etc. In the midst of all of this, Paul's statement above seems to be a helpful crutch. Perhaps someone to blame or not to blame, or an attempt to find some rational meaning behind the tragedy.

If I understand correctly what you have said, then I believe you are not denying that if a person in such a circumstance does indeed seek God out, then he is confirming what Paul said would happen. It is the person who does not see God at work In the circumstances who has the least to gain.

I rather feel that God has a much larger plan for us than we can see in the times of our grief, but the trauma of the moment overshadows the long term objectives. I gather this from the story of the man born blind in John 9 where the question of the day was, "Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" A very reasonable question, considering the commonly held beliefs of the people of the day. But Jesus' reply was, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life."

This man lived all his life as blind, his parents, no doubt, troubled because of the guilt and shame associated with the question on everyone's mind?

I struggle with Jesus' response, yet I cannot see any other reasonable explanation.

It seems to me that Paul was indicating something similar in the passage you quoted.

Regards, Graeme

[Paidion]

Yes Graeme, it is a common idea to say that God had some deeper purpose for "allowing" personal tragedy or the countless atrocities which take place in the world. It seems to be a means of comfort in one's suffering to believe that "God is in control" and wouldn't have allowed that tragedy or atrocity to occur, if it weren't His will. It seems to be an attempt to get God off the hook for "allowing" that tradgedy or atrocity to occur. But those who take this position tend to blame God, and/or to cry out in agony, "Why me? What have I done to deserve this?" It is this very idea about God which has resulted in some of the world's greatest thinkers, such as Betrand Russel, to become atheists.

I gather this from the story of the man born blind in John 9 where the question of the day was, "Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" A very reasonable question, considering the commonly held beliefs of the people of the day. But Jesus' reply was, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life."

Yes, I don't blame you for gathering the idea from this text that God had a deeper purpose in such tragedies as making the man blind from birth. But do you really believe that God would do such a thing? Make a man blind for, say, 27 years, only in order to demonstrate His work in his life by healing Him from blindness? The translation of the text by most modern versions certainly affirms that concept. But that's where the problem lies—in the translation.

The writers of the New Testament wrote a form of Greek, all in upper-case letters, with no punctuation and no spaces between words (and certainly no verse divisions). If we place the period in a different place in this text, the meaning becomes QUITE different!

As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents. But that the works of God might be displayed in him, we must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work.

In order that the works of God might be displayed in the blind man, Jesus would work the work of God (that is, God would work through Jesus) by healing the man of his blindness. By using the plural "we", Jesus indicated that He, together with His disciples, needed to work the works of God while they still could.

[willowtree]

If we place the period in a different place in this text, the meaning becomes QUITE different!

As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents. But that the works of God might be displayed in him, we must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work.

This does indeed put a different complexion on the whole event. Thanks for your insight on this. Matt Rose began a new thread recently about the trinity having an intense love between each of them. I liked his observations on this. I had never contemplated that before, more often thinking of God and Jesus presenting a 'bad-cop - good-cop' scenario. Forgive me Lord! God made (allowed) the man to be born blind - Jesus came to fix the problem.

Not a good viewpoint, especially if we use Romans 8:28 to spread the blame around.

Thanks

Graeme

[Mitzi]

Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents. But that the works of God might be displayed in him, we must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work.

Excellent! The further I travel this road of faith the more and more I realize it's God's character we're needing to clear here and this point that you've made is a wonderful example of doing just that! Thank you!!!

[Paidion]

I would now like to consider the text itself with you. Here we have two translations? Which is correct, if either?

And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God... (Rom 8:28 NKJV)
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God... (Rom 8:28 NASB)

Do all things work together for good to those who love God, etc.? Or does God work everything together for good to those who love God, etc.

I am amazed at how many translations render it similar to the NKJV. I believe that rendering is false for two reasons. Let's first examine the Greek text of Textus Receptus from which the King James Version (and the New King James Version) was translated:

οιδαμεν--- δε-- οτι τοις----- αγαποσιν τον θεον παντα--- συνεργeι ---------εις αγαθον
We know now that to those loving--- the God all things works together into good

Now here's the problem with translating this as "all things work together for good." That is the order of the words, but παντα (all things) is plural, whereas συνεργeι (works together) is singular. It would be like saying in English, "The boys works together," instead of "The boys work together."

Now the word παντα cn be either an nominative plural (subject of a verb) or accusative plural (direct object of a verb). Most translators have considered it to be the subject of the verb συνεργeι (works together). But again, it cannot be, because παντα is plural but συνεργeι is singular. So παντα would have to be the direct object of συνεργeι and since the latter has no word which is the subject, the two words would have to be translated as "he works together all things."

We find an interesting variation when we examine papyrus 46, which may have been copied shortly after the year 100 A.D. but if not, very likely prior to 150 A.D. It is believed to be the oldest manuscript of any part of the New Testament. In that manuscript the words o θεος (the God) appears immediately after συνεργeι. Now o θεος is in the nominative case, and so it is the subject of a verb, and that verb is none other than συνεργeι.
So it gives the true reading, "God works everything together."

I am showing below a copy of a photocopy of the page of Papyrus 46 which contains Rom 8:28. As usual all word are in capitals with no spaces between words and no punctutation marks. All sigmas were printed with a character which resembles a capital "C". So θεος, if it were written in full would look something like ΘΕΟC However, to save papyrus (relatively rare), the scribes in those days shortened the word to just the first and last letter with an overstroke above the letters. So it would be just ΘC with a stroke above.

One more little problem: the ancient page was torn just between the "Θ" and the "C". But the overstroke is clearly visible. In the photocopy below, please look at the very end of line 4. There you will seee the "Θ" and the overstroke.